This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
Notice the recent edit-wars this artcle has suffered. I have several sorces that claims it was a draw, and even a Swedish victory, alltough Voyevoda stills claims it was a Russian victory. Maybe strategical and morale, but tacticly, no.
My comment: you failed to provide a NEUTRAL (non-Swedish) source for your questionable claim. All web sources describe Lesnaya as Swedish defeat, here are some of them: [1], [2]. I suggest, we lock the article with the more traditional interpretation until Snillet delivers neutral proofs for his sensational history revisionism. Voyevoda22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Browsing through Google, I agree that most English-language sites assert that the battle was a Russian victory, particularly because Sweden's supply lines were heavily damaged. If Swedish sources claim it was a draw or victory, though, that fact should be included - e.g. "Swedish historians *name*, *name* and *name* challenge the general consensus that this battle was a Russian victory, suggesting instead that.... blah blah blah" --Hyperbole10:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is crazy in the extreme: the German, French and Italian articles all claim a Russian victory. Looking at the September 28 articles I can add Greek and Dutch wikipedia. All of these authors have no historic axe to grind. Calling something a tactical draw because half of the Swedish losses were due to drunkenness is plain silly, of course. Shall we call Pearl Harbor a draw because the US Navy was caught with their pants down? Calling it a draw because the Swedes "managed" (or were forced) to engage a numerically superior opponent and could even disengage from the fight (in "some" fashion, I would add) is even worse: by that token, even Waterloo is a draw. The undisputed fact that the Russians lost fewer men than their opponents is already telling, it is quite atypical for battles involving any Russian army.--Paul Pieniezny10:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing atypical about it, look at Russo-Turkish wars or the Seven Years' War, the Russo-Persian wars or many battles of the Great Northern War. In the most battles, the Russians had more moderate losses. Voyevoda12:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Slaget hade ingen given segrare men Peter den store, som förde befälet över de ryska trupperna lär senare ha kallat slaget "Poltavasegerns moder".
"The battle had no direct winner, but Peter the Great, who commanded the Russian force, later said the the battle was the "mother to the Battle of Poltava". /Snillet15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the heart of this edit war is what we're going to put in the "result=" field, more than the editorial content of the body of the article, right? What about something like "result=Generally considered a Russian victory"? It does appear (as best I can tell, since I don't read Swedish) that while the general international consensus is that the Russians won this battle, the Swedes do not consider this a military defeat, largely because a great portion of their losses came during a mutiny after the battle was over. It definitely needs to be mentioned in the article that many Swedes do not now, and perhaps never did, consider this battle a defeat. (By analogy, see Vietnam War, where there has been controversy over the "result" field and a paragraph discusses the fact that many Americans do not consider the war a military defeat, but rather, a political one). --Hyperbole15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one can mention it in the article, but in the "result" field there must be definitely the more common interpretation. After all, in the Battle of Borodino article there is written "French victory", though Russians do not to consider the battle as Russian defeat. Voyevoda11:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, our account of Borodino says both sides retreated for the night, while there is a contemporaneous Polish source claiming cossacks ruled the battle field and had even taken over the notorious fleches. Control of the battlefield is often a parameter used to decide who won when there is an unclear issue to a battle. But so is the direction of the troops the day after and the casualty count, and those are generally taken to favour the option that the French won. In any case, the fact that most Western historians favour the French victory vision, is probably due to the Russophobic atmosphere in Britain from 1815 to 1905. --Paul Pieniezny21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there must be a mention of which Swedish historians claim it is a draw or even a victory. Something like that in a note needs to be sourced specifically (just write the name of the historian). By the way you can sometimes force Google books to show a snippet of text from the book, by searching for a text string like the Swedish for " victory at Lesnaya". That is better than useless edit warring. --Paul Pieniezny21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russian nationalists please stop acting like little children putting fantasy casualty figures of 6300 dead and wounded Swedes and deleting correct facts.
I Edited the text to a more historical correct version but did not discredit any of the sides, stop deleting correct texts just because they don't fit your fantasies on how the battles were fought.
If you have any objections against my edit then im willing to discuss the sources, until then try to behave like grownups. 00:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.32.90 (talk)
The article says that Sweden lost 6,307 soldiers, wich must be incorrect because 1,500 managed to get back to Riga, so they should not be included in the "casualties"-box. /Snillet (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some annoying narking has been editing lately. The Swede forces present were around 14,000 (of which 8,300 defended the supply wagons).
5000 captured, 1000 killed, rest went missing, and 6000 Swedes returned to poltava exhausted. --Nikitn (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any neutral observer looking at the numbers given by Nikitn sees that they are perfectly compatible with the Swedish contention that 1,500 made it back to Riga (there are two thousand "uncertains" in his figure). A few history lessons:
1) until the advent of modern medicine to the battle field, armies counted their own and the enemy's "casulaties" to include the wounded and the missing in action. Anyone who did not remain in the ranks was a casualty. That is why the numbers must be interpreted with care.
2) although armies in the eigteenth century were no longer the pillaging, murdering and raping bands of the religious wars in Germany, they were still followed by a train of half-military people whose job it was to:
a) take care of victuals and non-military materiel. They continued to re-supply with the local populace, where possible applying as little pressure as possible - large-scale pillaging was found to be less productive and would of course hamper re-supply when withdrawing (that by the way is what did Napoleon in in 1812 - his "win" at Borodino and subsequent decision to takle Moscow forced him to return the same way he had come, through land his troops already had had to pillage)
b) after victory, finish off the enemy wounded and take care of own wounded (since this usually involved stealing all valuables off enemy, and sometimes even own, soldiers, this was the main attraction for people to join the retinue train and also explains why the train often included women and children - soldiers' family even)
Retinue would usually be lightly armed, with pikes and knives. They had to guard the waggons against marauders and needed something to perform their battle field duties. They would very often disappear "into nature" after a defeat. Some of them were even local, and simply switched to the winning side. This battle did not take place in Sweden or Russia proper, so there is a good chance that retinue on both sides included Belarusians/ White Russians, Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians ...
