Roubaud’s Panorama: What Survives After the Restorations of 1962 and 1967

Franz Roubaud’s panorama ‘Borodino’, housed in the museum on Kutuzovsky Prospekt, is a work with several layers of history. The artist created it in 1912 to mark the centenary of the battle. Before the present museum opened in 1962, the canvas had already required restoration after years in storage; a fire on 27 June 1967 called for further, far more extensive work. The panoramic scene visitors see today therefore cannot be dated entirely to 1912. It combines surviving passages of Roubaud’s painting, restored sections and the work of artists from the M. B. Grekov Studio of Military Artists.

The central question in this story is what exactly survives of the artist’s own work. Museum material for the ‘Open Restoration’ project identifies a large section of the original painting saved after the fire, measuring 185 sq. m and mentions four fragments held in the museum’s collections. One of these, ‘Horsemen’, was examined and restored by conservators in 2020. The survival of individual sections diminishes neither the scale of the losses nor the artistic achievement of those who brought the panorama back together as a unified spectacle.

What evidence of the 1912 panorama survives?

The original version of Roubaud’s panorama is known through museum documents, albums and guidebooks, but these sources answer different questions. Descriptions of the scene help establish the arrangement of the figures and the viewing sequence. Collotype reproductions record the overall appearance of the painting, while individual letters and sketches shed light on the artist’s work. According to the museum, an album of images of the panorama was published in 1912 and sold in the first pavilion until 1917; it allows the original composition to be compared with later versions. None of these documents alone can replace an examination of the surviving canvas when assessing the authenticity of a particular section.

Franz Roubaud worked on the panorama of the Battle of Borodino from 1910 to 1912. The museum’s historical account gives the dimensions of the circular canvas as 115 m long and 15 m high, amounting to 1725 sq. m of painted surface. The canvas and its paint layer weighed more than three tonnes. These figures explain why the painting’s subsequent fate depended on the building, the suspension system and storage conditions: rolling up and moving such a work was an engineering operation in its own right.

The scene was developed with the involvement of military historians. Colonel V. A. Afanasyev’s guidebook, prepared for the opening and reproduced by the museum in its 1916 edition, recommended beginning at Raevsky’s Battery and proceeding through the numbered points. The document describes the positions of the armies at around noon during the Battle of Borodino. The guidebook takes the viewer from one episode to the next: to follow the narrative, visitors had to turn on the spot.

The history of the original venue also shows how important the vision for presenting the panorama was. According to the museum's virtual exhibition, a stone building was initially planned, but in 1911 the decision was made to build a temporary wooden pavilion. It was designed by military engineer Pavel Vorontsov-Velyaminov, taking Roubaud's recommendations into account; construction began in April 1912. On 29 August, Old Style, or 11 September, New Style, the pavilion on Chistoprudny Boulevard welcomed its first visitors — Nicholas II and members of the imperial family.

The museum's account of the opening notes that, even then, more than just the painting needed upkeep: ticket revenue funded repairs to the premises and regular maintenance of the three-dimensional foreground. Around 150,000 people visited the panorama in its first five years. These operating conditions are important to the history of its preservation: even before its prolonged period in storage, the work was a complex exhibition installation requiring constant care.

Why did the panorama need restoration even before the fire?

Roubaud's panorama needed restoration even before the fire, owing to damage sustained after the closure of the original pavilion on Chistoprudny Boulevard. From 1918 onwards, the canvas was stored rolled up for decades and moved between various premises. In preparation for the museum's opening on Kutuzovsky Prospekt in 1962, restorers faced the task of consolidating the surviving paintwork and filling in the missing areas.

The museum's historical account dates the panorama's creation to 1912 and notes that it was first exhibited in Moscow at Chistye Prudy. In the original pavilion, the work formed a circular image: visitors stood in the centre, surrounded by the painting. The specially designed structure created an unbroken horizon and connected the depicted landscape with objects in front of the canvas. Preserving the panorama therefore meant more than protecting a single framed painting: it required the canvas, the suspension system, the lighting and the foreground space.

