User talk:Kcdlp

This user may have left Wikipedia. Kcdlp has not edited Wikipedia since 1 January 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Currently I don't have any 'reliable' information about the battle of Mitau 1622, most Swedish books only speaks of skimrishes. I'll look more closely later. By curiosity, who was the winner? Imonoz (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there was only skirmishes in the war of 1617-1618 and no real field battle. However, Wolmar Farensbach (sides up with the Swedes) gives Dunamunde to the Swedes who captures Pernau some time later as well with a loss of 60 men. Then Farensbach switches side again and take away Dunamunde from the Swedes. So only success of the war is the conquer of Pernau and some smaller towns. The strict weather prevented any bigger operations both from the Swedish as well as the Polish side Imonoz (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can. However, I was thinking of making the articles of 'Zelbork' and 'Wenden I' fought in September 30 1626. Put if you start filling in the 1617-1618 war I'll add upon that. By the way, do you know what kind of battles these were: Puck and Vistula? sieges, naval battles or land battles? Is the battle of 'Kroppenhof' 1621 the battle of Mitua? Radoslaw Sikora made an article on that [1] is it this one you're working on? Imonoz (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure. If you find the information more reliable comparing to the sources listed in this discussion. Do you mean the Wenden battle between Horn and Pac or Horn and Gosiewski? Imonoz (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reliable I think you should add that description to the battle of 'the Zelbork article' wenden. You could also activate the "casualty" log in the infobar. Is there any casualties written for the battle of Zelbork? However, my only concern is this; Was Horn really meant to meet up with De la Gardie in Riga? According to the Swedish book a listed as a source, De la Gardie attacked Zelbork this day, and Horn was part of the operation to somehow cover the flank so the army under De la Gardie wouldn't be jamed between possible Polish attacks. Imonoz (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Well I think actually there was none coincidence that they both fought on the same day. Somehow they operated with eachother. But it could be possible the author in the books I sources found extended notes telling this. I will search some myself, but be pleased to add those new numbers you discovered and description of the battle as it seems very useful. I'll be back tomorow and see if I get something. Imonoz (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to write something about the battle of Vistula, though it may not be that much since information is lacking. Do you have good information about the battle of Ostród? Imonoz (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about the battles of Obermühlenberg 1565 (Swedish victory) and Runafer 1567 (Polish victory) during the Northern Seven Years War or Livonian War. These are interesting as they marks the first times Swedish and Polish forces fought since Sweden was declared indepentent. Imonoz (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on the Polish wikipedia about the Great Northern War and discovered some battles I've never heard of before, like Tryszkami, Druskennikami and Wilno (1702). Is there any more information about these battles as I really like to read about the GNW. Btw, I don't need that initally source for the battle of jakobstadt, but thanks anyway, I was just curious if this was taken after Lewenhaupts account. Imonoz (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, much thank you! There's not much books about this war in the Polish literature, right? I wonder why (in Swedish eyes it's the most interesting because the decline of the empire). However, there was a battle (or skirmish probably, it should be called) in Chybice 1704 where 500 Swedes were defeated by 3,000 Saxon and Polish troops according to Radoslaw Sikora. What makes this battle (or skirmish) so interesting is that winged hussars participated in it. Imonoz (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's even possible for an army of MAX 7,000 men to hold 1,000 banners, I'm not sure though as I don't quite know the differences between banners and standards, judging for this note however, the Swedes captured some 50 banners (or standards). Compared to Narva 1700, where they were 40,000 Russians (according to some modern Russian sources) the Swedes captured 230 standards (once again I don't know if banners are included in standards). Was it a Polish or a Swedish source you got that from?

The source regarding the battle of Poznań (1704) is taken from here (the same site I showed you before, about the battle of Jakobstadt). I haven't studied this battle in detail, yet so I can't answer you that for sure.

Regarding the Northern Seven Years' War, according to 'Sveriges Krig' Sweden and Russia were not allied, yet not in war either (since their previous one 1554-1557). The settlement was instable between Sweden and Russia after the peace of 1557 and war finally broke out again 1570. From a wikipedia point of view, they could be seen as belligerents since they were not fighting eachother, but they did not have (from what I know) an alligance with Sweden. I will take a closer look at this.

I have another question though, when was the 'First Northern War'? Or is the first northern war actually the Northern seven years war or the livonian war? Imonoz (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I took a closer look into the link I sent you and I found this (on old Swedish, hardly able to google-translate):

• altså warade detta giästabudet 3 Timmar, och fingo wij till byte effterfölliande Trophéer. 11 Wackra Mettalslangor, såssom och 11 Fanor, 40 Trummor, der af woro 12 förgylta, förutan mycken Amunition, med 500:de wagnar, hwilka alla woro lastade med allehanda wackra saker, och i wagnarna lågo 40 Nya Kåsteliga Fanor af Fijnt Dammasch, der af woro 12 så prächtiga som någon sin kunde giöras och woro de runtom besatte med Silfwer och gull Fransor, såssom och ett tusende små Fanor, sampt deras Fält Cassa, hwilken bestodh af 7000 R:dr medh en myckenheet Silfwer af allehanda Sorter.

My translation goes roughly as this: The fight went on for about 3 hours, and we captured many trophies. 11 metal cannons, 11 standards, 40 drums (12 of them used), and a lot of ammunition. We also captured 500 wagons all filled with remarkable items; 40 precious standards (12 of them so precious that they were silver and gold folded), and also some thousand smaller banners as well as all of their field checkout of 7,000 (R:dr ?). Sent by Caleb de Frumeries.

So yes, it seems like he was right. I will look into the (possible) peace treaty between Sweden and Russia more closely and come back with resluts. In Sweden, the first northern war is actually the Polish second (1655-1660).

I am also trying to find some information about the battles in the Second Northern War, since now, they're rather thin and it's not very much information at all except for the battle of Warsaw. However, it's really hard in Swedish literature (most probably since the Swedish royal castle burnt up late 17th century with many letters). Is there anymore information about the battles in Polish sources which isn't on Wikipedia now? Imonoz (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information on the battles. Also, the battles already listed on the English campaignbox, there's not much description about them and for the most part strenght and/or casualty reports are missing (like the bigger battles - Battle of Ujście, Sobota, Wojnicz, Grudziądz where casualty reports are missing), is there any books in Polish which would fill this in? Imonoz (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, as you can see, I recently changed the strenght of the Swedish force in the Battle of Ujście after Peter Frost's 'After the Deluge'. Do you have this book or have you read it? Imonoz (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. In some books I have available, it just says "insignificant or very light". However, I would suspect the 4 or as in Swedish wikipedia 5 killed might come from 'Den oövervinnerlige' by Peter Englund, I'm not sure though. However, I was gonna see with you, I just made a picture explaining the timelines for each faction in the great northern war, as you can see here. I was just going to see with you if there's anything wrong with it you can see, if so I will change the errors and reupload it. (The blue colors is Sweden or the ones allied to Sweden, light blue color is unofficial war time, darker blue is official. Same with red for the allies. the striped grey and blue/red in the end of Sweden, Saxony and Poland is an inactive official war.) I'm a little bit unsure of when the inofficial war started with Poland-Lithuania, as it is now it is as the same time as Saxony as Lithuanian troops participated in the siege of Riga 1700. I'm also highley unsure of the participating Ottoman Empire. In English wikipedia it says from 1710-1714. However as it is now, it's only from 1710-11 when the pruth campaign started. Imonoz (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Hm, during Bender, was really the Ottoman Empire in war with Sweden (as a country) and not just personal affairs with Charles XII? According to Robert Frost in The Northern Wars, the peace of Pruth 1711 between the Russians and Ottomans "effectively ended the Ottoman intervention in the Great Northern War (wikipedia here)" as the other peace "1713" ended a 25 years long conflict between the countries according to him didn't involve the GNW. From which exact dates did the Polish civil war of 1704-1709 last from? And when exactly in 1709 did Agustus II take back the throne? Imonoz (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I updated the picture with your feedback. Imonoz (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 1621-1625 there was only some skirmishes missing. In 1626-1629 I would say 'Battle of Grubin/Grebin present-day Grabiny-Zamec, Legowo' 1627 July, where Åke Tott and Alexander Leslie with 180 musketeers and 150 reiters managed to rout 13 Polish companies of cavalry (Swedish sources) in command of Stanisław Koniecpolski. Also, 'Battle of Lemsal' Mars 1627, between Horn and Pawlowicz where the Swedes won. 'Battle of Listenhoffen 1626' (Polish victory). Why is it called the Polish-Swedish war (1626-1629) and not (1625-1629)? Imonoz (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the battle of grebin was in Swedish sources fought in 1627, against part of the army of Stanisław Koniecpolski. Is there any Polish information about this battle (commanders, strenght etc)? I don't know anything about Listenhoffen, however, according to Daniel Staberg it was fought in 1626 (from what he wrote on a forum). I don't know much about Legowo either, only that Radoslaw Sikora mentioned a battle being fought there in July 1627 (this one could be th Grebin one, I don't know the exact location of them, are they close?).

About the battle of Grebin, here's a short description: Åke Tott and Alexander Leslie's army of 330 was ambushed by a part of the army of Koniecpolski (13 banners). Somehow, the musketeers of 180 managed to get on the Polish flank, meanwhile, Åke Tott with his cavalry charged so fiercly that the Polish cavalry had to retreat leaving approx 150 men killed and 400 captured on the field as well as 4 banners lost. Åke Tott got promoted somehow after the battle I think which "in Swedish eyes" was kinda heroic.

The war was called "Polish-Swedish war (1625-1629) previously, but got changed to 1626- on Wikipedia. I don't know why since the Livonian war war actually started 1625. Maybe a confusion between the Prussian war which started 1626? Imonoz (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read it all through, with the help of translator. There's some heavily flaws here between the Polish and Swedish side it seems. So there's two descriptions from Swedish members, as I don't quite understood everything I'll ask, do they mention any fight with the 12 banners Swedish cavalry versus 8 banners of Cosack cavalry in any of the Swedish sources? Are the both Swedish sources related to eachother or how are they parted (strenght, casualties etc)?

I don't get this sentence "Szwedzi mieli mieć 3 zabitych (1 rajtara i 2 muszkieterów) oraz 8 do 10 rannych (‘pociętych’ więc rannych w starciu wręcz)." from the looks of it's about Swedish casualties, what does they say? This battle could actually be worth making, but how would we do it? Since the sources are heavily two-sided. It seems, since they lost 3-4 banners, the fight must have been quite fierce, which probably would include great casualties since banners are worth the company.

The post where "Sikora's mentioning it" is actually not Sikora who made. It's made by another member who gathered a lot of different sources, he states that Sikora mentioned a battle there, the link is here it's quite a long post, but somewhere near the end. Imonoz (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the Swedish strenght should be 330 men (five banners), casualties 3 killed and 8-10 wounded? The Polish strenght 8 banners (from the Polish source)? or 5 (just to get a confirmation, did Axel write that Poland participated with 5 banners or that Sweden did, as Hoppe mentioned 5 Swedish banners this could be a missunderstanding)? Polish casualties: 4 killed and 6 captured (not complete list) or 150 killed and wounded? From this source. This source also says that the party of Tott and Lesllie initally was 500 men big on their scouting mission, but that it probably got decreased during their way to the battle. It also mentions an ambush on the Swedish troops. from of how I see it, the Poles maybe ambushed the Swedes first as the Polish source mentioned drove some Swedes away, and then when the Polish troops percucated the Swedes ambushed them again? Imonoz (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that source doesn't give any footnote of where it's initally taken. Yes, the 400 captured from the Swedish book "Vägen till Stormakt" seems rather incorrect, since they were outnumbered I don't think they could possibly hold 400 captured (It's possible the author mixed this up with another battle, if there were not two battles near Grebin, one in 1627 and the other in 1628). This source simply mentions 150 Poles remained on the field after the battle, which is dead and wounded. The 9 captured Poles are most certain included with the wounded Poles, giving it to around 150 casualties in total. So, if the Poles chased the Swedish cavalry of approx 150 men, and later got ambushed by another 180 musketeers hiding, would that make it a 'part of the plan' for the Swedes? To trick the enemies into an ambush? Imonoz (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there was another battle in 1628, but according to the book 'Vägen till stormakt' the Grebin battle was in 1628. What happened in the battle of Grebin 1626? Imonoz (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read about that battle in the book "Vägen till Stormakt" it's not much, it says: Gustav Horn attacked Polish marshal Pawlowicz (it doesn't say what his first name was) near the city of Lemsal, 1627. 500 Polish soldiers were killed and one hundred captured. This battle along with other skirmishes forced the Polish troops near Kircholm to cross the river of Duna on 30 Mars, where several hundred drowned. That was all unfortunately. Imonoz (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User ip: '75.155.224.187', changed a lot in the battle descriptions of the war 1626-1629 when I was away, most of them changes I think is completely b*llshit tbh. First of all he changed the numbers of dead Poles and Lithuanians in the battle of Wallhof to about 500-1000, (I remember we had complain about that earlier) this is however completely unrespectable for the Swedish view who state as much as 2,700 dead. Don't you agree? Also in the Battle of Trzciana he changed back to the typical flaw 1,200 dead Swedes, which is obviously not true, this for example. Further more he switched from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to Poland in some battles, I don't know if this is correct or not. However, as he haven't provided a single source to any of his claims I will probably remove them all. And I really hope I have your support in this. If this is gonna be a one-sided article about the 1626-1629 war, I'm not sure I wanna stick around and help it to expand. Imonoz (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That casualty report restricts only those "left on the field" however, the main part, according to Swedish sources were cut down during their flight, much like Kircholm. Most Swedish sources are going for the 1,500 killed. But as I said earlier 2,700 appears as well. Some Swedish historians agree with that 7,000 Lithuanians participating in the battle is exegerated, however, also the 2,000 for the lowest. The mid point uses to land somewhere around 4,000. Also, some Swedish historians suspect the 1,500 Lithuanian troops was rather the causalty he suffered and not his strenght. But I'm not here to discuss what source(es) are the correct ones, but to simply undo his changes for the simple reason of none sources included or ignoration of sources already there. It could as well be 500-2,700 killed in that sentence. Same goes for Gniew, where it then could be 50-4,000 killed Polish-Lithuanian soldiers (if taking respect forboth sides reports). I'm glad you agree with the undoing. Imonoz (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By slight curiosity I want to know where the number of 9,000 killed Swedes in Kircholm is initially taken from, well I know for example Radoslaw Sikora claimed this, but what is it based on? If you know I would be very happy if you helped me out here, I don't want to change anything in the article. Swedish works use to go after 5,000 killed, and propably are counting like this:

According to the Swedish book Vägen till Stormakt by Claes-Göran Isacson the author claims; there was 9,129 national Swedes in the battle (out of 11,452), the list of the counted Swedish dead after the battle according to "Kammarkollegiet" was 3,854 - however, these were ONLY the national Swedish regiments counted. Which means, the highest possible killed for the Swedes would be "6,677" including mercenaries, and the lowest "3,854". Then also 500 was captured giving the amount to 7,177 maximum casualties (killed+captured) for the Swedes. So, if the Polish claimed to have counted 8,300 bodies, this would mean at least 1,623 were Polish soldiers or Swedish and Polish campfollowers. The book, Warrior Kings of Sweden by Gary Dean Peterson says the Polish soldier's casualites could amount to 900 killed, campfollowers NOT included. With some calcualtion the correct amount of casualties would be stated as = Around 3,854 national Swedes killed (42,2% of the initial national Swedes) - Around 980 mercenaries killed, (42,2% of the initial mercenaries) rounding up the 3,854 killed nationals to 4,000 and the 980 mercenaries to 1,000 giving it to around 5,000 killed + 500 captured. (actually, the number would be even less maybe, 4,800 since I counted the 100 captured in the mercenaries force as kills) This is also agreed by many Swedish books and historians and by "SMB", this is probably how they counted *Note, this number is of "Around form" and could be even less, or even more. The Polish killed are estimated between 100 and 900 = Around 500 killed Poles and then leaving the 2,800 of the 8,300 inital bodies found and buried as Swedish and Polish campfollowers.

Also, about the Crossing of the Duna 1701, I found out Anders Fryxell: Lebensgeschichte Karl’s des Zwölften, Königs von Schweden. Nach dem schwedischen Original frei übertragen von Georg Friedrich von Jenssen-Tusch, 5 Bde., Vieweg, Braunschweig 1861, Band 1 does mention a force of 6,000 Polish-Lithuanian soldiers marched against Riga (I'm not sure these are the force siegeing Riga in 1700) but that they also participated in the battle of Duna. I'm very concerned about this object as Russian and Swedish soldiers also mentions Commonwealth troops participating in the battle. Is there any Polish source which strictly tells us the other way? Do you know what Sikora says about this? Imonoz (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found some information about the battle of Druskieniki 1702, and actually, there were two battles here in march. this and this. In the first encounted, the Swedes won and managed to capture 10 cannons, Alexander Hummerhielm then persecuted the retreating Lithuanians with 240 (or even 130) men for some days, before he eventually got ambushed by a 6,000[?] men strong force (four German regiments included), however, the superior force was initally repulsed. A second attack surrounded the Swedes who were all cut down, except for 20 (all wounded) who were instead captured. Do you have any further information about this battle? Or the other ones you listed in the Great Northern War? As the attack on Charles XII camp in 1701. Imonoz (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an exact number of the captured (small) banners in the Battle of Saladen, according to this source at page 211, 1,058 small banners were captured by the Swedes. Imonoz (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that source 'Barkman' mention how big the Swedish force was prior to the battle? I've also encountered the number 7,600 before in a Swedish source, don't know if it was him. Well, according to Saladen, one just doesn't know if it's true or not, this for example suggests it's probably an exaggerated number. Others suggest it's reliable. Imonoz (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Radoslaw Sikora about the Battle of Duna issue, he answered there was 1 regiment of Polish soldiers, however they were not part of the state-army. I've got another questionmark though, it's about the battle of Kokenhusen 1601, what does Polish sources say about dead and wounded Swedes? Also, the battle of Koniecpol, you don't think you could maybe add an infobox with strenghts and casualties? I've tried but google translator dont work very well with that Polish article. It's actually a pretty important battle in the GNW. Imonoz (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea who commanded them, but I can try to contact him again and ask. There was a Ferdinand Kettler who commanded in the battle against the Swedes, he became later duke of Courland and Courland was during the time under Polish rule, or were they independent? Maybe he commanded the troops but I'll ask. I don't know what type of regiment they were either. However, regarding Kokenhausen, strangely enough, most Swedish sources speak of 3,000 losses for the Swedish side. So I guess I'll add that into the article. Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, I see. No, it doesn't bother me, I'm always looking to investigate new things, I think it's funny. :) There's not much informatiion about that battle (that I have access to), some stripes on google books and a few books is all I found. However, it's said the whole campaign was a failure. The Swedes had 10 artillery guns and 1,670 cavalry, 950 dragoons and 250 infantry when they first started to march against Gdov, during the battle they were probably fewer (since a lot of people died during that war of the plague). The Gdov garnison consisted of 1,500 cavalry and 300 Streltsy soldiers. De la Gardie suggested capitulation but the Russians refused, seeing bigger Russian forces marching on him to aid Gdov De la Gardie had to retreat. During his retreat he was attacked by superior Russian troops. De la Gardie ordered his rearguard to cover the retreat (the actual battle) and this avoided the whole force to be annihilated. However, Swedish sources (as always with Russian sources, for exempel during the battle of Walk, Swedish sources claim 1,500 casualties for the Russians, while Russian sources only mentions a handful, even though their commander and stadards were taken) having a dispute about casualties, they find 1,000 to be exaggerated, but doesn't mention any casualties of their own. Imonoz (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, are those only 'field-troops' or are garrisons included in those numbers? Is there any numbers on Polish troops as well (facing the Swedes/Russians etc)? From what I've read, about 50,000 Polish troops faced the Swedes when they invaded. And by the way, I saw your edits regarding the battle of Koniecpol looks awesome. Imonoz (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "real strenght"? Are you saying irregulars are not real strenght? As long as they're orginaized and in the ranks, they have to be concidered "real strenght". Milita/peasants, however, is not real strenght since they most of the time, seem to be rather disorginaized (and as you know, Sweden suffered some great casualties to these). I think it would be good to add this to the infobox on Second Northern War and The Deluge (history).

• Swedish book "Sveriges krig" mentions: Wittenberg's force of 14,000 mercenaries (close to 14,194), Charles X 15,000 (your sources mentioned only 11,979) and 7,000 in Livonia under Gustaf Horn later appointed Magnus Gabriel De la Gardie, (these were mostly directed to counter possible threats from Russia).
• Swedish book "Karl X krig" mentions: Wittenberg's force of 12,700 (more were later recruited so it fits good with the 14,194), Charles X force of 13,650 (later 15,000) and the Livonian force (including troops shipped from Finland) of 9,000 men under Gustaf Horn (these were mostly directed to counter possible threats from Russia). Total: here he mentions a total force of 41,000 Swedes. The book also mentions, the Russians had 80,000 troops against Poland along with 40,000 Cossacks. Only a 40,000 strong Polish army (23,700 PLC + 16,300 Tatars?) were able to face them.

How large was the Polish-Lithuanian C force during 1656 when they and Russia signed a armistice? Surely many came from the Eastern front to counter the Swedes. Imonoz (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, my bad. I think I found some facts on the 1 regiment Polish troops in the battle of Duna, here it's on the website you recommended. The information is of cource not reliable but I thought you should know. Gwardii Krolewski Pulk (1 batalion). And happy new year in arrears Imonoz (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen any numbers for the Swedish casualties, but the regular number for the Polish is 3,000 killed (the only number I've encountered). Imonoz (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like another big flaw around the Polish-Swedish wars. Yet quite interesting to lose only 70 men dead and wounded to losses of ~1,500 dead and wounded. Still, being the losing part. I guess, in this case, the article needs a two sided casualty report (since it's a huge flaw) Polish sources: 70 - Swedish sources 3,000. 70-3,000 just doesn't look good. What's your opinion on this? What does Sikora mentions about strenght on each side? Is there any other battle flawed like this you know of during the Second Northern War?

Do you possibly know anything about the battle of Tver 1609? Imonoz (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, I'll change the infobox in a minute. Regarding the battle of Klissow it's usaly said the combined Saxon-Polish army were around 24,000 men, this would mean (according to Sikora's numbers of the Poles) that the Saxons were close to 20,000. The first battle of Tver 1609 is considered in Swedish sources inconclusive, whereof the second a Swedish-Russian victory. If I'm not misstaken, the combined Swede-Russian army had around 5,000 Swedes and the 3,000 Russians. Have you seen anything about casualties? I also have to ask, out of curiosity, is there anything new Sikora has come up with which doesn't avantages the Poles in strenght or casualties during the Polish-Swedish battles (there's no hard feelings intended in this, it's just that whenever someone's speaking of the works of Sikora, it always seems like he's somehow making it look better for the Poles)? Like in the battle of Warsaw (1705), instead of 9,500 Polish-Saxon forces he claims he found a Saxon source saying they were actually 6,500 and not 9,500. Yet, majority of the German sources go for the 9,500. Also he didn't do any (or enough) research about if the Swedes had their "actual" strenght of 2,000, which in some letters, barely had 1,800 in actual strenght.

Actually when looking at it, there were quite lot of field battles taking place in 1609, first is Kamenka (15 may) between Sweden and Russia where Sweden wins. Then there's Torzjok (17 Juni) where Sweden also wins over a Russian-Polish combined force (Casualties: Sweden 20 - Russia-Poland Heavy). Another is Troitse-monastery (located in Troitsko-Sergijev, 28 october) where De la Gardie defeats a Polish force which had sieged the monastery. And Rzjov (mid April, 1610) where Pierre De la Ville with 400 men attacks a Polish camp and wins. And the it's Klushino which as you know ends with a decisive victory for the Poles (it has to be noted though, during the Polish attack on the Swedish camp, the mercenaries in Swedish duty started a mutiny where they savaged the Swedish baggage. Also when the battle was over, the French and English mercenaries started to fight eachother which most likely also inflicted in some of the "high" casualties) Imonoz (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not based on sources? What is it based on? In Swedish eyes, the Poles withdrawed relativity quickly after having suffered 2 volleys of musket fire and engagement with pikemen. I've never heard of the Swedes having problems taking on the Polish counter attack (not witnesses or anything) but rather that revealed the weak flank of the Saxon-Polish army. I've not seen any description of the first battle of Tver, but since Swedish sources claims it to be inconclusive would rather be them being untouched in the battle (if the russians took the heavy losses) or if they consider the importance of the battle to really small, since after some days they won the victory where the Poles withdrawed.

Sikora wrote that somewhere (battle of warsaw 1705) in the Total War Center forums, I can't really find it now, I'll reply when I do.

Yes of cource he's using both sides of information (otherwise he would hardy be called an historian), according the Klushino, I've read somewhere his English page of the battle and if I'm not mistaken there's none words what so ever, that the mercenaries started a mutiny on the Swedish commanders and savaged their own baggage or even fought eachother (increasing the casualties). And that's Swedish sources, if he read them, he surely didn't miss that point (I think it was this one).