All this explains why the figures must be handled with care (even the Rusian estimate of Russian dead is probably too high) and why we are having an edit war over this article, while the general picture of what happened is not in dispute. The Russian side is obviously ignoring those 1,500 escaping to Riga, because those were probably not part of the Swedish force that actually fought at Lesnaya. the Swedish viewpoint is that because the main Russian objective (to wipe out the Swedish force and to prevent them from joining up with the main Swedish army) was obviously not attained, it counts as a Swedish victory. Some compromise must be found. The texts which are being added and deleted must be sourced. Put them here, for everyone to see. Then start looking at texts in the other side's references which contradict them, source that and find a compromise. The neutral West European version would probably consider this as a skirmish and add it to the battle of Poltava as an introductory battle (and I guess, probably count it as a Russian victory). I am sure you guys would not particularly like a merge, because this battle has a special meaning in the history of Russia and Sweden, but if the edit war continues ... --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date and Location
I do not really know what is more disruptive - taking out the Gregorian calendar date for this event (so we have only a Russian OS and a Swedish calendar date for something that happened in a place using the Gregorian calendar at the time) or putting up the Polish name of a place in Lithuania (in an obvious attempt to draw the support of Polish Wikipedia editors) and/or deleting the Belarusian name of the place, but this is obviously the part that must and can be be fixed the fastest. It is known as the "Battle of Lesnaya", it took place at present-day Lyasnaya, near a place which is mostly known (and at the time was almost exclusively known) in the English language as Mogilev and they used the Gregorian calendar there at the time. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this location link. I checked the village of Lysasnaya on google maps and came up with a location near Brest on the Polish/Belorussian border. The map didn't show Mogilev, which is the 3rd largest city in Belarus and the historic home of an army division. Thus, I suspect that placing the battle in Mogilev is incorrect.Jweaver28 (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the more exact source information in the article. You can download the text of the book from here: http://files.zipsites.ru/slovari/100velikih/100_velikih_bitv.rar. However, it is a text file which does not keep the original layout and is thus not easy to read. You should open it with your browser and switch the encoding to Cyrillic. Here is a little excerpt from page 222:
Обнаружив утром покинутый вагенбург, Петр I бросил в погоню драгун генерал-лейтенанта Пфлуга. Корволант же стоял на месте битвы три дня. 29 сентября Пфлуг настиг и порубил в Пропойске до полутысячи отставших и взял остатки обоза, правда, без военного снаряжения — порох и заряды Левенгаупт успел утопить в Соже. Потери шведов убитыми и ранеными составляли 6397 человек, из них 45 офицеров, около 700 солдат попали в плен. Русские потеряли 1111 человек убитыми и 2856 ранеными. Победа под Лесной не была полной — были упущены часть трофеев и половина корпуса Левенгаупта. Voyevoda (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time yet to translate this all, but based on translation2.paralink.com this translates as:
"Having found out in the morning that the wagon train had left, Peter I sent into [hot] pursuit the dragoon general-lieutenant Pflug. The Korvolant stood on war footing for three days. On September 29th, Pflug had overtaken and had chopped in Propoysk up to half a thousand [men] lagged behind and had taken the rests of the transport, but in truth, without military equipment — the gunpowder and charges Lewenhaupt had been able to drown in the Sozhe [river]. Losses of Swedes killed and wounded men were 6397 persons, of them 45 officers, nearby 700 soldiers were taken prisoner. The Russians lost 1111 persons killed and 2856 wounded men. The victory at Lesnaya Wood was not complete — part of trophies and half of the corps of Lewenhaupt had been missed."
Korvolant = corps volant of course. Hot pursuit cavalry.
Propoysk - a little town in the neighbourhood.
The problem I see here is that the 500 Swedes overtaken by Pflug may not be the 500 missing earlier, but may be included among the other Swedish losses.
Still, looks like a good source. I like the way they describe the victory as "не была полной". doe not sound like propaganda at all and leaves room for compromise.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to different accusations
Next time you start to revert in an article please study the subject first.
1) Your claim that I added the Polish name Lesna in the article only because I wanted to attract Polish editors is just plain ridiculous and offensive. If you had studied the subject you would have noticed that the battle is often known as the Battle of Lesna, so including it in the article certainly has nothing to do with claimed nationalism. And the battle took place in what was then the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth so in fact by calling it Battle of Lesnaya is a Russian POV. But I have never had any intention to change that of course. And please explain what you find nationalistic on my userpage? And if you think I'm a member of a nationalistic tag team you are clearly wrong. The only tag team I know about in the articles related to the Great Northern War is the Russian one that like to use abusive edit summaries such as [3] or vandalizing userpages [4].
2) You claim that I deleted the Gregorian calendar date is plain untrue if you care to check the edit history. What I have done is to add the Swedish calendar. Before it was just the Julian calendar which at the time was in use in Russia. Now you have deleted both the Swedish and Russian dates. That's what I call disruptive edit. For someone studying the subject it's more than needed to know both the Swedish and Russian dates. The person would be very confused with the date you have added now. Of course all dates should be there, not just a modern one.
3) You claim I deleted the Belarusian name when it was I who inserted it! In fact it was the Russian tag team that has been trying to add "Lisna" instead, which to me sounds more like a Ukrainian version of the name. So again check the edit history before you accuse someone!
And I have not changed Mogilev to Mahilyow which is the name of the article here in the English Wikipedia. I have nothing to do with that.
4) And now about the casualties. Do you know where the figure 6397 killed and wounded Swedes come from? If you had studied the sources you would have known it's from a Swedish source, not a Russian one! It's taken from the second lieutenant Robert Petre´s diary. He was a member of the Swedish army that fought at Lesnaya. On the 30th (Swedish calendar) he has a rather detailed table on how many were missing and how many who could be counted at the time. 4549 from the infantry, 697 from the cavalry and 1151 from the dragoons or altogether 6397 men were missing. What he didn't know at the time is that many of the missing men made their way north to Riga instead and some even managed to join the army later. What is wrong to tell that? And the same Robert Petre also gives an exact figure on how many men followed general Lewenhaupt from Courland: infantry 8.000, dragoons 2.900, cavalry 2.000 and 50 Polish dragoons. Altogether 12.950 men. Not 16,000 as the article now states.