The museum's reference account pinpoints the start of this hiatus: the panorama closed to visitors in December 1917, and in 1918 the canvas was taken down and wound onto a roller. It was moved from Chistye Prudy to Neskuchny Garden; later it was kept in the grounds of the Donskoy Monastery, near Miussky Cathedral and in the Hermitage Garden. According to the museum, storage requirements were not observed, and the roller stood outdoors for a prolonged period. Frequent moves and exposure to the weather help explain the damage discovered when the canvas was examined in 1948.

In 1948, the USSR Council of Ministers adopted Resolution No. 3638 on the restoration of the panorama. An inspection revealed that 142 square metres of the painting had been lost. The upper section depicting the sky had deteriorated almost entirely; a special commission deemed it beyond restoration and decided to remove it. The expanse of sky above the Borodino battlefield therefore cannot confidently be regarded as surviving original paintwork. This loss occurred before the fire in the building on Kutuzovsky Prospekt.

In 1949, the canvas was transferred to the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts for a programme of conservation work. The museum’s account describes the condition of the canvas support: areas of decay, tears, folds and severe creases. The paint layer had partially flaked away and lost its elasticity; there were also abrasions and stains. In October 1950, a team led by P. D. Korin completed the restoration, cleaning the painting and retouching areas of paint loss. The work had therefore already undergone substantial intervention before the decision was made to display it in a new panorama hall.

The figure of 142 sq m refers to the loss identified during an examination in the late 1940s; it is not the area damaged in the 1967 fire. Distinguishing between these figures avoids the common oversimplification of the painting's history that attributes the loss of all missing areas of the artist's original work to a single event. By 1967, the painting had already undergone restoration in 1950 and extensive restoration work in preparation for the museum's opening.

What work was completed for the museum’s opening in 1962?

In preparation for the opening of the building on Kutuzovsky Prospekt, specialists restored the damaged canvas and recreated the missing sections of the panorama. The museum opened on 18 October 1962, marking the 150th anniversary of the events of 1812. The panoramic view presented to the public in 1962 already included newly painted sections.

The museum’s historical account for the ‘Open Restoration’ project states that in 1960, the USSR Ministry of Culture decided to complete the restoration of the panorama in time for the anniversary; of three proposed approaches, it selected the method developed by a team of restorers led by M. F. Ivanov-Churonov. In July 1962, the canvas was delivered to a purpose-built building.

On exhibition ‘The Museum and the Anniversaries of 1812’ the museum presented a sketch by Roubaud, acquired for the collection in 2020, and preparatory works by I. V. Yevstigneyev from 1961–1962. Comparing these materials helps trace how the artists prepared to restore the missing sections of the panorama. However, the sketches cannot establish the age of each area of paint on the canvas as it exists today.

‘Moskovsky Zhurnal’ describes the scale of the task that lay ahead following examinations of the old canvas: to repaint more than 900 square metres of sky and around 12 linear metres of the battle scene. These measurements use different units and therefore cannot be added together. The museum’s historical account confirms that after the canvas was hung in July 1962, the artists painted the sky and evened out the tones of the surviving paintwork. By the opening of the new building, they had created a cohesive picture in which new paint sat alongside the artist’s original work.

Preparations for the museum also involved changes to the composition. A published extract from the book by Anna Bronovitskaya and Nikolai Malinin states that Kutuzov’s figure was enlarged during the restoration. A 1916 guidebook confirms his presence in the original scene, but not the scale of his later depiction. The book’s authors and researchers who published an academic article in 2023 date the introduction of the scene featuring the wounded Bagration to the work carried out before the museum opened. The museum’s catalogue entry clarifies that the section depicting him that is visible today was painted after the fire of 1967.

A separate element of the panorama is the three-dimensional foreground between the canvas and the viewing platform. Here, physical objects extend the painted landscape, so its condition depends on restoration just as much as the painting does. The museum’s historical account states that in 2011, the foreground, covering 810 square metres, was cleaned, its base reinforced and its supports replaced. This figure relates to the work carried out in 2011 and does not establish the dimensions of the structure in 1912 or 1962. Without drawings and inventories from each stage, no visible detail can be assumed to have survived from Roubaud’s time.