In everyone of those battles you listed, Swedish historians have used Polish sources. Wenden, what's the mark with this one? There's hardly any battle description in Swedish sources, or is it the 300 killed Swedes which is your concern? Should the Swedish historians ignore the Swedish rooster list and rather go for the Polish sources of 1,900? Wallhof, 7,000 numbers for the Lithuanians is indeed exegerated and Swedish books has reacted to this as early as 1936 with "Sveriges Krig 1611-1632 Polska kriget" where they claim the Polish force to be 1600 men infantry and 2600 cavalry instead of the 7,000 standard bias claim. Gniew, Swedish baised sources in this battle would be around 4,000 killed Poles, it's obvious the historians used Polish sources. This battle is however interesting, "as our long discussion", Sikora managed to twist it to an inconclusive engagement after all these years. And I yet don't see how Poland possibly achived as much as Sweden with the battle itself (but this we've gone back and forth with). Gorzno? The Swedish historians even used Polish numbers for thier casualties here (some Swedish sources from the battle indicates around 4,000 killed Poles here as well). The battle of Klissow, the 660 Polish foot, 6,640 Polish horse is not even a Swedish claim but rather a Polish (historian Marek Wagner) and this is what the Swedes most used.

And so it's Battle of Chojnice (1656) where Swedes claim 3,500 Polish killed and Poland 18 killed. Still, Sweden managed to capture 36 banners. The question is then, how hard did the Poles really hold on to their banners (which indicates the prideness of an army) if they only lost 18 killed? Did they give them away? Imonoz (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some things have to be noted according the battle of Klissow, first of all, August II didn't want to attack the Swedish army even though the Swedes were only around 8,000 men strong (4,000 men arrived later before the battle under the command of Carl gustav Mörner, and also, around 9,000 more Swedish soldiers were planned to come and August knew this, however they didn't make it to the battle), the reason for this, is that he awaited the Polish crown army. Why would he await an army of just 3,000-4,000 and risk the enemies being reinforced by another 13,000 men? Or why didn't he just attack the 8,000 Swedes with his 16,000-17,000 men right away before the Swedes had reinforcements if the Polish crown army wasn't that big? The Swedish lieutenant Erik or Nils Gyllenstierna says in a letter that the Polish crown army was 12,000 man strong (it has to be noted here though, that he says the Polish army barely were engaged since they withdrawed early. So here both Swedish and Polish sources agrees). The book "Stormakten sista krig" mentions an army of 8,000 Poles and about 600 who stormed the Swedish assault. Otto Vellink, the commander of the Swedish left flank (after the death of duke of holstein-gottorp) who took upon the Polish charge wrote: The Polish cavalry held study after we fired our first volley, however, after the secondary volley they wanted no more and broke and fled back from where they came The Swedes then persecuted the fleeing Poles all the way to the village of Kije. The book "Svenska Krig" also agrees and says the Polish counter attack was stopped by two infantry regiments who followed the assault on the Polish flank. None of the Swedish sources I've read, mentions anything about the initally Swedish assault on the Polish flank was 'repulsed' but rather halted when Frederick IV, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp was killed early by artillery fire. That's when the Poles counter attacked. None of the Swedish sources mentions anything about the Poles "defeated" the Swedish cavalry but rather halted it for some time.

In Swedish books, the battle of Klushino and the Swedish army goes like this: The mercenaries started a mutiny on the Swedish commanders even before the battle had started, as the Poles launched a surprise attack, the mercenaries thought them to be overwhelming odds and started to loot the Swedish baggagetrain, De la Gardie tried to stop them here. After a while he managed to gather some of them whom he counter attacked the Poles with, and routed some of the Poles. After the battle or during the end, the French and English mercenaries started to fight eachother. De la Gardie was only able to get away with 400 Swedes and Finns, the rest were either captured or deserted the army to the Poles.

• About Wenden (1601), Have you seen any Swedish source denying that fact? I haven't, but neither have I seen any that agrees with it.
• Wallhof, initally Swedish sources spoke of 7,000 as I said, but "Sveriges Krig 1611-1632" made some accurate research of both Swedish and Polish sources and came up with right above 4,000 men. 1,200 Poles had died and another 150 captured.
• Gniew, here's a brand by well known historian Anders Fryxell who mentions the casualty at 4,000 for the Poles. The 30 killed Swedish is only considered to the main battle of 1 October and not any of the pre-skirmishes of 22 sep or 29 sep, and so is the 500 killed Poles. This is what you wrote about the battle of 22 septermber on battle of Gniew "losses the first day of fighting it 360-500 dead Swedes". What author wrote that? And why did that person ignore the information of Oxenstierna then?
• Gorzno, no, the Swedish infantry was not broken in this battle, they hardy participated until the pursuit stage (there was some Polish soldiers guarding the crossing but they were routed for no big Swedish loss). What does Polish strenght and casualties say about this battle?
• Chojnice, the interesting thing with banners overall, is that they're hardly never exegerated since banners existed and anyone could ask for them to show (so commanders usaly don't or never exegerate their numbers). So we can assume here that the numbers of captured banners is most likely true, both for the 36 captured Polish banners as the 3 captured Swedish banners. The Swedish version is that they pretty much attacked as many regiments as they could. Imonoz (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask also, what does Sikora mentions about Saxon-Polish casualties in the battle of Klissow? He says 1,500 killed if I'm not mistaken? And the Battle of Punitz what does Polish sources say about that? Who won? I know Oskar Sjöström (Swedish historian who wrote "ett slag färgat rött" about the battle of fruastadt) that this battle was rather inconclusive than a Swedish victory. Imonoz (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheval de frise or not, what mather does it really make? The Polish charge failed. Well, if the volleys showed little effectiveness, it surpirses me why the well known husaria fled. Even in 1626, the musket fire were decisive to the Hussars. But then again, there's always another excuse for an failed attack with the husaria. - Bad terrain, the enemies had cover, Cheval de frise etc. It sounds all so cheesy. I mean, didn't the Polish army had reconnaissance parties to prevent such things to happen? That's right, the Poles wasn't caught during the persuit, that's why the Swedes turned back when they reached Kije and from the attacked the Saxons in their back. There's two (Polish) pictures on the article of the battle of Klissow which also agrees with the Kije persuit. As I said earlier, the Swedish cavalry wasn't routed and broke, it was halted because of the Polish counter-attack. Why would they aid the infantry in a Polish frontal assault if they had 'as you say Cheval de frise' and pikes to stop them with?

Klushino, Much like in the battle of Battle of Czarne, the Swedish mercenaries started a mutiny after some initial fighting. The morale of the mercenaries was even before the battle low because of unpayed ransoms. De la Gardie had seperated the national Swedes from the mercenaries because of this. The Polish army (which in Swedish sources were 5,000-10,000 big) caught the Swedes by surpirse while they slept, De la Gardie however managed to gather some cavalry to counter them. The Polish vanguard was beaten away but then right after the Swedish calary was beaten back by the Poles. The Swedish infantry didn't engage but instead defended themselves inside wagonforts. The Russian army stood still a distance away and their commander fled against Moscow. The mercenaries threatened De la Gardie when he tried to stop them from looting the baggage trains (even De la Gardies baggage train was looted). The whole Swedish camp was in riot because of this, when the Poles broke in. Konrad Link was the mercenary traitor who had negotiated with the Poles without De la Gardie's or Evert Horn's knowledge. De la Gardie then asked to meet the Polish commander, which he did. There he confessed that the Poles had won, but not through bravery but the mercenaries betrayal. He asked if the Swedish soldiers could march back and not being forced to join the Polish army which Zalkovski accepted with that De la Gardie wouldn't keep fighting for the Russian Tsar, which De la Gardie accepted. When De la Gardie arrived back to his camp there was not many soldiers left, the majority of them had already crossed over to the Polish side. To previal the rest of them to go over, De la Gardie shared his last money from the 'fields cash' where of Link arrived back and started to trigger the soldiers. That's when the second looting of the Swedish baggage appeard. De la Gardie and Horn once tried to stop them but failed. That's when the French mercenaries started to fight the English and German mercenaries which caused heavy casualties. When both sides (mercenaries) had got enough the survivors went over to the Polish side, De la Gardie was left alone with only 400 national Swedes. De la Gardie and Horn went West and there met with the Frenchman De la Ville with some hundred cavalry. The both sides camped that night but on the morning they woke up noticing the French soldiers once again looting the Swedish bagagge, but somehow De la Gardie and Horn managed to survive and together with a few Swedish soldiers left went for the border. However, the main task De la Gardie was ordered to do from the Swedish king Karl IX was accomplished, to save Moscow and the russian Tsar from the Polish siege. This was a detailed version of the Swedish sources.

Wenden, Why are those whom didn't participate in the battle less reliable? Most likely they also based their numbers from sources of those who participated (or how did they else based their sources)?. It's worth to note though, in the Swedish book "Vägen till Stormakt" the author says that somehow, the Swedes managed to capture the Polish artillery along with 11 of their banners in the fight and 100 captured.

Wallhof, Why are you so sure about the army size of 1,500-2,000?

Gniew, I suspect it should be dead and wounded, and yes, he notes the Swedish casualties to 500. However, these are most likely the casualties from the whole battle of all the skirmishes. The 30 dead Swedes and 500 dead Polish is only from the last battle, it says in "Sveriges Krig" = On the morning of 21 September (1 October), Gustav decided to storm the Polish entrenchments. At 16:00 the Poles sees themselves forced to retreat with a loss of 500 men killed and Sweden 30 men killed.

Okey, thanks. Imonoz (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it had an impact on the withdrawal or not, I don't find that interesting. They withdrawed and that's it. Where did Lubomirski captured those several hundred Swedes? It wasn't necessary in 1626, that the Swedish infantry stopped the Polish hussars with infantry fire, but particulary from that time to the Great Northern War when muskets had decisively improved with Gustavus Adolphus reforms. Well, you can stick with your Polish version of having troubles crossing the terrain (Sweden picked this place for the hussars to not have an easy way to cross) and that the Swedish infantry did little damage, it's alright but when you have time you could also read the Swedish version, amoungst other things, it mentions the Polish cavalry suffered heavy losses from the musket and artillery fire. And whilst you think about it, winged hussars did not impressively defeat the Swedish army any war after that of 1600-1611. And why do you think that is, cause every terrain they charged over was bad? Let me answer you, the Swedish infantry was radically improved, here's some notes from Daniel Staberg. In Klissow, they certainly knew that the same way the Poles knew that it wasn't all the Swedish regiments assaulting their position (I can't go more detailed than this, but they knew). And I said the Swedish cavalry was halted. The Polish perspective of "we managed to attack and rout their cavalry" sounds rather much like in Warsaw 1656, when they claimed they broke several Swedish infantry regiments while both Swedish and German sources agrees that the hussar charge here didn't do any 'greater damage'.

About Klushino, I said "caught the Swedes by surpirse while they slept" with that I mean they marched on the Swedes in battle formation while they were sleeping giving them only a little time to prepare for the Polish attack. Exactly when did De la Gardie flee? Whilst he was fighting the Polish initally assault, tried to stop the mercenaries from looting the camp or when he talked to the Polish commander? And what does Russian sources have to do with this? There wasn't any Russians nearby. What I've read, the Russians early made an mass rout for the records of the defeat of the Swedish army, that's when the Polish chased them down. You asked for the Swedish version and here it was. Yes, in 1610 Moscow had carried out a two years long siege. When De la Gardie marched against Moscow, the siegeing army retreated and De la Gardie marched into Moscow. This was his objective of the campaign to help Vasilij Sjujskij. In return Sweden would get Kexholm. However, the tsar refused and that triggered the Ingrian War. And you have to remember, 5,000-10,000 Poles is overestimated in Polish eyes, not Swedish. As 9,000 dead Swedes in Kircholm is overestimated in Swedish eyes but not Polish.

You said the Sejmin general didn't participate in the battle, but not that he had never seen the banners. 700 men with 11 banners? As you know, in the battle of Saladen the army of 5,000 held more than 1,000 banners so I don't quite know what you're trying to achive with this. I've said this earlier, there's barely any information of this battle, I just read out of a book. However, the authors name is Claes-Göran Isacson, you can try to contact him with your problem wheter the Poles captured 11 or 13 banners from the Swedes, or where he got this information from of the caputred Polish banners. This is nothing which interests me much and it was you who brought it up with the "Swedes historians ignores Polish sources". Yet that Sejmin guy seemed rather Polish and not Swedish.

If I'm not mistaken the Polish pattern rolls during this time in Lithuania fielded 4,518 infantry and cavalry on Jan Sapieha, Krzysztof Radziwill and Aleksander Gosiewski. So where was Krzysztof Radziwill and Aleksander Gosiewski during this time, and how many soldiers did they have? Why didn't they aid Sapieha from the incoming threat of Gustav Adolf, and why was Sapieha surprised, didn't he have scouts for this?

So what does Polish losses say about the battle of October 1? Imonoz (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The army from Kircholm differs with the army of Gustav heavily. Not to speak of the lack of pikes, the failed using of mixed spanish and dutch system, poorer firearms, caracole tactics, less trained soldiers etc, the one at Kircholm was overall a bad army. - Gustav barely went out in field? - Swedish sources tells the opposite (that the Poles barely came out in the field but instead used guerilla tactics), not to speak of how he verged a quick winning so he could enter the thirty years war. Gustav even died in field, how much was Sigismund of a warrior king to comparison? Yes, that book is probably heavily based on Swedish sources, hence the name I gave the link, Swedish "version".