By the way Robert Petre calls the village Jesna, which probably was how the name was pronounced at the time. Interestingly he often writes placenames the way it was locally pronounced like Hadjatz and not the Russian way Gadyach.
5) I also think that this battle was more of a major skirmish leading up to the battle of Poltava, but I don't think it should be merged to that one since lots of things had happened inbetween and the battle of Poltava took place almost a year later. What was important with the battle of Lesnaya was that the Swedish army lost all supply wagons which was more than needed for king Karl XII´s army. This probably explains the Swedish defeat at Poltava, and that's probably why the battle of Lesnaya in Russian history is called the Mother of the Poltava victory. Närking (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the tag teams: I stand by my story. Let us hope that the other Russian user, Nikitn, (with different numbers) will still come here after your accusation. And that he will remain polite.
The names: that Grengam thing definitely seems misnamed, I agree but what counts is the way it is usually remembered in English. All these forms in this article just mean the same thing in various Slavic languages. Coming back to Napoleon, the "loo" in Waterloo also means wood or bush, but it is a substantive, while this one here is an adjective. I checked "Battle of Lesna" with google and found six texts, one of which calls Poltava Pultawa. Of course, Wikipedia has spoilt the googles for "Battle of Lesnaya", far too many, but you can level the ground by looking for " "Pierre-Denis Martin" Lesnaya -wikipedia" and comparing that to the same search with Lesna. 50-0. Those West European art galeries are really full of Russian POV, aren't they? I agree that Lisna was silly, except if it is the Lithuanian name (that is the main problem here, everyone is introducing controversial material without sourcing it or disuccing it on the talk page, where this sort of thing should be discussed). Yes perhaps if this was never mentioned before in English, we should call it the battle of Lyasnaya - but that is not the case. Funnily, this is how Mogilev Region invited English-speaking tourists to come to the place: [5] (no, I am not going to direct you to the casualty figures they quote, too embarassing) However, I think Lesnaya and Lyasnaya are enough. No need for Lesna, Lisna, Lesnay or whatever, though one of them would get some leniency on my part if were proven to be the Lithuanian name. As for the pronunciation "Jesna", that either suggests the German town of Jena, or a complete misunderstanding of "Wesna', which would be the Polish form "Łesna", completely different from "Leśna", I assure you. No, he just misunderstood this "ly" thingie at the beginning of the word.
As for the Russian numbers being based on a Swedish diary, that is the first time it is mentioned on this talk page. Frankly, if it is true, I am not impressed by the argument. Source A says X numbers, but source B says Y got somewhere else. And then you say: "so we must deduct Y from B because A could not have known about B". Er, sorry no go : that is typical WP:SYNTH, especially as there are perfectly other categories to put Y in, as I explained in my bit of history. Is there a Swedish source explaining the difference? Or is the source just saying 4800 or 4900 casualties? Because as I explained: you've got to be very careful with the numbers of "casualties" because those given at the time were usually exaggerated, yes, even own casualties were on occasion exaggerated. And you must compare like with like. You cannot compare a reduced Swedish figure ("this cannot really have been correct, let's deduct 30%") with the Russian figure given at the time. Note that Nikitn's version mentions 14,000 Swedes (not 16,000) and is perfectly compatible with 1,500 Swedes (probably not part of the main fighting force) making it back to Riga as there are 2,000 missing "in nature" in his figures. But Nikitn's version is not sourced. Please note that the other 16,000 number, for Russian combatants this time, seems to be based on an entry in Lewenhaupt's diary. The Russian wiki suggests that he got that information off a highly-ranked Russian prisoner of war taken at the beginning of the battle (who may have exaggerated in order to impress). Basing ourselves on two diaries written by participants (and both fighting on the same side!) can lead to problems: I hope these things cannot be interpreted as primary sources...
Your point about the calendar: I never said you deleted the Gregorian date, if you read my remark carefully you will notice that I am suggesting that the use of OS rather than NS for an event happening in Lithuania was done by the other side than the one who put up the Polish name. And that it is important that the place where this happened did use the Gregorian calendar at the time (they switched back to Julian later in the century). Contrary to what you claim, the OS date and the Swedish calendar date are NOT missing from the article, they are in a special note. If you want both in the text (the argument conceivably being that all Northern War battles have this peculiar double dating) after the NS date, no problem, even three dates can be given, but the note will have to go then. But perhaps the note is the place to do this. I just noticed that there is more than one date mentioned, so we could perhaps say "subtract 10 days for all dates to get the Swedish date and for the OS calendar date, subtract eleven days".
After reading your answer it's obvious that you still haven't studied the subject. Instead you are trying to talk around and away from your previous accusations.
Here are just some short comments. The village where the battle took place was situated in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth where Polish was the official language so it's not strange you will find it called Lesna on maps and official documents at the time. That's also why the battle is known as "Slaget vid Lesna".
It's also interesting to see that your Russian book apparently doesn't give any source for its claim of 6397 killed and wounded Swedes. It's obvious it comes from the diary of the Swedish officer Robert Petre. This also tells something about how the Russian author is using its sources. And if the Russian book also claims to source something from "Lewenhaupt's diary" it must be a new discovery since there is no known diary left from the time. He did write down his memories later during his captivity, but that's something completely different.
And about the date. Even the Russian Wikipedia states the old style date first, which also is the most understandable way to write it. Anyone who truly wants to study this subject will find the old dates in all the sources and books. Or you also want to change the October Revolution to the November Revolution? Närking (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong about the language: [[6]]. Lyasnaya was a small village, the reason why it was Lesna according to the Swedes was that they copied it from Polish or German maps, rather than Russian or Lithuanian maps.