The engineering behind its return is no less revealing. The museum’s account describes how, in July 1962, the roller carrying the canvas was drawn through an opening in the new building and lifted into a vertical position by crane. The top of the canvas was secured with straps to a monorail forming a closed loop above the hall; the edges were joined with a vertical seam. Once the canvas was hung, artists painted the sky and evened out the overall tones of the original painting. With time short, artificial drying was used. The choice of supporting structure and the pace of the work became part of the artwork’s physical history, which cannot be seen from the usual viewing platform.

In 1962, the museum was established near the former village of Fili, beside Kutuzov’s Hut; a complex of monuments commemorating the Patriotic War of 1812 grew up around it. Roubaud painted the panorama in Munich, while its first Moscow home stood on Chistoprudny Boulevard. Visitors to the new museum saw the work in a space the artist had not designed, following restoration carried out half a century after the canvas was created.

What happened to the canvas on 27 June 1967?

A fire in the panorama hall severely damaged the painting; a substantial portion had to be removed and repainted. The museum’s historical account records the date — 27 June 1967 — and the decision to complete the restoration by November of the same year. The work was entrusted to artists from the M. B. Grekov Studio of Military Artists and restorers led by M. F. Ivanov-Churonov.

After the fire, the canvas was taken down. According to the museum’s account, a large surviving section of the original painting, covering 185 sq m, was removed for restoration; the damaged portion was cut away and discarded. Work on the largest salvaged fragment took place in the museum galleries themselves, where wooden platforms were installed. A new experimental canvas from the Krasny Oktyabr factory in Sursk was used to recreate the panorama. The surviving section of Roubaud’s painting was lined onto the shared backing canvas and stitched along the horizon. The museum states that sturgeon glue was used for the lining; as it later dried, it caused severe, rigid distortions in the canvas. This technical detail explains why the salvaged painting continued to need attention even after the restored panorama opened to visitors.

The restoration of 1967 began by selecting material that could be preserved. The specialists worked simultaneously with remnants of the original painting, sections repainted during restoration before the fire, and new canvas. For visitors, the boundaries between these parts were meant to disappear into a seamless panorama; for museum conservation, those boundaries are fundamental. The stage to which a section belongs also determines which materials, damage and methods of consolidation a specialist can regard as part of its initial condition.

Moskovsky Zhurnal lists twelve artists involved in the restoration after the fire, including Nikolai But, Yevgeny Danilevsky and Pyotr Maltsev. The work was led by Nikolai Zhukov, artistic director of the M. B. Grekov Studio of Military Artists. This list matters because the familiar name ‘Roubaud’s panorama’ should not obscure the contributions of those who repainted large sections of the canvas. Their work maintained the overall composition, preserving the work’s recognisable character.

To paint the battle scenes in 1967, artists from the Grekov Studio used epidiascopes. The museum’s historical account states that images from the colour film of the fourth instalment of Sergei Bondarchuk’s War and Peace, supplied by Mosfilm, were projected onto the canvas, along with colour photographs by R. Schrade, a photographer from Germany. This documents the method of reconstruction, rather than proving who painted any individual brushstroke. Distinguishing the work carried out in 1967 from Roubaud’s surviving painting requires restoration records and an examination of the paint layer.

The cause of the fire and the extent of damage to each section cannot be inferred solely from the overall scale of the disaster. The museum’s account gives the date — 27 June 1967 — and describes the dismantling, what happened to the rescued fragment and the sequence of subsequent work. For assessing the painting’s state of preservation, this is more reliable than later retellings, which sometimes offer more confident explanations of the incident than the published documents warrant.

Which parts of Franz Roubaud’s original painting survive?

A large section of the artist’s original painting survived the fire and was restored at the museum, while separate fragments also survive in the museum’s reserve collection. The clearest example of the latter is — ‘Horsemen’: the exhibition description confirms the exhibit’s authenticity and notes traces of the 1967 fire and the restoration work carried out. It is important to distinguish between these two forms of survival — a section of the circular canvas and separate items in the museum’s reserve collection.