Daniel Staberg listed those battle in which the winged hussars had been defeated by either Swedish infantry or cavalry, not that every battle was a Polish defeat. Just to counter the view of "invincible hussar" some Polish bias sources go for.

Twer 1609, first battle not lost according to Swedish sources. Wallhof 1626, Swedes being numerically inferior in Swedish sources. Dirschau 1627, defeat of Polish cavalry (winged hussars amoung them) the first day. Treiden 1627, there was one encounter at Treiden in either 1627 or 28 in which the Swedes won I believe, I'll try to look for it if I can find anything. Gniezno 1656, in Swedish sources this battle lasted for 4 hours, quite an impressive result only losing 70 men dead and wounded against 500 killed, while fighting in 4 hours and still not being the victor. Warsaw 1656, the winged hussars were repusled here. Klisow 1702, they were defeated here as well. Saladen 1703, you sure about that?

And how many of those battle were pure field battles with large armies and not any skirmishes? I know the Swedes won a lot of skirmishes here as well, only not worth mentioning in Wikipedia beacuase of their low strategical value.

Does it say where he escaped? Could he been mistaken for escaping back to his camp to rally his troops? Because that's where he went in Swedish sources. De la Gardie, was overall a good commander during this time, it was rather (or more than his fault) the low morale of the mercenaries which caused (or inflicted some) to the defeat. And the low morale started when the Tsar didn't pay his ransoms to the Swedish troops which he had promised, therefor the mercenaries looted the Swedish baggage. And from where did Barkman take those numbers (if there's not any footnotes, one can't know if those are Polish, as you suggested)?

But he must have taken those numbers from somewhere or did they just flew out of the thin air? 5000/1000=5, one banner at 5 soldiers (5 times lower on each banner than what you noted a Polish army "should" have had during this time, 25). 700/11=64, 11 banners at 64 soldiers (2 1/2 times lower on each banner than what you noted a Polish army "should" have had during this time, 150), so it could as well be realistic, who knows maybe some Swedish soldiers managed to loot the Polish baggage if they had any. I don't know the description of this battle, you probably knows it better. I want to drop this discussion as I barely know the battle. What does it mather if it's a Polish or a Swedish source in this case? Yes, I reacted to that to, that the 11 banners and 100 captured fitted in with the Swedish description of losses, that's why I removed it from Wikipedia a time ago.

Here's a user on the Twcenter who seems reliable, who is not Swedish (I think American or English) and his thoughts about the battle of Wallhof using amoung others Radoslaw Sikora and Daniel Staberg as footnotes. You can find the text (which starts on "The Polish forces in the region of Wallmoja..") 3 "steps" of textsquares below the white picture of a cannon. He basically says from hearing Sikora's and Staberg's opinion that a force of 4,000 could as well be possibe (but no more). And that he thinks 2,000 is too few and why he thinks that etc. You should read it, it's quite good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imonoz (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't understood what your meant with those mercenaries, but a big reason for the failure (from the Swedish side) at Kircholm was the lack of pikes - they had pikes but not enough, same goes for Weissenstein. However, it doesn't take away that the Poles used a good tactic and their cavalry was way superior to those of the Swedes. But overall, every soldiers equipment (in Sweden's case training as well) improved overtime, national as mercenary. I just got to hint you, that those mercenaries in the Thirty years war were trained after Swedish principals. With the field thing, I was rather looking at "battle-fields" I should have noted that. (In Swedish sources) The Polish army often avoided the battlefields. I don't know which "cities" Sweden conquered by force or not, just some towns and castles they stormed. I can try to find something here but it will be hard with the 'lacking' Swedish literature of the Polish-Swedish wars.

The Swedish cavalry rarely fought exclusive against the hussars in this war (there was 'almost' always other types of cavalry involved). So the better, would be "Swedish cavalry very rarely won with Polish cavalry" which they did, several times. Against hussars in particularly, in the Battle of Wenden (1626) a squadron of Swedish cavalry routed five banners of hussars.

I haven't read anything about casualties in the first battle of Tver. But I guess Daniel Staberg would know something about that, I may try to contact him. Those 500 in Gniezno were only the killed ones, add wounded to this ~1,500, not particularly low for a 4 hours fight, in Swedish sources this battle was fought "very fiercly" as well. "Yes, they were defeated but not by musketeers fire but by the terrain obstacles" You're basically saying here, that if the Swedes weren't there with their musketeers the Polish cavalry would still be defeated by the obstacles, and how can you even say "defeated by an obstacle?" you were defeated by those who put it up, you can't be defeated by "an obstacle". No, I've not seen any OOB of Saladen.

You have any information on either of those? "Poswol 1625, Bauska 1626, Mitau 1626, Kieżmark 1627". Well you asked for the Swedish version of the Klushino battle, there it was. Barkman probably used Polish sources in that calculation here as well. Then that's solved with the Wenden (1601) issue.

I would still like to suggest, we put a 2,000-4,000 mark on the Lithuanian troops at Wallhof. Swedish historians just don't agree. Imonoz (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating yourself all over again, which inflitcts me to repeat myself (and I'm not in the mood to repeat myself all over again). I don't know what you are up to, or what you're trying to achive with this Kircholm thing. I wrote the reasons why the Swedish army was very weak, and I see, I really do why you're so eager to defend the statement that Polish hussars were invincible and won over an western army which was good, and no, really it wasn't. It was bad for several reasons amoungst them I wrote to you, armory also took part in this, later on the Swedes had better armor where of the hussar lance barely could penetrate. It's basic facts the Swedish army for one didn't have enough of pikes in Swedish sources, I mean just look at the result of the battle. And two, the majority of them were national Swedes (Finns included), so what really does it mather if there was a minority of mercenaries who used the Dutch system? Sweden had hired commanders to reform the army into the Dutch model. However at Kircholm, there was a mix of both the Spanish and dutch model. (And I never said the mercenaries in Swedish duty were weak, you implied that false statement).

Once again I have to repeat myself, there's not much Swedish literature in this subject, most of the books are only a walkthrough the Swedish wars of 1521-1814 (leaving only a little part to these wars), which doesn't mention wheter Swedish soldiers stormed the cities or not (can't really say this is they highest point of interest according to Swedes), so I can't answer you here. There's that "Sveriges krig 1611-1632 polska kriget" which brings some more light to the subject but I don't have this book. The avoiding battles of Poles is a stretigical influence noted in many of the books, I can't barely give you a typical example here.

Yes, the Polish sources says this, the Polish sources says that. I get it with you and your Polish sources which denies everything that another side notes. And why would it be less reliable if the Swedish general notes that? Sometimes I wonder, do you even consider what you're writing? My example here was a battle where Swedish cavalry defeated hussars, and straight back and fourth you jump into different subjects to somehow make the Polish look better. This was a simple example, that's all. Swedes not happy with the result of Gniew? What makes you say that? They forced the Poles to cancel their siege of Gniew.

Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki, yeah and what losses to the Polish give? The result of this battle was purely only because the superior artillery advanatage the Swedes had (and relly, during this time the Swedish army was better. As of what Robert I frost noted: The Swedes were generally superior in training, discipline and equipment not to speak of the artillery advantage they had). The obstacles were part of the Swedish infantry's warfare. How good would you think "cavalry" lasted without horses? During Mitau 1622, the Swedish army was not yet the army it would become a few years later. Yes, but you can't be "defeated" by obstacles, because obstacles are not the ones you're trying to defeat, you were defeated by the Swedish infantry here (and according to Swedish sources, as I've said several times before, the musket fire inflicted heavy casualties for the Poles), but of cource, that's just Swedish sources, you have your superior Polish sources so why listen to anyone else.

There's numerous of such smaller battles you listed where the Swedes beat the Poles as well. Only I don't quite know what point you're trying to make here, that Poles won over the Swedes in battles? Well Swedish sources doesn't deny that. Benefited or not from the Swedish sources, the book came up with 4,000 Lithuanians which is not the standard Swedish claim of 7,000.

Wallhof, no obviously not, neither does 2,000 fit the Swedish sources. I'll still suggest we put a 2,000-4,000 mark on the battle as it then neutrals the article. Imonoz (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't specified say that but with the "Except that Swedish cavalry very rarely won with hussars." that's what you believe. I have never said the mercenaries were bad? Where are you getting this stuff from? I said the army was overall bad. Mercenaries as nationals had to be supplied with equipments over time, equipments in which the Swedish army was very outdated with. Since Johan III of Sweden's rule, he had abandoned the thought of plate-armor (since the soldiers complained they were too heavy) and pikes. These two things were heavily reduced. Only in Charles IX regimen they started to come back, still the army quite didn't reach their goal with these in the war, as to say for example the battle of Weissenstein, I'll give a footnote in that article about that. So basically, during Kircholm, these two things still influenced the outcome (and I'm not taking the Polish glory away here, their efforts was obviously the main reason for the result). Later when the army was improved Swedish wittnesses mentioned that the hussars had problems breaking through their plate armor.

Yes of cource I do, why wouldn't I? I certainly don't agree with you that Polish sources are better for Polish casualties, neither is Swedish sources more reliable for Swedish casualties. Radoslaw Sikora preferably used the initally Polish sources on Swedish casualties in Kircholm, do you suggest he could be more reliable using 5,000-6,000 killed Swedes as that's more of what modern Swedish historians claim? Casualties on both sides are usually based on exaggerations, either to make a commander look less bad, or to make him more heroic. That's why both side's numbers on casualties are considered. The Polish numbers on Swedish casualties in Trzciana are not reliable at all, even Poles mentions that (you have to note here though, Swedish sources initally said 200 killed here). Also, the Polish description of the battle differs from both German (Holy Roman Empire) and Swedish sources here. Undermine the losses of Polish sources in Kłecko? (stick with Kłecko, Gniezno confuses me with Gniew). This is just another false statement you've made, didn't you see I changed the casualties to "Polish sources" and "Swedish sources" in that article? Wenden, when? 1601 or 1626?

So because Poles haven't given any losses on Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki that makes the Swedish sources unreliable right? here you talked about the casualties of Nowy Dwór, not how the Polish lost. And the Swedish artillery stood for the most casualties of the Poles who had taken position on some advantaged high-ground, the Swedish casualties are even described as a thanks to the Swedish artillery (even the superior numbers of those pieces can ensure you this). Sure, the cavalry did its share too. "pospolite ruszenie not regular army" Swedish sources says that as well. Sure most battles were not decided with musket fire, but concentrated musket fire was devestating. And as I said above, I don't agree.

Some Polish sources? So there is Polish sources agreeing with the 3,100 Swedish soldiers? You got to understand, that NONE Swedish source hint with the 1,500-2,000 Poles. This, as Klecko, is a question of a neutral page. And if you think I only hint for the numbers or description favoring Sweden, you are wrong. I reasonably changed the description of the battle of Punitz to "inconclusive" because a modern Swedish historian claims that, I have no plans to change the numbers to 7,000 Lithuanians as I don't find this reliable (Still, all three of "Vägen till Stormakt", "Svenska krig" 'not to be confused with Svergies krig 1611-1632' and "Lejonet vaknar" suggests it was 7,000 men, and these are the modern ones) and I changed the losses for Sweden in the battle of Kokenhausen to 2,000-3,000 because two Swedish sources claim that, whilst I could've only ignored that. According to Klissow, I earlier asked you what Radoslaw Sikora says about Saxon-Polish casualties, I asked this cause I've seen Swedish historians claiming 2,000 dead and wounded and not only dead. If you find any reliable source claiming 1,500 killed as I've heard somewhere, I will change this article's casualties as well. Imonoz (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I'm very glad you provided these numbers as I haven't seen them (before). Judging from these numbers, the Swedish army at Kircholm didn't under any circumstances 'lack in pikes' as I wrote to you as one of the possible reasons, so this proved me wrong. My fast statement of the lacking of pikes in Kircholm simply was due to the overall lack of pikes in the army during this time (as I took for granted this was the case in Kircholm as well), however, the Swedish soldiers using these pikes were barely trained with them before the battle, and still prefered the firearm over the pike. As we're already discussing Kircholm, it's worth to note, that a rate of 9,000 killed Swedes is also impossible (even more if there were 500 captured as well) since at least 2,526 managed to get out alive of initally 10,868 soldiers. This means the Swedish casualties could only reach a maximum number of 8,342 killed or captured (7,658 killed and 500 captured, I don't know if these 500 captured is of Polish sources or Swedish?).