You have looked at Russian wiki, but claim that the assertion about Lewenhaupt's diary comes from the Russian book. No, Russian wiki (which is of course not a good RS, but can be used as argument on talk pages) says that the figure came from a Russian adjudant general taken prisoner before the battle. Your claim that Lewenhaupt wrote his diary after being taken prisoner, would of course stop it from being a primary source (a diary may conceivably used by commanders to help during the rest of the campaign, may be important military intelligence in the hands of the enemy, and so on), but you give no evidence of that (actually, hitherto I haven't seen any of your evidence). When was the other diary written? Because on that one you use the fact that it was written immediately after the battle to allow you to deduct the people who reached Riga.
Obviously, Russian wiki would put OS first, because the Russian Empire used the Julian Calendar such a long time and later, after the battle, imposed it on the people living in this area. You seem to think that I am here to impose the Russian view, which I am not. Comment on my edits, and not on me please. I am sure you haven't even noticed I took the word "victory" out of the account of the battle (side remark to Russian editors: "there is no reason to use controversial words like "victory", "liberation" if you can describe what happened without them). --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not read Russian Wiki, I have read your answer where you write "Please note that the other 16,000 number, for Russian combatants this time, seems to be based on an entry in Lewenhaupt's diary." Once again he might have written a diary, but there is no such available today. He did write down memories later, but that is not a diary. The officer Robert Petre did write a diary. It ends some days before the Battle of Poltava.
I have no idea what kind of view you might have, Russian, German, Greek or Finnish, it doesn't matter, just try to use reliable sources and study the subject first. But for no reason you have accused me of being a Swedish nationalist and also accused me of trying to get help from a Polish tag team. Närking (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Style date in article
Battle article in German wikipedia [7] tries to solve the problem as follows: 28. September jul./ 9. Oktober greg./ 29. September 1708 schwed. I found it more elegant and useful than here. Elysander (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Apropos: Different views by different reliable historians are always helpful. ;) Elysander (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one thinking the casualties reported for the Russian regulars is not very reliable? We know that the Russian proparganda reduced their strenght with about 100 men or more in each regiment (thanks to author Pavel Konovaltjuk). They probably then, also reduced the reported casualties with the same amount of '%' as the strenght (or more), compared to their 'real' casualties. Pavel Konovaltjuk, says the Russian casualties are not very reliable since they're not complete. And + this, as we know, there were also unknown amount of irregulars. Swedish proparganda speaks of 6,000 killed and 12,000 wounded Russians (which is heavily exegerated). Lewenhaupts said he gathered reliable information about Russian casualties during the time as a captive from Russian generals speaking of 9,000 killed or wounded Russians (total number including irregulars). And there is also, other Russian generals who states 8,000 dead or wounded Russians, the old book 'Charles XII and the Collapse of the Swedish Empire, 1682- 1719 - R. Nisbet Bain' speaks of 6,000 dead and wounded Russians. Main concern here is, why do we only follow up the Russian regular stereotypical casualty reports, which most likely isn't reliable or complete? When there's other sources mentioning 6,000-9,000 dead and wounded (Swedish AND Russian), which do not serve proparganda purposes? Imonoz (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6,000 till 9,000 serve propaganda purposes much more than Russian numbers. The Swedish commanders needed to somehow justify their losses. Their reports are very inaccurate and contradictory. They never had the opportunity to seriously count the Russian losses. Their numbers are highly doubtful and are not being used in serious literature. Not even Swedish Wikipedia uses them. The Russian numbers are based on internal use documents of the state which are not for propaganda but for the correct military managemenent. Reducing the own losses and getting a wrong picture would have been highly counter-productive. I insist that we don't use the freaky numbers of 6,000 to 9,000. Moreover, it's not acceptable that Russian sources are deleted! I've read some other articles of Imonoz, for example Battle of Lode. The guy seems to understand nothing about military but to be a pusher of phantasy propaganda to glorify Sweden. Numbers that insult the common sense. --Shervinsky (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before you start accusing me for being bias, I would like to say that these are the very 'modern' sources available on the battle of Lesnaya. 9,000 might be propaganda, much of the numbers in this time was, in every battle. For example, the Russians reduced every regiments' strength with 100 men, in some cases more, because of that the total strength was reduced to 15,707. However, Russian historians have found documents saying there were 17,926 men (no officers included), I will present the 'order of battle'. About the 3,967 dead and wounded Russians, new modern Russian research says The Russian list of casualties is both incomplete and contradictory, the fact is that there is no exact reliable numbers to use. This Russian casualty list doesn't verify missing soldiers, neither does it verify dead and wounded in Bauers' dragoon division, no wounded in Rostovsk dragoon regiment, no officer casualties and no Cossack or Kalmyk casualty reports, still this number have been the accepted in Russian literature. With this said, modern research denies the reliability of many the Russian sources in this battle and if I understand it right, you deny the reliability of modern research?