The historical account for the ‘Open Restoration’ project records a large rescued section measuring 185 sq. m and separately mentions four fragments held in the museum’s reserve collection. The figure of 185 sq. m refers to the painted canvas removed after the fire; without measurements of the whole, it does not establish what percentage of the painting survives. Calculating the precise proportion would require consistent criteria for determining the areas of the original and present canvases, the composition of the artist’s original paint layer and the boundaries of all later insertions.

The museum’s announcement about ‘Open Restoration’ specifies the size of ‘Horsemen’: approximately 3 square metres. The fragment was restored in 2020 as part of the research phase. It is particularly valuable to conservators because it bears traces of several events: the artist’s original paintwork, damage sustained in 1967, and subsequent technical and artistic interventions are all discernible. This single fragment serves as a kind of material record of the history of the entire panorama.

In 2025, the museum displayed ‘Horsemen’ at the exhibition ‘The Space and Time of Franz Roubaud’ in Sergiev Posad. In the exhibition description the museum specifically notes that visitors could see the original paintwork along with traces of fire damage. The exhibition closed on 3 August 2025; its description remains a source of information about the exhibit.

The title ‘Horsemen’ alone is not enough to identify the original fragment of the panorama. In its description of the 2025 exhibition, the museum explicitly states that this is a provisional title and traces the object’s origins to the painting ‘Borodino’. When searching for an image or catalogue entry, it is therefore important to consider the collection and the history of the fragment’s separation from the circular painting, rather than relying solely on a matching caption.

Why is the restored painting still called Roubaud’s panorama?

Roubaud’s name refers to the artistic vision and composition that underpin the panorama, as well as the surviving sections of his paintwork. It does not imply that every square metre of the present paint layer was applied by the artist’s own hand. The museum’s history itself calls for this qualification: the first restoration was completed by 1962, and the second followed the fire of 1967.

The museum describes ‘Borodino’ as Roubaud’s third and final panorama. The authors of a publication marking the 170th anniversary of the artist’s birth emphasise its combination of creative imagination and a commitment to historical accuracy. Museum staff also point out that the depiction of the battle reflected early 20th-century interpretations, including military historian B. M. Kolyubakin’s work on the subject. The panorama is valuable as an artistic statement of its time; it is not an impartial photograph of the Borodino battlefield.

The guidebook, prepared for an early exhibition and reproduced by the museum, shows how the artist’s composition guided the viewer’s eye. The description identifies, in turn, the Raevsky Battery, Kutuzov’s position near Gorki, the Semyonovskoye flèches and the figures of the French commanders. These landmarks allow comparisons between the 1912 composition and its later incarnation, but do not in themselves establish where the original paint layer survives. Answering that question requires analysis of the materials.

The distinction between the historical subject and the age of the paint is clear from a specific example. A 1916 guidebook helps establish that viewers in the early 20th century were already shown Kutuzov near the village of Gorki. A published excerpt from the book by Bronovitskaya and Malinin states that his figure was enlarged during a later restoration. Thus, the presence of the same figure in two descriptions does not guarantee that its painted representation is the same. For attribution, it is necessary to establish when each section was painted.

The same applies to the three-dimensional foreground. The museum’s report on Panorama Day in 2022 describes the ruins of a peasant hut, artillery pieces and cannonballs that visitors were able to examine up close. These objects create a physical setting around the viewer. However, proximity to Roubaud’s painting does not make every detail of the three-dimensional foreground an object dating from 1912: it was recreated in the 1960s and restored again in 2011.

How do specialists distinguish the layers of paint?

A view from the centre of the hall alone is not enough to establish the boundaries between the artist’s original material and later additions. Conservators examine the condition of the canvas and paint layer, restoration records, photographs and the results of technical imaging.

In preparation for investigations in 2014, specialists from the Research and Production Association for Museum Restoration and Conservation, working with Geoscan, created a three-dimensional model of the panorama and a near-infrared model of the surviving fragment. The description of the technical work also mentions samples of the ground layer and examination of seams and cracks under ultraviolet light. These methods help reveal deformation and differences in materials that are invisible from the usual viewing position.