I have several sources providing the statement of the difficulties Polish hussars had with peircing Swedish/German armor. However, I don't feel like digging these up in any books as it would take a lot of my time searching for something which I can easily find with registers of 'place names' in the end of book etc. However, I'll provide you with something Daniel Staberg wrote he indicates, "I väst så krävdes det pistoler för att slå igenom de kraftiga rustningarna som var i bruk runt 1600, i öst så var svenskar, ryssar, moldaver, turkar mfl betydligt sämre rustade och lansen var alltså fortfarande ett effektivt vapen" which basically says "In the West (Western warfare) pistols was needed in order for cavalry to break through the heavy armors of the 1600's, in the East however, the Swedes, Russians, Moldavians, Turks Etc significantly worser equiped which made the lance still an effective weapon to use", I know you wished a direct source, however, I couldn't find any online, but this somehow indicates my statement (lances were initally taken away in Western warfare cause of the armors which arrived) here's another source on this particular case. Here's a description of Daniel Staberg as he mentions the ill armored and lack of pikes in the Swedish army during this war. (Reason I list Daniel as most of the sources is because he's the most reliable Swedish historian as for now)

Swedish historians usally gives different accounts on the casualties of Wallhof (1,000-1,500, 1,200, 2,000 and 2,750), however at the article of [Battle of Wallhof|Wallhof], I wouldn't say we're not keeping a neutral stage according to the Polish losses of 500-1,000 compared to the Swedish sources of Polish losses. I, as you, think the 200 casualties mentioned by Gustav is not reliable, I just noted there was an exegeration number mentioned by him, as of the Polish exegeration of 1,200 (there was none Swedish infantry killed in the battle here, only four men wounded.

Yes, of cource I find those sources reliable or a possibility, as I find the Swedish numbers of 4,000 in the battle as a possibility. In that Gniezno 1656 case, I find the Swedish sources more reliable, as you most likely see the Polish sources more reliable. But here as in the Wallhof case, two sides claim different numbers. Well neither do I think Poland "lost" in Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki because of the Swedish artillery, but you questioned the 3 killed Swedes on 300 killed Poles, where of I answered you, this was most likely the case of the superior Swedish artillery.

"but concentrated musket fire was devestating", well, Gustav introduced the 'Swedish salvo' (once again this link), which was based to counter Polish cavalry charges, and in Swedish sources the fire were sometimes devestating for the hussars as well another old link. There's also other occasions in this, as for the Great Northern War when a Swedish wittness claims "The enemy ranks fell as grass for a scythe" while giving concentrated musket fire into the Saxons. What source is that?

The article of Wallhof is actually more based on Polish sources than Swedish, 3,100 Swedish soldiers is Swedish, 2,000 Polish soldiers is Polish, 1,000 dead and wounded is closer to the Polish while Swedish 'at a midpoint' gives 1,500-2,000 killed. I don't quite get it what you mean here, neutrality between two sides opinions (Swedish and Polish) is what Wikipedia is all about, and why would any Polish historian claim 7,000 Swedes without any sources to back this up (question is, would he even be considered an historian?). The numbers of around 4,000 Lithuanians is mentioned in "Sveriges krig 1611-1632", and so is 7,000 Lithuanians by the three books I mentioned, of cource all of these are based on sources. However, I suggested we put 2,000-4,000 Lithuanians as 4,000 is also a possibility. Or you could rather go for 3,100-4,900 Swedes, 1,500-7,000 Poles and 500-2750 killed and wounded Poles. But that doesn't look very good. I still request you consider a change to 2,000-4,000 Lithuanians, as I've requested a change in the Battle of Kleck article when you came with that up. This is about showing both sides opinions. Imonoz (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reasonly read something indeed interesting about the hussars, on the page i sent you yesterday, here they're discussing the reason why Western countries didn't introduce copies of the Polish hussars, looking at their effectiveness on the battlefield. The reason for this, according to Daniel S, is because (amoung other things culture) a Polish hussar was at least 8 to 10 times more expensive than a ordinary Caroleans Swedish cavalryman (Caroleans = the soldiers under Karl XI and XII). With that said, if they introduced 1,000 copies of the Polish hussars they would get a loss of about 9,000 Swedish Carolean cavalrymen (and yet the result of the copied Polish hussar model, wouldn't be as good as the ordinary one). That's how expensive the Polish hussars were. Did Barkman claim 7,600 to 8,000 killed or "lost" as in killed, captured or missing? There were some soldiers who was killed in their rout by nearby farmers living their who plundered them on their equipment (According to Claes-Göran Isacson).

Yes, I was looking after that table of the casualties in Trzciana, thanks, I've seen it earlier somewhere but couldn't refind it. What was the other thing I was gonna contact Daniel Staberg about? I keep to forget.

The musket fire could be devestating and sometimes not, depending heavily on what distance or terrain they're used or even how massed they are. Salvo effect on somewhat close range used to have a psychological effect just because they were devestating. Cannons were heavily used to serve that psychological effect, without even actually doing that much of damage. The interesting with the Caroleans in the Great Northern War is how they marched upon the enemies and fired only one bullet each, before charging. The reasons for this you surely know, but one reason which you might not know, is that the first loaded musket salvo you fire, is always the most devestating (reason for this is because, the first salvo was most likely reloaded before the battle itself, the next one the soldiers have to reload during stress which causes greater deal of missfires).

What was the order of battle of Lithuanians in the battle of Wallhof according to Sapieha? Is their any detailed list of troops etc? When is that list of 1,500 Lithuanians made (before or after the battle)? Swedes sometimes thinks those 1,500 is rather the number of the Lithuanian killed or those who were left after the battle (don't have a source on this, there's just specualtes). Did Daniel S, claim, in that order of battle you sent, that about 2,300 Swedes took part in the battle? Imonoz (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Russians at Fraustadt, was their exhaustion, quality (there were still old streltser companies fighting here, although modern also). Did they really fire concentrated by either salvo or single-shot? The Russians used to start fireing on a much longer distance than the Caroleans who went for the "whites of the enemies eyes", if the Russians did it here, this ineffective fire could be because they started to shoot earlier than recommended, creating more stress and negligence while reloading (by seeing a marching army comming at them) resulting in missfires. Concentrated salvo could be just 'that' salvo which at the first shot was supposed to be devestating. (However, devestating could be ranged on different scales of losses). I haven't studied the battle of Fraustadt in detail (even though I have the book by Oskar Sjöström), but wasn't Johann Matthias von der Schulenburg placed on a hill a distance away from the fight? And how could he in that mather notice how the Swedish fire didn't have any great effect, if they (as in usual Swedish manner) attacked with meele weapons right after, even though I don't deny that was the case. Concentrated fire had mixed result on different occasions whether distance, terrain and how clustered the enemies were all took place.

I've also heard that one hussar lance was as expensive as three Swedish cavalry men's armor in the 1626-1629 war. Yes, lances were on some locations reinvented in the West mainly cause of the disappearance of armors after the 1650's. Daniel noted the expensivness, the time it would take to invent these, and the culture as the biggest problems.

Acutally under Wallhof, here I see now how Daniel also believed the the numbers of the Lithuanians to maximum reach 2,000. Since he's the most reliable Swedish "historian" during this time I find it even more reliable now when actually he accepted the numbers. What are those 500-600 killed Lithuanians based on? A lithuanian source or Swedish? Because the Swedish claims around 600 killed on the battlefield and more during the persuit. However, if we will change the Swedish numbers to those numbers Daniel Staberg claimed, how would they be quoted as a reference in the article? Also, as I forgot to mention, he said the forces on Gorzno was: Polish 4,000 and Swedish 6,000. I will as a mather of fact ask him these two things as well and see if he still agrees with it now.

As a mather of fact, I forgot to mention I found some numbers myself on the De la Gardie war here on page 23. On Torchok 2,000 Swedes and Russians under Evert Horn against 3,000 Poles under Zborowski. And 5,000 Poles by Twer.

"Daniel Staberg about first Battle of Tver and these 50-60 musketeers under Trzciana." I pasted it here so I won't forget. Imonoz (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're heavily underrestimating the power of musket fire (even though it use to be vice versa), if used right, a salvo was devastating. Also, I think you're not quite sure of what the meaning of "devastating" means in this particular case. Devastating here doesn't necessary have to inflict heavy losses, but to radically inflict morale shocks (even though morale shocks often follows on great losses). However, if used right, the salvos could inflict enourmos losses as well. An example of this, is the Carolean warfare, as the most aggresive nation in Europe at the time, soldiers sometimes held their salvos in while advancing at their enemies, just to fire at bayonete disctance. This, as a good 10 meters, makes it almost impossible for a musket to miss, which serves the heavy losses as well as the morale blow (enemies often routed even before the meele impact). Another example is the flanking fire, as you know, also was devestating as for a morale shock. Also, everything on a battlefield had psychological effects - Question is, was musket salvos one of the greatest? I think not, I simply think a cavalry charge was more psychological for an infantry man, seeing a mass of horses charging their way. I also think cannons served an higher state of psychological effects. I can quickly give you an example of a devestating salvo from Wikipedia, Battle of Warsaw (1705), the Saxons were reforming after the fight to charge in against the Swedes one more time, however, the Swedish musketeers of 60 men performs an surprise attack on the reforming saxons, giving them one salvo which forces them to rout. I could give you more. A disciplined army could handle those devestating salvos. During Klissow, the Swedish line was probably lined up that wide, to match the enemies flanks (since they were outnumbered).

What charge-formations did the hussars use? And what formations did the other Polish cavalry use during this time? I know Swedish cavalry managed to ride in wegde formation during the Great Northern War, at the full possible speed for the formation to not break. They also had smaller horses which made more of them to impact on the enemy area and easier reach enemy disctance. But weren't the hussars trained from early childhood? Giving them highly skills in riding?

So I want to change both the numbers of Swedish soldiers in Wallhof, and the numbers of Polish soldiers in Gorzno [4,000] and Swedish [6,000] I just don't know how to reference Daniel Staberg. Also, I would like to ask, how many Polish soldiers patricipated in the battle of Kircholm and how many were Lithuanians? And, do you want to change the casualties of the Swedes to 7,600-8,000 instead of the 5,000-9,000 which is now? I also like the Polish quote about the battle of Kircholm, how a wittness describes the "Swedish soldiers prefered to fight and die, rather to run and hide", simply giving the expression they were rather brave still being a bunch of peasants, but in the end it all ended in a mass rout. To last, I also contacted Daniel Staberg, let's see if I get an answer. Imonoz (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting about the hussars indeed. I don't think Daniel would give out this information as someone else could easily take the 'glory' for his own research. However, I got an answer from him (a very long and interesting one actually) where he gives detailed information of losses and strengths on both the Wallhof and Gorzno battle and his own estimations.

At Wallhof, he estimates there was about 1,500-2,500 fighting troop for the Lithuanians. Also, he finds the letter of Gustavus to be the most accurate according to losses (about 500-600 killed) and suggests the '1,500 killed' Lithuanians is an exaggeration or that it also included civilians. At Gorzno, he mentions two Swedish reports on Polish losses. The first on says, 150 Poles killed on the battlefield along with some Germans, further 600 were killed in some forest outskirting the battlefield (probably), about 500 German mercenaries were captured along with 60 Poles. The source mentions 1500-2000 were lost during the persuit (the source doesn't carefully suggests if they were either killed or captured). The next source says, about 150 were killed on the battlefield (as the first one), and about 500 were captured and 1,500 killed during the persuit. Daniel also mentions that the Poles themselves claimed to having missed 3,000 men after the battle. It is highly unknowned what happened with the 50-60 Swedish musketeers at Trzciana (they could as well have been killed). About Tver 1609, there wasn't much information saved. Daniel had some but would carefully not let them out since those are planned to be published in an article he's writing with a Polish researcher.

How would we write those casualties? 7,600-8,000 killed or missing (or only killed)? Imonoz (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be English since he's writing it with a Polish researcher, however I'm not sure. According to Gorzno, what does Polish books say about the casualties? I know the book 'Vägen till Stormakt' says that the 700 killed and 300 wounded is a Polish source. However as Poland initally suggested 3,000 Poles were lost, what does Polish history books say about this? Sikora?