Let's take a look at what you want to be shown in the infobox, let's start with the 16,000 Swedes. This is how big Peter estimated the Swedish force when it marched from Riga, sounds reliable, we should trust Peter's sources here shouldn't we? The same Peter who reduced his numbers of strength to look better, could you please show me an order of battle of these 16,000 Swedes, I would love to see it. Then you want 6,397 to 8,500 Swedes be displayed dead and wounded in the actual battle. So if we trust the Swedish sources on Swedish strength here and not Peter's, 6,400 to 8,500 fighting Swedes died of an total fighting force of 9,000? Yet it was the Russians to withdraw? When there was perhaps only 500 Swedes left? Do you actually see any reliability in this or are you just blinded of nationalism? Further more, you're claiming Pavel Konovaltjuk to be a Swedish historian when he's actually Russian? He's born 1958 and lives in Moscow. I would also like to know why the actual battle itself is considered a major Russian victory in your eyes (the tactical view)? Tsar Peter I let his enemies [the Swedes] walk away and continue their march, their objective (Lewenhaupt was ordered to avoid battle), while Peter I's goal was to destroy the whole Swedish force (where he failed). Only the aftermath, the continued march brought disaster to the Swedish army, thus not because of actual fighting with the Russians or the battle itself, but only because of their present in the area, but the battle favored Russia in a strategic view, hence "strategic Russian victory". Besides, you just got rid of 6,000 kb text I added to the article, I'll have you noticed for vandalism. Stick to your traditional /soviet/ sources, but please avoid them on Wikipedia, I won't have you destroy this article which I've done so much for. And please, don't call me bias.. Imonoz (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to give you a more detailed answer in the evening. Concerning your 6,000 kb text, you can add it again without deleting existing sources. It's up to you to initially add content correctly, not up to me to laboriously unite versions. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's an unwritten rule which basically says "don't delete already existing sourced material BEFORE you visit the discussion page", so now when yours is gone, I would like to know why it should be added? Imonoz (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unwritten rule is nothing against a written rule. In this case it says that deletion of sources is forbidden. You violated it first. I will remove your content and restore my sources. You are free to add your content without violations. --Shervinsky (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was that your "more detailed answer"? I thought it would be more in the lines of why your sources are reliable hence modern research says they're not? Anyways, I will continue remove every "unreliable" source you add (since, they're all already proven unreliable against newer Russian research), this will be a daily routine for me, you won't destroy this page. You started removing my sources (which are all, by the way, modern Russian sources), without having the matter discussed first. Your way of approaching Wikipedia is very immature, once you mentioned "idiot Swedes", you're saying I'm bias while you're the one denying modern research. You're vandalizing as well. Imonoz (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the numbers of casualties into the infobox and supplied them with references; all of them are taken from an article by V. Artamonov, which offers a good insight into the Swedish and Russian propaganda surrounding the battle. Although there is no doubt that the fight resulted in a Russian victory, even despite Lewenhaupt's forces were far from being completely destroyed, both sides of the conflict made efforts to play down the size of their armies and casualties and customarily exaggerated those of the enemy. It's clear that the battle was a very severe one, but neither the numbers provided by Lewenhaupt nor any other can be considered "complete" and "absolutely correct". Eriba-Marduk (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the time after the battle the result was disputed as both sides claimed victory, only the Swedish loss at Poltava drastically changed the view in favor of Russia. The Russian official claim of 9,000 casualties for the Swedes is heavily exaggerated, at least according to the newest research and quite frankly impossible seeing how the Swedes only were some 12-13,000 men strong with at least 6,500 making their way to the main army and another 1,500 back to Courland, so in reality, the Swedes could only have some 4-5,000 who were either killed, wounded or captured during the battle and pursuit, or perished during the march to the main army and back to Courland. 6,000 to 9,000 Russian casualties is not the Swedish official claim, the article clearly states 9,000 men are numbers given to Lewenhaupt by Russian officers participating in the battle, the Swedish official claim is 20,000 Russians killed on the battlefield, should this be added into the infobox as well or should we perhaps stick to modern research? Imonoz (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed and well-thought-out reply. It's quite obvious that the official Russian and Swedish claims dating back to the 18th century are hardly reliable, but I'm not sure if the numbers provided by Lewenhaupt and the story of him discovering the 9,000 Russian casualties from Russian officers are credible enough to be equated to "modern research". Perhaps, we should tag his estimates with "according to Lewenhaupt" (similar to "according to Petre" in another part of the table)? I'm afraid it won't make much sense if we brand his 9,000 as a "later Russian claim", since that estimate is not based on modern research in this field or any Russian sources whatsoever and is not a communis opinio doctorum. For example, Artamonov, who is the leading Russian expert on this battle, regards that claim as made up by Lewenhaupt in defence of his reputation, for it is not supported by any evidence at all. On the other hand, another number of casualties that we have here, 3,967 dead and wounded, has been reasonably criticised by Konovalchuk as "incomplete", so my proposal is to put it as "at least 3,967 (the number is incomplete)" and make a reference to Konovaltjuk & Lyth (2009). Eriba-Marduk (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with Petre and his numbers is that they're not really that reliable. I mean sure, the numbers could be correct, but in reality, Petre was nothing more but an ensign in the army marching with Lewenhaupt and he most likely didn't even have all the army material available as an ensign to properly count the figures, unlike Lewenhaupt or Stackelberg. I agree that the figure Lewenhaupt claims was given to him by Russian officers during captivity is not confirmed, but this is the case with most sources regarding this battle unfortunately. It should be said however, that this is not the only source hinting towards heavy Russian casualties, a Swedish field doctor later claimed, after having escaped captivity in Russia where he also participated in the treatment of the wounded Russian soldiers after the battle of Lesnaya, that the Russians had 7,784 men wounded. A Russian statesman also criticized Tsar after the battle seeing how the Russians had, which he claimed, suffered up to 8,000 casualties, of course Peter denied this, the problem with both of these claims is that I don't have the sources for them, which is why I can't put them in the article, the sources are stored on another harddrive which I can't access for the moment. I am interested in Artamonovs view however, what do he think of the numbers of 4,000 Russian casualties and 9,000+ Swedish casualties? Or those of 1,000 Swedish casualties on the battlefield which Lewenhaupt claims? What does he say about casualties overall? Reading the Russian Wikipedia article of the battle I get it as the numbers of 4,000 Russian casualties isn't exactly reliable there either, is this Artamonovs view? Or who is the source of the Russian article of the casualties there? I'm merely asking you here out of pure curiosity. I am of course talking about this:
По завышенным пропагандистским русским данным, потери шведов у Лесной составили 8 тысяч убитыми и ранеными и около 1 тысячи пленными. Был захвачен огромный обоз с трёхмесячным запасом продовольствия, артиллерией и боеприпасами для армии Карла XII. В. Артамонов подсчитывает, что из корпуса численностью 12 950 человек 877 попало в плен, 1,5 тысячи солдат и офицеров через всё Великое княжество Литовское вернулись в Лифляндию, и только 6,7 тысяч (или 6503 чел. по ведомости шведских главных сил о принятии на довольствие) Левенгаупт смог привести своему королю; таким образом, во время преследования корпуса Левенгаупта и битвы потери шведов составили 3873 человек[2]. Общий урон русских составил по минимальным оценкам русских источников около 4 тысяч человек (1111 убито и 2856 ранено). В Ингерманландском полку — ранено 22 офицера (включая бригадира, полковника, подполковника и 4 капитанов) и 361 нижний чин; убито 8 офицеров и 354 рядовых. В Семёновском лейб-гвардии полку — 141 убито и 664 ранено (почти половина состава). В Преображенском лейб-гвардии полку — 52 офицера убито и 21 ранено; из нижних чинов убито и ранено 1551 человек. Т.е. всего в 3 главных полках пехоты - 3.174 чел. уб. и ранено (не считая неизвестных точно потерь присоединённого батальона Астраханского пехотного полка). Т.обр. на долю всех других сил (10 драгунских полков Корволанта, 8-10 драгунских полков корпуса Боура, пехотные части корпуса Боура и иррегулярная конница) остаётся якобы 793 чел. потерь, что явно не соответствует действительности, т.к. только один Нарвский драгунский полк потерял 338 чел. из 604 чел., участвовавших в бою. В общеизвестной ведомости потерь не приведены потери значительной части драгунских полков, других сил пехоты и иррегулярных частей кавалерии. Исходя из того, что сражение продолжалось фактически весь день и было крайне ожесточённым, можно говорить об оценке общих потерь российских войск до 6000 чел. или даже больше. По воспоминаниям очевидцев на местах обоих этапов боя русские и шведские трупы лежали столь густо, что под ними часто небыло видно травы, и поэтому вполне логично говорить о том, что потери обоих сторон были сопоставимы. В мемуарах участников событий эпохи Петра I даже с российской стороны также неоднократно отмечается не только блистательность победы, но упорный и кровавый характер сражения, что позволяет говорить о реальных потерях намного больших, чем заявлено в неполной первоначальной ведомости. Из известных полководцев с российской стороны получил смертельную рану генерал-поручик русской кавалерии принц Гессен-Дармштадтский; тяжело ранен генерал-поручик кавалерии Р. Х. Баур (пуля вошла в рот и вышла через шею со стороны затылка («В рыло, и язык почти вывалился», — как глумливо отзывались позже шведы). Генерал-поручика, у которого отнялась рука и нога, замертво вытащили из боя и он оставался в беспамятстве до 30 сентября. Активнейший и смелый кавалерийский командир был потерян для Русской армии на несколько месяцев. Ещё 4 декабря 1708 г., оправляясь в Москве от ран, он не мог владеть правой рукой, однако под Полтавой он уже бился со свойственным ему геройством и распорядительностью)[2]. Дивизию Р. Х. Баура принял князь А. Д. Меншиков. За опоздание к бою генерал-майор Н. Г. фон Верден лишён команды. По первоначальным оценкам самого Адама-Людфига Левенгаупта, в ходе трёх стадий сражения русские потери составили приблизительно 6000 человек и он сам официально опроверг как лживые сообщения европейских и шведских газет о потерях россиян якобы в 20000 чел. в битве при Лесной. Однако во время своего 10-ти летнего московского плена, в который он попал в результате капитуляции на Переволочне, этот шведский генерал пехоты содержался достаточно почтёно и смог произвести собственное расследование итогов сражения при Лесной. Так, опираясь на ведомости полков, к которым его допустили (понятия войны были иными в 18 столетии), и на данные лично ему знакомых обер-офицеров армии Петра он неожиданно для себя выяснил, что общие потери россиян составили более 9000 человек известных поимённо только в регулярных силах. При этом в своих мемуарах (изд. в 1757 г. в Стокгольме) он сообщает, что выяснить же точно потери казаков и калмыков из иррегулярной конницы оказалось уже тогда невозможным, т.к. сами россияне не ставили их на армейское довольствие и имели лишь смутное представление об их численности, опираясь только на слова их ханов и атаманов, не говоря о точном учёте потерь. Однако их роль в сражении была минимальна, традиционно большой вред они принесли только при преследовании, а главная тяжесть потерь русской армии в битве при Лесной легла на плечи гвардии и спешенных драгун.
Thanks again, I know it well and am not going to defend Petre or prefer him over others as a somewhat more reliable source, since my only point was merely to provide different estimates of casualties, which vary widely, without sticking to an exact, single number or pretending to know the whole truth. As you have correctly pointed out, we cannot confirm the estimate made by Lewenhaupt (or any other participant of the battle, especially given the fact that all of them were more or less biased in favour of their country), so I propose to provide different numbers in the infobox, tag every one of them with “according to X” and let the reader decide the rest.
As for V. Artamonov, he considers the 9,000+ casualties as exaggerated by Lewenhaupt and is often sceptical towards the general’s analysis of the battle. In the Russian text that you have posted, it is told that according to Artamonov the Swedes lost 3,873 men, although the 18th-century triumphant propaganda put their casualties at about 9,000. The minimal number of casualties sustained by the Russian army is said to be about 4,000 (1,111 killed and 2,856 wounded); of them 22 officers and 361 lower ranks of the Ingermanland Regiment were wounded, 8 officers and 354 lower ranks were killed in action; the Semyonovsky Regiment lost 141 killed and 664 wounded, whereas the Preobrazhensky Regiment had 52 officers killed and 21 wounded and lost 1551 soldiers. That is, the main three infantry regiments lost 3,174 men killed and wounded, not counting the casualties sustained by the additional battalion of the Astrakhan Infantry Regiment. Thus, it turns out that the remaining Russian military formations lost only 793 men in total – a number that is considered too low in the text. The article proceeds to say that the Russian list of casualties does not include the losses taken by a significant part of the dragoon regiments, other infantry formations and irregular cavalry that took part in the operation (it is noted, however, that the irregulars played a very secondary role in the battle and were unlikely to suffer high losses – a view that is in line with that of Artamonov) and goes on to say that according to the accounts of eyewitnesses the battle was extremely heated and bloody, with many commanders killed or wounded and the field being covered with lots of dead bodies of Swedish and Russian soldiers, and that therefore it is not impossible to assume that the overall number of Russian casualties was about 6,000 or more, but doesn't get into details. It also makes a mention of Lewenhaupt and his claims regarding the Russian losses that were published in his memoirs in Stockholm, 1757. The references lead to the book by V. Artamonov, “The Dawn of the Poltava Victory: The Battle of Lesnaya”. I hope this will be helpful to you. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that translation. Looking at this table which shows all present regiments of regular formula, one can see that these casualties is, indeed, only accounted for 4,830 men (+ their officers) and leaves the rest, consisting of 13,096 soldiers (+ their officers), in uncertainty, that is more than 2/3 of the Russian army with no casualty figures (although it should of course be noted that the division of Bauer arrived later and therefore likely did not suffer equally many casualties as the initial force). I think, by only looking at this, one can agree with modern research and views, not only by V. Artamonov but also Konovaltjuk and his Swedish co-writer and historian Lyth, that the Russian casualties most likely stretched over 6,000 men, and that 4,000 Russian casualties is an incomplete and unreliable figure, as Artamonov also seem to agree with.