A single technical imaging session cannot establish the authorship of every area. An infrared image or a shape model reveals the properties and condition of the material; conclusions about its origin are drawn by comparing research findings, the history of its care and custody, and restoration records. It is therefore more accurate to speak of areas confirmed as the artist’s own work and known stages of intervention than to promise a clear visual boundary between the original painting and later additions around the perimeter.

In 2014, specialists used 379 photographs of the entire panorama to create a three-dimensional model; they also took 268 high-resolution photographs of the section painted by Roubaud and 93 infrared images. Geoscan explains that ultraviolet light reveals cracks invisible under normal lighting. Under this light, newer varnish appears darker, helping to distinguish coatings from different periods. The resulting images record the condition of the material at the time of examination, but cannot, on their own, establish when the paint was applied. The publication also describes deformation in Roubaud’s original section: the suspended weight that keeps the canvas taut exerted a greater force on this area because of its thicker layer of varnish. During restoration, specialists therefore need to take account of differences in the condition of the artist’s original painting and later additions.

The previous major restoration programme took place in 2011 in preparation for the bicentenary of the events of 1812. The museum reports, that the work was once again carried out by artists from the Grekov Studio. The historical account separately describes the cleaning of the canvas and the three-dimensional foreground. This adds another layer to the work’s history: the physical condition of the gallery today reflects decisions made in years beyond 1912, 1962 and 1967. It would be inaccurate to date any visible surface exclusively to one of those three years.

The plans for the 2019–2023 project must not be presented as confirmed results. The museum document listed the preparation of specialised equipment, work on the critically damaged section and overall restoration as successive stages. The public announcement of February 2021 confirms that ‘The Horsemen’ had been examined and restored, but does not confirm every subsequent step. This limitation of the source is particularly important when discussing the changing condition of a museum object.

Why can’t the preservation figures be combined into a single percentage?

The museum’s figures refer to different things being measured and different stages in the panorama’s history: the original surface, damage sustained in storage, work carried out for the 1962 opening and fragments saved after the fire. The proportion of original paint in the current display therefore cannot be calculated simply by subtracting from 1725 sq. m. Even two accurate figures can lead to an incorrect conclusion if one refers to the entire canvas and the other only to a section that was removed.

Areas cited in museum materials

Figure	What was measured	Limits of the conclusion
1725 sq. m	The area of Roubaud’s circular canvas as recorded in the historical account: 115 by 15 m.	The dimensions of the 1912 work; the area of the artist’s surviving original paint requires separate measurement.
142 sq. m	The area of paint loss identified during the 1948 examination.	An assessment made before the deteriorated sky section was detached and before the 1967 fire.
Approximately 930 sq. m	The area in which the sky and the missing battle scene had to be painted for the 1962 opening, according to an account by a representative of the Grekov Studio.	The scale of the work required for the 1962 opening; the 1967 fire changed the mix of original and restored paint.
185 sq. m	A large section of the artist’s original painting, removed for restoration after the 1967 fire.	The size of a specific section that was saved; no comprehensive map of the artist’s original paint has been published.
3 sq. m	The area of ‘Horsemen’, a fragment held in the museum’s collection and restored in 2020.	One of four original fragments held in the museum’s collection.

There is no arithmetic contradiction between the 142 sq. m of lost paintwork and the more than 900 sq. m of newly painted surface. The museum’s account identifies the 142 sq. m as losses discovered during an examination of the surviving section of the canvas in the late 1940s; the commission decided to detach the almost entirely ruined depiction of the sky separately. Moskovsky Zhurnal puts the area of the recreated sky background at more than 900 sq. m. These figures describe different aspects of the work; subtracting one from the other cannot establish how much of the painting has survived.

The dimensions of the original image, 115 by 15 m, give a total area of 1725 sq. m. But this does not tell us what proportion of the artist’s original paint remained on the canvas after the treatment in 1950, when some of the losses were filled in, or after the restoration in 1967. Such a calculation would require measurements of all surviving fragments and a map of later additions. The museum’s historical account gives the area of the section that was saved, but the document does not provide a complete set of measurements of the original paint layer in the current exhibition hall.

