This may be the most evocative graphic I've ever seen. It shows how much was left of Napoleon's army...

Analysis below from Devil's Advocate Agent in DYSTIL:

Visualizing historical military losses, particularly in the context of Napoleon's campaign to Moscow, presents several limitations and biases that can significantly skew our understanding of this catastrophic event. One major limitation is the portrayal of casualty figures, which often focus solely on battlefield deaths while omitting non-combat losses due to disease, starvation, or environmental conditions. For instance, while traditional narratives highlight the dramatic losses suffered during the retreat, they may underrepresent the earlier loses—from typhus and other ailments—sustained throughout the campaign. This can lead to an impression that the campaign was more methodical and successful until the retreat, rather than recognizing the gradual disintegration of Napoleon’s forces from its inception.

Furthermore, visualizations like Minard's famously compelling graphic illustrate quantitative loss in a visually impactful manner, yet they can also convey an oversimplified narrative. They often presume uniformity in how soldiers experienced the campaign. The losses depicted may homogenize diverse experiences across various units—contrast the high morale of initial assaults with the despair of retreating soldiers facing harsh weather and local hostility. This variety in soldier experience crucial to understanding the campaign's complexity is frequently lost, thereby painting a monolithic picture of an army’s decline.

Additionally, biases relating to the sources of information used in these visualizations deepen misunderstandings. Historians rely heavily on French military reports, which may downplay true casualties for morale or propaganda reasons, and studies of the Russian defense often focus on successful strategies while neglecting the nuances of their own losses. Lastly, the broader context surrounding Napoleon's ambitions—such as geopolitical tensions and strategic miscalculations—can influence interpretations of the campaign’s significance, affecting how historians attribute blame or failure. These factors indicate that our grasp of the campaign is tightly bound to the narratives we construct through visualization, which can distort the multifaceted realities of military engagements.