Bare in mind, that the casualty figure was initially presented as 6,000–9,000 Russian casualties before it now got changed, which worked as a meeting point between the 6,000 estimation and that of Lewenhaupt and his claims of Russian officer numbers, and I honestly don't see any problems with these figures as it's all along with modern research. With this said, I don't understand why we should put figures and references to numbers, like the 3,967 of Russian casualties claimed by Tsar Peter and 1,000 Swedish casualties claimed by Lewenhaupt if they're both proven unreliable, just like 18,000 Russian casualties which is the official Swedish claim, nor the almost 10,000 Swedish casualties which is the official Russian claim.
Back to the issue with Petre, as you maybe noticed I changed the number of 6,397 Swedish losses you initially put him as reference to, for the other, 4,549 which is there as of now. The sources I have available says 4,549 here. One thing to remember though, is that the number of 6,397 is an estimation made by Petre of how many Swedish soldiers were missing after the battle, all of them can't be regarded casualties as seemingly 1,500 made it back to Sweden and many perished during the way because of battle wounds, but also sickness, exhaustion etc. The other issue regarding Petre is that even though we list him as a reference, the reader won't know who he actually was, there's no Wikipedia article about him nor any other information at all. I suggest, that as far as the Swedish casualties are concerned, we put it at around 4,000 which is both in lines of that of V. Artamonovs estimation but also Petre. So as far as casualties are concerned, I think the best solution here would be to have the article show 4,000 Swedish casualties and 6,000 to 9,000 Russian casualties, which, again is in line with the very modern research. Many different estimations in the infobox will only confuse the reader I feel like, especially as the difference between the estimations themselves differs so heavily with 14,000 men for the Russian casualties (4,000 being the lowest and 18,000 the highest number) and 9,000 men for the Swedish casualties (1,000 being the lowest and almost 10,000 the highest). What do you think of this?
I am also curious to know, what V. Artamonov says about strength for both armies, how strong do he estimate the Swedish to be? And how strong do he estimate the Russian army to be? I take it, from trying to translate the Russian article, as he estimates the Russians to have a total force of 36,000 to 38,000 men, including the irregular cavalry. Is it correct? Reading from this: 10 полков драгун (7792 чел. с Лейб-региментом Меньшикова) и 3 полка посаженной на коней пехоты, в т.ч. 2 гвардейских (4830 чел.) + 1 батальон Астраханского полка при 30 пушках. На втором этапе сражения присоединилась кавалерия корпуса Боура - 8 драгунских полков (4976 чел.). На заключительном этапе сражения подошла пехотная дивизия фон Вердена (ок. 9600 чел.пехоты) с неизвестным числом орудий. Число иррегулярной лёгкой конницы из казаков и калмыков, присутствовавших изначально на поле боя, точно неизвестно, но было весьма значительным (вероятно до 5-6 тыс. казаков и до 4-5 тыс. калмыков).
“I think the best solution here would be to have the article show 4,000 Swedish casualties and 6,000 to 9,000 Russian casualties – I agree with your proposal, even though the number of Russian casualties is a matter of scholarly debate, but it is noteworthy to mention again that V. Artamonov takes Lewenhaupt’s estimate of 9,000+ Russian casualties as incorrect and unreliable, so perhaps we should not include that number into the infobox (e.g. the Russian article puts the number as high as “up to 6,000”). As for the size of the armies that participated in the battle, Artamonov puts the strength of the Swedish forces at 13,000. According to the Russian article, at the initial stage of the battle there were 10 dragoon regiments of 7,792 men and 3 regiments of mounted infantry (including two Guard Regiments, accounting for 4,830), supported by a battalion of the Astrakhan Infantry Regiment. Later, when the fighting escalated, they were joined by 8 dragoon regiments of Bauer, being 4,976 men strong. After that, at the final stage, an infantry regiment under the command of von Werden brought about 9,600 men and an undetermined number of artillery pieces to the battlefield. The overall number of Cossack and Kalmyk irregulars, who played a secondary yet helpful role in the operation, is said to be about 9,000–11,000. There are also two references leading to another modern source, namely Liljegren, B., 2000. Karl XII: En Biografi. p 162, which estimates the strength of the Swedish and Russian armies at 16,000 and 12,000 (!?), respectively, but I haven't checked it and am uncertain about its credibility. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that the numbers in Liljegren, B., 2000. Karl XII: En Biografi. p 162 presented on the Russian Wikipedia, is not right. The numbers presented in the book (which is a biography of Charles XII) claims there was 15,700 Russians and 8,300 fighting Swedish soldiers. So here it comes clear the author excludes the "Convoy guard" from the Swedish force (the force was 12,000 men strong in total with the convoy guard included, according to the book). In regards to the reliability of the source, it's clear the author here used the newer "list" of the Russian soldiers, which is said to have been modified upon the original list of the time, to lessen the actual strength of the Russian army for propaganda reasons. In short, all regiments in the battle were reduced with ~100 men, so the total force for Peter, Meniskov and Bauers divisions landed on ~15,700 soldiers, when in reality, as the original list claims, there was instead almost 18,000 soldiers in these divisions, like both V. Artamonov and Konovaltjuk states in their books. Furthermore, the irregular cavalry of 9,000 to 11,000 men (as Artamonov stated) is excluded and also the division of 8,000-9,600 men under von Werden. So no, this reference is unfortunately not reliable here, even though Liljegren is otherwise an excellent author, but it seems he didn't have the newer material available when writing about this battle.