The figure of 185 sq. m is significant in its own right: it confirms that the fire did not destroy all of the artist’s original paintwork. However, the museum also mentions four original fragments held in its collections. The sources do not provide a reader-friendly overview mapping all the artist’s original paint layers in the present-day exhibition hall and museum collections. Adding the area of ‘Horsemen’ to 185 and presenting the result as the total proportion that survives would therefore be just as arbitrary as ignoring the evidence of these fragments in the museum’s collections.

What questions about the original work remain unanswered?

The appearance of the scene depicting the wounded Bagration before the 1967 fire remains an open question. According to two publications — a book by Anna Bronovitskaya and Nikolai Malinin and a scholarly article by Nina Chizh, Gennady Slyshkin and Yulia Kuzmina — this episode was introduced during the restoration of the panorama in 1962. This figure did not appear in Roubaud’s painting. The museum’s entry on the Artefact portal states that the section visible today was painted entirely by artists from the Grekov Studio after the 1967 fire. The date when the scene was introduced may differ from the date of the surviving paint layer.

The published materials do not compare photographs of the Bagration scene before and after the fire. The sources therefore support the conclusion that the figure was introduced into the composition by the museum’s opening in 1962 and that the paintwork visible today dates from a later period, but they do not establish the exact appearance of the first version of the scene. Such an attribution would require photographs of the exhibition hall from 1962–1967, sketches and documents from both restorations. Distinguishing between the subject depicted and the physical paint layer is also important for other restored sections of the circular canvas.

Thus, the question of ‘how much of Roubaud’s work remains in the panorama today’ has a precise partial answer and a limit to what can honestly be established. The museum confirms that a 185 sq m section of the artist’s original painting was saved, along with four fragments held in its collection, including ‘Horsemen’. But pinpointing every original brushstroke among the later layers requires a conservation map, technical investigations and documentation of the specific work carried out. Visual resemblance to a photograph from 1912 is no substitute for such evidence.

How does knowing this history change our perception of the panorama?

The ‘Borodino’ panorama remains a work by Roubaud, preserved and partly recreated by several generations of conservators and artists. The damaged canvas was restored in time for the museum’s opening in 1962, and after the fire of 1967, the surviving painting was once again joined with newly painted sections. The ‘Horsemen’ fragment offers a view of Roubaud’s original paint alongside traces of later interventions.

The building at 38 Kutuzovsky Prospekt, Building 1, was constructed for the panorama to go back on display in 1962. In the related the ‘Poklon City’ tour the bureau’s route runs from Poklonnaya Hill to Moscow City, past the museum and the Council of War hut in Fili. This route offers a view of the building and its surroundings; a visit to the museum exhibition is not listed as a required part of the walk.

Sources

1. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum: history of the museum
2. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum: the Open Restoration project, historical background
3. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum: the first stage of the Open Restoration project
4. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum: the exhibition ‘The Museum and the Anniversaries of 1812’
5. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum: ‘The Space and Time of Franz Roubaud’
6. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum: ‘Roubaud 170’
7. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum: the 1912 album and the 1916 edition of Afanasyev’s guidebook
8. Geoscan: technology for preparing the panorama’s restoration
9. ‘Poklon City’: tour itinerary
10. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum: ‘A Major, Important Undertaking’ — the first pavilion
11. Battle of Borodino Panorama Museum: ‘So Be It’ — the opening in 1912
12. The ‘Battle of Borodino’ Panorama Museum: ‘The Glorious Year of 1812’
13. The ‘Battle of Borodino’ Panorama Museum: Panorama Day 2022
14. M. B. Grekov Studio of Military Artists: Pyotr Tarasovich Maltsev
15. ‘Moskovsky Zhurnal’, No. 4 (340), 2019: the history of the ‘Borodino’ panorama
16. Artefact: museum entry for the scene depicting the wounded Bagration
17. Anna Bronovitskaya and Nikolai Malinin: an excerpt from a book about the panorama museum
18. Chizh N. V., Slyshkin G. G., Kuzmina Yu. A. ‘Military Medicine in Russian Battle Panoramas’, 2023
19. ‘Military History Journal’, No. 10, 2012: the history of the ‘Battle of Borodino’ Panorama Museum