Okey, so I'll change the casualties for the battle of Kircholm. What source is that of Barkman? What book is it? Imonoz (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were there none Poles killed except for those cavalry? What source was that? Anyways, I thought I'd send you some links regarding the outcome of Gniew and the effectivity of musket salvos, these are both Daniels opinions. Imonoz (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, however, I'm wondering, who were the commander in the battles of Gniew? You said there was most likely always an hetman. Imonoz (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the numbers for both strenght and casualties in the Battle of Górzno with references. (6,000 Swedes instead of 5,300, 4,000 Poles instead of 5,000. And 1,500 killed and 500 captured 'which is backed up by famous historian Michael Roberts' Poles instead of 1,500 killed, wounded and captured. Basically because Polish sources initally claimed to having missing 3,000 men). What does Polish sources say about when the hussars charged the Swdish infantry? Imonoz (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't know where those 3,000 missing is initally taken from, I only know that the Swedes mentioned the Poles had that. Is the Piasecki chronicles and anonymous diary claiming the same casualties? If which one is based on which? Oxenstierna did a conclusion of 1,500 killed and 500 captured - of every casualty report that day. The Swedes had 30 killed, were those infantry regiments really breaked? Imonoz (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I used these sources: for 18,000 Russian strenght = Frost, Robert I (2000). The Northern Wars. War, State and Society in Northeastern Europe 1558-1721. And for the 7,000 casualties = Sundberg, Ulf (2010). Sveriges Krig 1448-1660. I have not yet found any numbers for Polish-Swedish casualties. Do you have any numbers for Polish-Swedish/Russian strengh/losses? Imonoz (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess these sources are better than the "sveriges krig" one (which is most likely picked from Petri). They seem detailed and reliable. So basically the allies lost "about 400 men" I guess. As for losses, I would go for Hedberg's accounts. I'm curious about the cannons though. Did the Poles count the cannons as "cannons and mortars" or just basically cannons? If they counted as both cannons and mortars the loss for artillery could be written like "20-30 artillery pieces". Is there any chance Hedberg only counted the captured Russian artillery which went into Swedish favor? And not the pieces Poland got? Might be a possibility. The 18,000-22,000 Russians seems more reliable than 15,000-18,000 (i haven't found any source claiming 15,000 russians). I'm glad you found these numbers. Imonoz (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my late respond. Yes, that change you did is good. We could change the allied troops to 4,000–6,000 and use both this magazine and ^[1] Frost (2010) as sources. I could change that, and you could correct me if there's anything wrong. Anyways, does the magazine mention any Russian commander by the name of Ivan Golitsyn? Because I found some information about him in "Ivan the Terrible" that he was the commander of the Russian army, I'm not sure though. Imonoz (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you know if there was any Polish or Lithuanian troops participating in the battles of Pułtusk (1703) or Punitz 1704? Greetings, Imonoz (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, thanks, was just wondering. Imonoz (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the numbers are from Daniel Staberg which he wrote on a forum. He mentioned a few battles: Golab 1656, Gniezno, Prostki and Philipowo. I changed the numbers on three of those battles but not Gniezno as it is already well cited by Sikora. He also suggests that the Polish force at Protski was 11,000 men and not 12,000. I didn't change the Polish numbers here since I don't know how they would fit in Polish works, I would like to change these as well though, what do you think? Sadly there's no accounts for any losses. Here's the link to the forum post by the way. In theory it's reliable, but not on Wikipedia as that's a forum. It's strange when you find good information about something, but it can't be taken as reliable, even though you know it's the most reliable from the Swedish works. Imonoz (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Swedes formed a rearguard to protect the fleeing Brandenburg soldiers, which got them annihilated. Since your source is an actually reliable source and the forum I linked to is not, I think it would be better to add yours. How many regiments does it say Sweden had? I found 9 Brandenburgs ones and 5 Swedeish in a source and 6 Swedish in another. Imonoz (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, thank you very much! Imonoz (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently changed the infobox in the Great Northern War article but I would really need some sources on Polish-Lithuanian strength at the outbreak of the war and those supporting Stanisław Leszczyński and Sweden later on. Do you have such sources available? Because I doubt Poland-Lithuania had 70,000 men, more like 20,000. But I need sources. And also, what does Radoslaw Sikora write on Swedish strength and losses in the battle of Kirkholm? And Swedish/Polish strength/losses in Chojnice? Imonoz (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found two sources about Polish forces supporting Augustus and Stanislaw. 50,000 Poles during the outbreak of war and 24,000 with Stanislaw (during when Charles invaded Russia). I've read some about the civil war in Poland 1708-1709 during Charles campaign in Russia. And encountered a battle in Drohobycz 1709. Do you know anything about this one? Do you know any other battles in the Polish civil war? I think it's an very interesting epok to read about. Imonoz (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, thanks. I've found two sources, "Józef Andrzej Gierowski – Historia Polski 1505–1764 (History of Poland 1505–1764), pp. 258–261" saying there were 50,000 Poles and 30,000 Saxons. And "Peter From, Katastrofen vid Poltava (2007) Lund, Historiska media. pp. 214." saying there were 24,000 Poles in the Polish army of Stanislaw, 1708. Do you think these are reliable? In the same book "Katastrofen vid Poltava" there's a chapter about the Polish civil war in the years of 1708-1709. There were at least three battles after the one at Koniecpol. Drohobycz (or Drohobych) 1709 between Ernst Detlof von Krassow and Adam Mikołaj Sieniawski, Lachowce 1709 between Jan Kazimierz Sapieha the Elder and Grzegorz Antoni Ogiński and Podkamien 1709 between Jan Kazimierz Sapieha the Elder and Franz Rüdiger von der Goltz. Imonoz (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain but I think so, here is where I got the numbers. I don't know if those numbers includes garrisons as well, but I think so. The Swedish number of 76,000 does include garrisons. According to the book "Katastrofen vid Poltava" Krassow won over Sieniawski at Drohobycz, Sapieha won over Ogiński at Lachowce and then Sapieha lost to a Russian army with superior numbers under Goltz at Podkamien. Sadly there's no descriptions of the battles but I'm buying some new books on the subject, let see of those are mentioning anything. I think it's interesting because the war in Poland during the Swedish invasion of Russia, was quite decisive. And the Polish-Swedish army could actually ahve won there and helped Charles in Russia. But bad communication between the different armies (between Krassow, Sapieha and Potocki) ruined this. If the Swedish-Polish alliance been successful, Poland would've gained the parts lost to Russia in 1661. Prussia requested "Ducal Prussia" sometime in 1706-1707 from Poland but the Swedish king denies this (most likely, he planned on seizing that for himself along with Courland). Imonoz (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, it seems like the Polish army was indeed very weak compared to its glory days, not only in numbers but also in morale. It's interesting however, the Swedish cavalry during the Great Northern War was more inferior to the Polish winged hussars than earlier wars (1626-, 1655-) because they had abandoned the pistol which was the only weapon giving them advantage in range. This is because they trained to counter western type cavalry (mainly Denmark). Yes, during Klissow both armies were decimated, the Poles probably the most. But the Swedes had an actual strength of about 10,000 and not 12,000 in that battle, the Saxons were also lower than what it says. So according to him the Lithuanians won at Podkamien? Interesting. I'll try to see if I can find more information about this battle, perhaps Russian ones as well. But in the long run Russia intervened a lot in Polish politics cause of the Great Northern War which eventually split up during the end of the 18th century. Yes, the main reason for the failed campaign in Russia was due to bad communication between Charles, Lewenhaupt and Lybecker (who did a failed attack on Saint petersburg in 1708) as well as the cold winter, which was the coldest for 500 years, effectively harshed the march. Had the Swedes won at Poltava, there would have been a great chance Ottoman would intervene and that would completely twist the outcome. Even if Peter was captured during the Pruth campaign, had the war most likely been given a different outcome. He was very lucky here. You should definitely buy the book, it's good. Imonoz (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lubomirski turned towards the pro-Swedish alliance later on, right? It surely was more effective, combined with the knee-behind-knee tactic, not seen as a standard cavalry formation in the rest of Europe. What's the reason why Poland nor Saxony didn't gain any territory? Was Russia too strong? I know, at least the Saxons left the war in 1715 (on an active scale) after the fall of Stralsund, the Poles probably some time earlier. Charles spent so much time in Ottoman to get them on his side to actively participate in the war, which turned out to be a mistake, the Ottomans weren't reliable. Instead he could've returned to Sweden, reinforce the army and protect his provinces. Imonoz (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the primary goal for the army was to use the Finnhorse and the Swedish Warmblood (sometimes smaller horses in need), however when replacements ran short horses were taken from war zone, in this case the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Charger horses were sometimes also bought from Germany. During the later half of the war, after Poltava, the army was short of horses so the requirements went down. Smaller horses were used and more variants of colors (it was a preferment to use dark faded horses). Yes, the grand alliance against Russia was a suggestion made if Sweden let go of German provinces, George I feared Russian superiority at sea, among other things and promised Sweden its Baltic provinces back. However, when Charles XII died and with him the good diplomat Georg Heinrich von Görtz serving him, the tables took a turn. The Swedish defeat in 1721 was terrible with large land losses, however it could have been worse including Finland and it could have been better, much better. The strategic position in 1718 when Charles invaded Norway was not so desperate as many think. There was a stalemate, the navy was still quite strong giving some superiority at sea and the allies declined an invasion (mainly Tsar I) of Sweden because of Charles present. So no enemies advanced during the time. Some historians question the invasion of Norway, besides giving Sweden a better outcome in peace talk, Charles XII probably also wanted Norway for an operational base against Britain (to support the Jacobites) and a new offensive against Germany. The war in 1700-1709 was mainly fought with arms, the war 1709-1721 was mainly fought with diplomatic. Imonoz (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I heard Polish horses were very good. Unfortunately the Swedish horses were not affected by the Turkish. Although the Swedish state tried to breed larger horses, many still used the small ones, not much larger than present-day ponnys. What territories did August plan to gain by eliminating Denmark from the war (the ones in Livonia or any territories in Germany)? Denmark themselves barely won anything with the war, their cost to run it was far worse. In some Swedish books they're referred to as a losing part in the war along with Sweden, individually. Well, I think there was a truce in 1719 between Poland-Saxony and Sweden but I don't know much about it, and then that the war formally ended with Saxony 1729 and with Poland 1732. I'll let you know if I find out anything more about it. Imonoz (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my late respond. Unfortunately, no. I have a slight memory I have read some short text about a navel battle in that war, can't remember where. Do you know, perhaps what name is used in Sweden to describe the battle and if Jacob Gotberg is the accurate 'Swedish name' of the commander? I've tried done some searches on that name on internet but without results. I'll do some more searches on google books in Swedish, see if that gives me anything. Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no information here wish I could help you! Although, from what I remember, the movements made from both armies were just theaters to maintain a threat against enemies in the upcoming negotiations? I've not managed to find anything on this incident. Imonoz (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okey. Sounds interesting, please tell me if you found out more about this. Imonoz (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there's currently not much more in Swedish literature than what is already mentioned in Obermühlenberg (Swedish) and Runefer (Swedish), if you want me to translate the text written there I'd be happy to do it for you. Imonoz (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy the last days having written some text on the battle of Lesnaya. anyways, here's the translation on overmuhlenberg "The battle of overmuhlenberg was a battle during the first polish war, on 13 august 1565 which was fought between swedish forces under Henrik Klasson Horn Af knackas and the Polish deployed "so called courtiers" under kaspar von oldenbokum. The courtiers had marched from Pernau and wished to take the reval city (present day tallinn) and stood on the 11th infront of the cities walls and entered camp close to a forest nearby Overmuhlenberg. After having built some simplified fortifications around the camp oldenbokum suggested the swedes to surrender, however, only 2 days later, horn made an outbreak attempt with his soldiers. The day ended with a retreat from oldernbokum and his forces. The Swedes followed their enemies and oldernbokum was mortally wounded in the fighting. With his death, his independent force ceased to exist."

And here's the translation for Runafer "The battle of Runafer was a battle during the first polish war which was fought on the third of february, 1567 in Estonia, between Swedish forces under Henrik Klasson Horn af kanckas and Polish forces. During the year of 1566 Horn had been ordered from Erik (king of Sweden) to take back pernau from the polish army and ravage close to Riga to prevent a polish attack into Swedish territorium. Klas Kursell was ordered the task to ravage at Riga, the attempt to conquer pernau failed, however. In the beginning of year 1567 the Polish army started revenge actions and the polish field marshal Talwos attacked Swedish territorium. On the third of February the Swedish army met the Polish by Runafer and there suffered a bitter defeat. The Estonian nobility (which for the first time performed rust services), suffered heavy casualties after the poor actions. In total, the Swedish casualties were 2,000 men. After the victory the Polish army countinued ravage Swedish territorium but their funds were not enough to successfully follow up the victory at runafer. Horn was replaced with Kursell as commander over the Swedish troops in Estona since he had fallen in the Swedish kings anger. " Tell me if there's anything you don't understand. Imonoz (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most accurate name for the battle is in fact Nakwasza, that's where the actual fighting took place, Wisniowce is where the Russians initially were stationed.

So after the victory at Lachowce, Sapieha continued his offensive. His next target to attack was what Sapieha thought to be a the small isolated advance guard of Goltz Russian forces at Wisniowce, unfortunately the Russians in the area were by this time quite large. They consisted of at least 5 regular dragoon regiments, 6 regular infantry regiments with artillery and cossack light cavalry as support. On May 23 (I don't know if this is the Swedish or Gregorian calendar), 40 banners of Pancerni, some light cavalry and 300 dragoons belonging to Sapieha's force, advanced to attack the closest Russian forces at Nakwasza. The Russian forces at Nakwasza were cossacks who were quickly driven away from the battlefield by Sapieha's own light cavalry. But then these in turn were repulsed by the arrival of the 5 russian regular dragoon regiments who attacked the pursuing light cavalry of Sapieha. Next to arrive on the field was the main body of Sapieha's command consisting of pancerni and probably also the dragoons. These in turn attacked and defeated the formerly victorious Russian dragoons. Finally with a Sapieha victory seemingly achieved the last twist of the tale occurred, the russian infantry and artillery arrived. In combination with some of the cossacks from the army, who had now rallied after their initial defeat, these first stopped Sapieha's advance and the defeated them. Sapieha's forces do not seem to have suffered greatly but the defeat was enough to convince them to pull back to Beresteczka.