The issue with the Russian casualties is that there's no real limit as to how big they could actually be. In comparison, the Swedish casualties are easier to estimate, as long as you know the initial force of Lewenhaupts army, which however, is disputed. Lewenhaupt himself claimed his force was about 10,900 men strong, Weihe claimed it was 11,500 men strong, and so there's Petre who claimed it was 12,950 men strong when starting the march from Riga. As we know, about 6,500 Swedes made it to Charles XII main army and another 1,500 made it back to Sweden, so at least 8,000 men here can't be regarded casualties. So the Swedish casualties couldn't extend over 5,000 men (in both the battle and retreat), that is if we trust Petre's numbers (it couldn't extend 3,000 men if we trust Lewenhaupts numbers). But the Russian casualties however are much harder to estimate, like I said, there's no "limit" as to how many casualties there could have been, unlike in the Swedish case.
I have, however, just found some sources regarding the Russian casualties. The book The History of Peter the Great, Emperor of Russia by Alexander Gordon claims there was 3,000 dead and 4,000 wounded Russians, only in the battle. So this does not include the aftermath, the chase of the Swedish army or the smaller battle at Propoisk which the Swedish casualties include. Another source I've found, which is a book written in that time The Military History of Charles XII, King of Sweden claims a captured Russian Adjutant-General named Schultz who participated in the battle was taken captive some time after the battle and said that the Russians had "6,000 killed and many more wounded". Furthermore, there's new books suggesting the Russians had 10,000 men casualties, like Encyclopedia of Battles and Russia at War.
I'm curious however, does V. Artamonov consider the number of "9,000 Russian casualties" unreliable and not possible, or just the reference, being Lewenhaupt? As far as his estimation of the Swedish army strength, 13,000 men. It's based upon Petres numbers of the Swedish army while it marched out of Riga. Here the author Nicholas Dorrell in his book The Dawn of the Tsarist Empire instead estimated the Swedish force to be about 12,500 men strong by trying to calculate the casualties sustained during the march from Riga to the battlefield of Lesnaya.
Thank you very much for clearing that up! Right now, I don't have enough time to check all of the sources, but you have given me a good reason to remove the references to Karl XII: En Biografi on the Russian page or change the numbers there to those provided in the book. “The issue with the Russian casualties is that there's no real limit as to how big they could actually be” – I have to agree with you completely, because, unfortunately for historians, the number of Russian casualties is not supported by archive documents, therefore the estimates that we have to deal with are based on either allegations or claims of those who were likely to have a bias in favour of their country (such as the official Russian and Swedish propaganda of the 18th century, Lewenhaupt or G. Аdlerfeld, the chamberlain of the king, who refers to Schultz on the pages of The Military History of Charles XII); the latter are usually repeated in modern-day popular books without being carefully and critically examined. That's the main issue with the Russian casualties sustained in this battle. The work by A. Gordon, however, was written from a neutral point of view and I wish I had more time to check it personally, but since I'm too busy at the moment, I recommend that you revert the article to the last good version.
V. Artamonov also agrees there is uncertainty regarding the casualties and compares numerous sources, such as Weihe, Petre, Аdlerfeld and others, each containing a different number, but I haven't seen him getting into the details about the estimate provided by Lewenhaupt. I'll check his book and his articles to settle this question next time, when I have more time in my hands. Thanks again for your informative replies! Eriba-Marduk (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Friedrich?
Will the real Friedrich von Hessen-Darmstadt (the one who died in 1708) please stand up! The article at present wrongly links him to a Frederick who died in 1682. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right Bjenks, sorry for this "lazy-edit" by me, didn't notice I linked to the completely wrong man. I'll make a short English article about Friedrich von Hessen-Darmstadt (1677-1708), giving I don't have a whole lot of information about him or none German speaking skills, we will see what google translate can do for me here. And once again thank you so much for your recent edits! we all appreciate it. Imonoz (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to help out, Imonoz. A couple more suggestions: (1) The『Gå-på』does not sit well in English—we need to either find a good translation or link it to an explanatory article; (2) If you want to refer to the same book over and over again, why not reference exact page numbers, using Template:Rp? Here is one example of how it could look. However, not many English readers will have access to your sources or be able to understand them! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, the『Gå-på』tactic might be confusing for English readers who're not familiar with the tactics used. Thing is, the closest translation of it would be something in line with "Walk-on" (but even then it would still be confusing, some might just think this means they marches against the enemies and exchanged fire as in typical warfare during this time). Which can only be obvious to some but not for all. When I've came across the words of the tactic in English literature it's usually shown as "Ga-Pa" with a short explanation of what it means. here's one example:
Ga Pa: This was a tactical system unique at the time to the Swedish army. It was an extremely aggressive tactic that called for the troops to advance into hand to hand combat as quickly as possible, using the minimum of firing and the instead relying on the bayonet and the pike. Deployed in 4 ranks units would advance as quickly as possible, sometimes not even bothering to form line! At about 50 yards the unit would pause to allow the 2 rear ranks to fire a volley, at about 20 - 30 yards the front 2 ranks would do the same, then the whole unit would charge into combat.
Although this site in particular might not be reliable enough as a reference, it shows a good example of how it could be mentioned in the article. Now I don't know what's best, citing another wikipedia article mentioning the Ga-Pa method as Caroleans or quickly giving a short explanation of it in the current article, what do you think? (The book『Vägen till Poltava』which is the common reference in this article, explains this very good) And in case of mentioning it in the article, I could try doing so. The Swedish cavalry wedge formation mentioned in the article, could also be misleading as it was close to unique during the time and should not be confused with the typical "arrow shaped formation". Here the cavalry instead charged in a more looking "plow-formation" knee-behind-knee "under Swedish cavalry tactics" to get the impact as great as possible.
Yes, that would probably be ideal giving a more detailed explanation of what sites being refereed to. Great suggestions, I'll have a look at them along with fixing that map and making of the Friedrich von Hessen-Darmstadt article. Imonoz (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