So as can be see by this direct description from the book "The Dawn of the Tsarist Empire" the battle went back and fourth. The defeat of Sapieha's troops can perhaps be blamed on the overall lack of infantry, whereof the Russians had infantry. Imonoz (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! I haven't, I think I can find some information about however. Do you have any detailed description, is there a number of soldiers involved? Imonoz (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, so I've come up with some information regarding the battle, here's a translation from what I found: In July the Upplänning regiment and Dal regiment were ordered to march to Warsaw to reinforce Karl Nieroth (he who had earlier fought the battle of warsaw). After their arrival to Warsaw, a few of the men were positioned by the bridge going over Weichsel. At 14 October an enemy force of 5,000 troops stormed into Praga in order to destroy the bridge. The Swedish guard, which at the time only consisted of about 40 men, initiated the attack and held the enemies away, they were reinforced with another 20 men who were close-by. Even though, outnumbered greatly, the Swedish soldiers managed to clear the bridge from enemies, however, by this time the whole enemy force had arrived and opened a devastating fire against the Swedish guard at the bridge, but they managed to hold until further Swedish troops to arrive and the bridge was saved.

There no mentioning about Sapieha's pro-Swedish troops, were these Polish troops fighting a distance away during the same time perhaps (according to the information I found, there were only Swedish troops nearby the bridge)? I don't think the Swedes suffered that big casualties, from what I understand this was more like a smaller skirmish where a bigger battle never evolved. I've forgot to mention that I've also found some information regarding when Charles XII almost was captured after the battle of Klissow. Here it goes: Some time after the battle of Klissow, Charles XII went out with about 20 officers on reconnaissance, when on the 27 July, they were attacked by 500 Polish cavalry. Charles XII and his small company ran against a close-by bridge, where they made a stand. The company held the bridge so that Charles could get away, the rest was either killed or captured. This is the source "Johan Valentin Daldorf, von, http://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/artikel/17215, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (art av Lenn Jacobson.)" Imonoz (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have further researched this and come up with some interesting notes. So the Dala and Upplands regiments marched towards Warsaw to further secure the coronation of Stanislaw, after their arrival a small detachment were left guarding the bridge with some of Stanislaw's soldiers. I've found some information regarding these in the Oderint Dum Probent blog. Stanislaw had at Warsaw 1,500 men guard and if Potocki and Sapeiha's command also were there it's + 3,000 + 2,000 = 6,500, however it's likely only a small detachment of these were guarding the bridge together with the Swedes. I still haven't found any information what so ever regarding a bigger battle, at least not on the same day as the surprise attack on the bridge. But it says Stanislaws guard was destroyed by Russian dragoons at Praga in October so I guess these fought a bigger battle, but I don't know exactly when or where. The Swedish losses were not that big, the Dala regiment suffered 17 dead and 53 wounded, these were the ones reinforcing the initial Swedish force at the bridge consisting of about 60 men, so the Swedish total losses probably didn't exceed much over 100 men in total. But as I said above, Stanislaw's guard was 'destroyed' indicating these lost a lot of men. By the way, do you know which battle in Polish history was the most bloodiest one (if you look on casualties on both sides compared to the actual fighting force?). Yes, I would very much liked to read that and would appreciate if you wrote that to me. Imonoz (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I found some Swedish descriptions of some of the skirmishes, first one, Axel Sparre with 288 men, repulsed (in Swedish sources) and won over the 24 banners of Lubomirski's people at the town of Utzie, leaving significant Polish casualties. At Pińczów the Swedes suffered over 100 in captured while gathering supplies. Lidzbark Welski the 1,200 Swedes repulsed the enemy (3,000) but suffered 17 killed and about 30 wounded (I read this from an very old source, I am a little bit confused regarding the text but I think it's correct). Unfortunately, I can't find any information about neither Żarnowiec (Zarnowitz) or Piotrków, do you know any more information about these encounters? Was it those prisoners Lubomirski returned? If so, was it to Magnus Stenbock? It looks like the Battle of Grunwald was very bloody if you compare the losses to the initial fighting force, but it's hard to judge as the strength is quite dispersed between numbers, what would you say is the most reliable ones here? I think the bloodiest battle in Swedish history, at least in some what modern history, is the Battle of Lund where almost 70% of the initial fighting force were casualties, if I'm not mistaken this battle is sometimes considered one of the bloodiest battles in history. Imonoz (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it at Piotrków Horn was captured or was it later - Do you know his first name? Yes, the Danes most likely used caracole to a certain degree, I don't think the whole Danish cavalry used caracole, but perhaps the commander of each unit choose the preferably method during what situation he faced (some historians claims the whole Danish army used caracole but this could be a misunderstanding, since during this time caracole was 'in theory' abandoned and swedish eye witnesses most likely reacted to the caracole of certain danish units using it and wrote about it but didn't mention the standard cavalry method since it was normal).

It's really hard to say which battle is the best in terms of losses and strength, there's some older battle like for example Lode during the Livonian war but I feel like these are very exaggerated and don't find them in particular reliable, I'm often more skeptical to battle losses which haven't been confirmed by your opponents. Of course, before the Swedish war of liberation much of the information was lost (probably cause of the castle fire in 1697) but yes, Narva is surely one of our must successive, along with Fraustadt (if to mention naval battles as well Svensksund should be there) and also perhaps the battle of Kletsk (1706) where a smaller Russian force was close to being annihilated, these battles are also, most like, very accurate in losses since they've been confirmed. Then there were some battles in the Thirty years' war which was somewhat impressive. While I'm on it I'll also add our biggest failures judging by casualties, our first one is by far Kircholm (with some more battles in that war), then there's the naval battle of Køge Bay and perhaps also Nördlingen. Our biggest defeats in terms of strategical value is Poltava and Sveaborg (there's still not known why the commander surrendered [he was later executed for being a traitor], this was one of the main reasons we lost Finland). Our strategic successes Breitenfeld and the March across the Belts, which is of Poland? Imonoz (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly the battle of Petschora, it seems confusing to me while I can't find a lot of information about it. However, in one book "Carolus Rex" the battle of petschura took place in 1701, a force of 16,000 Russians (probably overestimated) attacked a force of 300 Swedish cavalry and 200 infantry (under Gottlieb Roos). The fighting kept on for 12 hours and the Swedes managed to repulse the force twice, however, in the end they were annihilated with only 30 who made it out of there. The russians reportedly lost 2,000, a number which might be overestimated as well, put the casualties were probably heavy. The battle is also known as "Rappin". To be frank, there were a lot of these encounters in the GNW where numerical superior forces attacked smaller Swedish companies, this is one of the reasons I find this war very interesting along with The Deluge which were also rich on these encounters. The Polish army surely made many impressive victories, I like most of them, how did they meet up against western armies (excluding Sweden)? Imonoz (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were defending a town, but I don't know whether they actually positioned themselves in the town or outside. Since the Caroleans were extremely reliant on the bayonet, they could very have been outside covered by perhaps marshes or a forest to their flanks (surely they would have covered flanks to not get encircled or flanked), that could speak for the heavy Russian casualties. In a description its' mentioned how a lot of Russian were dead by a certain river, to me this sounds like a bayonet charge more than bullets. All I know is that they had some "defensive position" so they launched their attacks from a certain position and didn't went to gain ground, so most likely, they had ramparts and other obstacles covering them as well. In skirmishes, the caroleans were more reliant on their volleys than melee, therefore, pike was not as usual. But I think this was a "battle" with an objective, so the soldiers most likely had pikes which would encourage melee. It's funny cause I don't know a whole lot about The Deluge, still I find it very interesting. What do you think is so interesting about the conflict in Courland? Imonoz (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that, I appreciate, sadly in Swedish literature, the focus from the deluge drops off heavily when Charles X starts his Danish campaign, so it's harder to get information of what happened during the downfall of the Swedish troops still occupying PLC territory. To hit back on an earlier question, I found some information pointing towards the Danes actually had caracole in their regulations, so it seems like this was their standard fighting method on horseback, my mistake. Imonoz (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my late respond, I've been very busy during this week. Yes, the Swedish cavalry had some advantage over the Danish cavalry cause of the 'french manner' to charge right on. The Danes actually changed in their regulations in August 1677 to the same, after the battle of Lund. However, the Swedish army didn't have such an advantage in quality of infantry, the Swedish army during this time was actually unusually bad equipped and trained, something which could be blamed on Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie who pretty much ruled Sweden before Charles XI was old enough, the Danish force however, was better trained and equipment, since the bulk of the army was professional mercenaries. I don't know whether the Brandenburgians used caracole or not during this time (even the Saxons used caracole to some degree even in the battle of Klissow!), however, speaking of raw quality of troops, the Swedish army didn't see much difference from the Danes. The only army Sweden have praised, which I can remember right of from what I've read, is the Polish-Lithuanian one, referring to the hussars. How did he stop that alliance? I know Sweden tried to get PLC to support their army marching from Riga to Northern Germany to reinforce the Swedish provinces there, but the Poles didn't want to support them here. Imonoz (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember in what way the book mentioned the Brandenburgians to be better opponents? I mean, it could very well be, only -from what I've seen- there's no mentioning of it from the Swedish side, but the Scanian war is not my best subject. Thank you so much for that, very interesting read! I wonder how things would've evolved having an alliance between Poland-Sweden and France. Imonoz (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thought I would make an update on some things, as you may have discovered, I've added some Polish-Swedish battles in the Great Northern War, first one being Battle of Dersunisjki 1702 and then Battle of Praga 1705 (the battle we discussed earlier), as you can see in that battle I managed to find troop strength of the Polish guard detachment which was wiped out at Praga, they were approx. 140 men strong. I put Polish-Saxon-Russian casualties at 250 since, they estimated their losses to a quarter of 1,000 men, as you said, which they thought the Swedes and Polish allies had suffered. What do you think of these articles, I'd like to check with you if everything is correct.

Also, I've came up with some numbers in the battle of Willno 1702, the Polish-Lithuanian force had a maximum strength of 3,000, maybe less. The Swedes also had a maximum number of 3,000 but here, as in the Polish case, most likely less. The Poles managed to surprise the infantry (mainly Dala regiment) inside Willno, but was later driven off by the approaching Swedish cavalry. Casualties sustained were about 100 for each side (67 dead and 20 wounded only in the Dala regiment), Magnus Stenbock estimated the Swedish casualties to 50 men dead, which is, as previously seen, a bit underline, and he estimated the Polish casualties to 100. The Poles estimated the Swedish casualties to 1,000, which is exaggerated, and their own losses they estimated to 30. This article helped me greatly and is very useful. I'm also looking for information about a battle at Willno/Olkieniki in 1706 between Swedish (under Gen. Ducker) and Russian-Lithuanian (under Gen. Bauer) troops, the Swedes were 900 at the allies 7,000 according to Swedish sources. Do you know what Polish sources say here? And have you come up with other numbers of troops in the battle of Radom/Zakrzew 1656?

To end with, I'd like to ask you if you've ever discovered numbers of 4,350 Poles-Lithuanians at Kircholm 1605? I've countered a list of troops (translated by Daniel Staberg, based on numbers from Richard Brzezinski) which goes into detail the Polish-Lithuanian Order of battle, as I've done some recent changes to the article (among them changes the Swedish casualties to 7,600-8,000 men as we previously discussed) I started to study the battle a little more, would you like to see the Order of battle? Imonoz (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the 'OB' I meant about the Kircholm battle, thank you for clearing that up with the 15% from the paper strength, suspected there were something wrong. No I don't know those sources, that would be great! Do you know which regiments participated in the battle of Chybice? And what the mission was (contribution, scouting etc). I wonder what the reason was to use caracole.

About Olkieniki 1706, Swedish sources say that the Swedes withstood the attacks and then Bauer retreated and the Swedes could enter Wilno where they gained a lot of supplies, a couple of hundred men were killed from the allied side. That's about the only thing I can find. Okey, thank you.

I've also found some information regarding other skirmishes in the Great Northern War:

• Battle near Kraków 1702, where 100 Swedes under Gen. Blum were attacked by approx. 500 Polish hussars, the Swedes won.

• Battle of Wladislawa near the river of Vistula 1703, where a regiment of Kronoberg under Gabriel Lilliehöök was attacked by 2,000-3,000 PLC soldiers, the Swedes won and the Polish force suffered 150 casualties.

• Battle of Rappin 1703, a Swedish force of about 170 cavalry under Karl Gustav Skytte attacked a Russian camp of 600-1,000 men at Rappin which held approx 600 Livonian peasants as prisoners. The victory was complete and the Russians lost 300 men captured and maybe about 200 men dead.

• Battle of Lautenburg 1703, where 400 Swedes under Carl Gustaf Creutz were attacked by 8,000 PLC soldiers, the Swedes lost and suffered 170 casualties.

• Battle of Osiek 1703, Johan Mörner led a force of 500 Swedes to surprise a daily PLC troop of estimated 3,000 men. They were however surprised before they arrived and, in order to fulfill their misson, they hurried towards the PLC soldiers not to let them prepare for battle. However, many Swedes couldn't catch up and only 12 men arrived at first, they went up on a small hill where they were, as the Swedish description goes, attacked by 1,000 PLC soldiers. They managed to hold out until the rest of the Swedish force to arrive and attack the Poles in the back, and so the Poles fled.

• Battle of Cissowa 1705, Gustav Pistol with only 24 men was attacked by 800 PLC soldiers. The Swedes barricaded themselves inside a farm a little distance away from the village. The Poles tried to force them out but without any success. As night fell the PLC force marched away.

• Battle of Grinkiski 1706, Hieronymus Zeiger led 40 Swedes and 30 Poles and was attacked by about 1,500 PLC soldiers, after a long time fighting most of the Swedish-Polish force was captured.

• Battles of Oder Beltsch 1704 (right after the battle of Punitz) where 1,200 Russians were attacked by Charles XII, 1,000 Russians died. And Tillendorf where 1,500 Russians were attacked with almost everyone dead or captured.

This is all based on Swedish accounts. Imonoz (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit skeptical towards the usage of caracole in those battles, unless there's a really reliable witness (preferably a Swedish one), I'm not ready to fully believe so. Firstly, caracole required a lot of training, something which the Swedes did not. It was not part of their regulations, neither was is used against other cavalry, but to break down large formations of infantry (and I suspect the Poles/Saxons were almost all cavalry in those two encounters). Shooting from horseback could sometimes be used, more often during smaller skirmishes when the Swedish troop was gathering supplies etc, where the army sometimes made exceptions from their typical warfare and regulations (as for example, the Swedish infantry was often completely musket armed during contribution missions, leaving their pikes behind) but I've never heard of caracole. Sometimes, dragoons were giving salvos away from horseback in order to stop superior numbers of enemy cavalry, before contact. This could work against less trained units. But anyways, who's the witness?

Lautenburg, August 8, 1703. This happened during the Swedish siege of Thorn during when small Swedish troops were gathering supplies, in this case Carl Gustaf Creutz with his 400 men.

The battle near Kraków 1702, is proclaimed as a Swedish victory in Swedish sources, as the Polish hussars retreated. This happened during when the Swedish force was leading cattle to the main army. How does the Polish description go?

Both battles at Oder Beltsch and Tillendorf/Tylewice were between Swedes and retreating Cossacks. At Oder Beltsch numbers varies from 1,200, 1,500 and 2,000 Cossacks, which almost immediately retreated before the incoming attack, they tried to saved themselves in small houses and over Oder Beltsch where many were burned alive or drowned. At Tillendorf, the Cossacks (approximately 600-1,500 men [sources varies] with 11 cannons) used their wagons to seek cover from about 1,500 Swedes. They were almost all massacred expect for 18 men.

Wladislawa, May 18, 1703.

Rappin, May 25, 1703.

Osiek, June 19, 1703.

Cissowa, January 4, 1705.

Grinkiski, July 31, 1706.

Do you know any other skirmishes/battles or have description of any of these? Imonoz (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this was Caracole and not just simple shooting from horseback?

Unfortunately I do not know the Polish commander at Krakow. I don't know the losses in those battles, but it's much likely light casualties under Oder Beltsch since the Cossacks almost retreated right away. During Tillenhord, however, the battle is described as "hard fighting" when the Swedes tried to storm the wagon fort, so the Swedes most likely suffered quite some men in the progress.

Yes, that's the battle under Wladislawa.

When was this skirmish in Warsaw, it's not the fighting shortly before the battle of Warsaw (1705) you're talking about, when 200 Swedes tried to intercept a large Polish-Saxon force crossing the Vistula?

Have you tried to increase every date with +10 days, as those might be according to the Swedish calendar? Imonoz (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Unfortunately, no. I've done several searches online and in books on the name both in Polish and German Kosten without any results. Is Kościan located close to Poznan? Only thing I've seen is that Swedish troops suffered badly from guerrilla attacks from local fighters, around Poznan. I also tried searching for the generals, do you know if "Jean Otto de Wahl" is the Swedish typing of the name? It's interesting, however. I'll do some more advanced searches and see if I come up with anything, although, if there would be any easy accessible, it feels like Radoslaw Sikora would've used them. But let's see. Imonoz (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's some descriptions about the battle in the Swedish national archives, however, I don't have access to them. Apart from that I've only found little information about it, one source mentions how Jean Otto de Wahl suffered casualties in April 29 (which obviously is the battle) from Snapphanar warfare close to Poznan (it compares it with the actions by the population of Scania in the Scanian War against the Swedish army). There's also some older books which might contain more information, I'm planning to buy some more literature about this war soon and will see if it says anything. Imonoz (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three battles near Stegeborg? I've never encountered information about that, I did some searches online to see if the dates matched up but no. Are you sure there were three battles and not just confusing dates (I mean, 8th is the date when the Stångebro battle took place in Swedish sources)? I've only seen a smaller skirmish before the Stångebro battle, and that Sigismund's army was lightly harassed when it marched to Stångebro, but other from that, nothing. Do you have any information on the battles? Imonoz (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I've not encountered any information of those skirmishes, but again, in this criteria of the war against Sigismund, I only have access from books which covers all the Swedish wars, hence only a small part is about this. However, there's a skirmish right before the day of battle of Stångebro in which the royalists under Wejher attacked the Swedes. I think the attack was successful. Imonoz (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that!

• Yes, that's the skirmish of Osiek in 1703, I think his name was Johan (Hans) Mörner.
• The Lidzbark battle in Polish sources must be the Lautenburg battle I wrote about earlier with Carl Gustaf Creutz and his 400 Swedes being attacked by 8,000 Polish troops during the Siege of Thorn (1703). Interesting enough it says that he suffered 170 casualties in Swedish sources and from the Polish description 150.

I don't know any information about the other battles you listed. However, I have an old book about the campaign of 1703 which I haven't read yet, but I'm going to do so soon. When I've read that I'll maybe be able to give some information about these battles.

• There was a battle at Janiski 1703, between Christian Bruckner and 441 Swedish troops against Grigoriy Oginski with 480-500 troops. The Swedes won and captured 2 standards and inflicted 200 killed and 9 captured on the Poles.

After I've read the recent sources I've bought I might come up with more skirmishes. Imonoz (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Janiski, February 12, 1703. I don't know if this is according to the Swedish calendar, Gregorian calendar or Julian calendar however. Imonoz (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yes, I use to read that blog, it's very informative when it comes to the Great Northern War and the "Russian view" of it. Nowadays I don't read so many books, but I've bought a few about the Polish campaign in the Great Northern War which I plan to read soon. The first, which I mentioned earlier covers the whole year of 1703. And recently I bought another one which covers the time of 1701-1704 in the Polish campaign (this is the one I'm currently reading). I found some further information about the battle of Tillendorf between a Swedish company and some Russians who made a wagon fort. Someone made a Swedish Wikipedia article about that battle here and there's a German here. Both these are claiming there were 1,500 Russians, but I've discovered numbers of as low as 600. Earlier you asked about Swedish casualties in that battle, I found numbers presenting 21 dead 50 wounded Swedes. The Russians lost all but ~18 men, either it was 600, 1,200 or 1,500 Russians (I believe it's either 600 or 1,200). The Swedes massacred the Russians as vengeance for what they did during the siege of Warsaw 1704. Some Swedes were allowed to walk away after they surrendered, however, some Cossacks cut most of them down. Imonoz (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, I see. Was the article about the battle of Poniec written by Radoslaw Sikora? By the way, I found some information about the battle near Krakow 1702 which you refereed to earlier (after I mentioned a battle between 100 Swedes against 500 Polish hussars), between Axel Sparre and Lubomirski. You can read about it in English here (page 178). It seems like it's not the same battle. In this [Battle of Usia or Rawa] Sparre had 300 men and was sent on a mission by Charles XII to collect boats in order to transfer captured trophies along the Vistula river. Lubomirski heard about the and decided to encounter the Swedes with 24 companies (do you know how much one company was worth in men? Is this rotas with 50 men each?) and some peasants. Sparre heard about the incoming Polish force and formed into battle inside the town, the Poles attempted to beat the Swedes here but were repulsed with "great loss". Maybe Sparre decided to march back to Krakow after the battle seeing the great portion of enemies around? Which might be why this was considered a Polish victory in Polish eyes? Or what do you think? I hope I can find more of this action soon. Imonoz (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you! I will write back as soon as I know more about this action as well. Imonoz (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could give you anything here, but I have no information about that war, or so early in time. By the looks of it, by reading on the internet about the war, Sweden was still a rather loose society at this time, with many different leaders and figures, it was not until the son of the regent Eric the Victorious, that Sweden started to be considered an actual country. From what I've read, "Sweden" or the troops under Erik conquered Denmark. I haven't seen anything about a Polish - Swedish alliance yet. Imonoz (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kcdlp! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Constantine ✍ 08:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kcdlp! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome Kcdlp! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Krasne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Krasne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
		For you ongoing efforts to improve the coverage of Polish and Swedish history, I award you the The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class on behalf of WP:POLAND. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Kcdlp by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here on 19:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The work by Sikora that you guys are using [2] - is it a dissertation or an article? I'm just wondering because I want to properly format the reference.

(Można odpowiedzieć po Polsku).

Volunteer Marek 03:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dzięki.Volunteer Marek 04:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kcdlp. You have new messages at Talk:Battle of Ustechko.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Toruń, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swedish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Ibadibam. Kcdlp, thanks for creating Marcin Kątski!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article would benefit from a citation of Polski Słownik Biograficzny, and preferably more sources as well.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Piatka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volhynian Voivodeship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 16:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Battle of Kumeyki, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. This can help you too, as the WikiProject members will often defend your work from deletion and try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the list. German–Polish War (1002–18) and Polish–Teutonic War (1519–21) make no mention of a Polish victory, Poland was never at war with the Americans or Ottomans, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_Uprisings#Third_Silesian_Uprising_.281921.29 this is not called a victory, and being completely occupied by the Soviets is not a victory. --Steverci (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Silesian Uprising page doesn't call it a Polish victory, it was a ceasefire. Polish–Teutonic War (1519–21) ended in an armistice, and neither side got 100% of what they wanted in the German–Polish War (1002–18). There are no sources on any of these articles calling them Polish victories, so please stop trying to push your POV. Calling the Eastern front a Polish victory is also very debatable and unsourced, best to leave it as blue. --Steverci (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing is a violation of Wikipedia:Original research. You cannot call something a "Polish victory" just because it fits your criteria of one, you need to provide sources calling it such. Treaties and ceasefires aren't open to interpretation and the Teutonic Order didn't "cease to exist". And please don't add any more conflicts with no articles or sources and only your word for them. --Steverci (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you only have Polish sources that haven't been translated goes to show they don't represent the Academic Consensus. You'd also have to provide page numbers and/or quotes, not just cite an entire book. Regardless, Jędruszczak was in the Polish army at the time, he is a WP:PRIMARY source and unreliable. Same with Tymieniecki. And Biskup is a historian on Copernicus. If you don't have any non-Polish sources calling these Polish victories, there is no way to verify their reliability. Stop vandalizing the article.

As for my edition, see: Reuter, Timothy, The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. III: c. 900-c. 1024, Cambridge University Press, 2000 page 164. --Steverci (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your source calls the peace treaty a status quo. --Steverci (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Chief gainer" is not the same thing as a clear victory. Also the Wolfram source says the treaty wasn't ideal for the Emperor but not the entire Empire, it was very ideal for the Duke of Bavaria. Ultimately the details of the peace aren't recorded and historians debate about who was the "technical" winner, so it's best left blue. And my mistake with the Reuter source, the page is actually 286. And here's another source. A German Margrave led a raid on and subjugated Poland and Otto the Great was paid tribute as a result. --Steverci (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kcdlp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have this book handy: Koczownicy i rycerze. Najazd Mongołów na Polskę w 1241 roku na tle sztuki wojennej Europy XII i XIII wieku |year=2001 |publisher=Oficyna Wydawnicza Arboretum |location=Wrocław |isbn=83-86308-47-4. An editor is making a big deal out of it not being in English on the article. Volunteer Marek  16:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kcdlp. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kcdlp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]