Talk:Battle of Holowczyn

Edit war

Stop it. Edit wars are stupid. Discuss which of your separate sources are better. /Grillo (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

About constant changes of Russian losses in the article

Most historians (such as Peter Englund, Lars Ericson Wolke, Peter Kuvaja and Peter Ullgren) agree that the Russian losses at the battle were heavy. Of course there are no exact figures here, but the figures mentioned in scholar works vary from 3000 to 5000 killed Russians. Although this didn't mean much in the end since the Russians easily could get new soldiers while the Swedes couldn't. Närking (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

---

And all those authors take their source from a 200 year old, WRONG, BIASED, Swedish estimate.

My source is far better, as it is neutral and newer (and guess what, Russian losses are 3 times as heavy as the Swedish ones).

PS. Most historians? Do you even understand what you are talking about? Maybe most historians in Sweden (since they are idiots, correct?), but clearly not in the (sane) English world.

Actually, bring some credible English sources who state the same as the 200 year old Swedish sources. --Nikitn (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

For your information it's not only Swedish historians mentioned above (if you don't count Finland as part of Sweden). And there are of course also other historians that agree, and I will add them to the reference also if needed. And frankly it's hard to take you serious when you call well-known historians "idiots". Närking (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Swedish/Finnish historians are the same in bias. And yes, they are real idiots if they try to present a 200 year old source as proof.

Anyway.. I have a reliable, English source at hand. Save your Swedish sources for Swedish wikipedia (of which GNW section is completely nationalistic). --Nikitn (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Answering this is probably just a waste of time. But I give it a last try. Maybe you don't know how historians work. How do you think historians write their works? By inventing stories and figures out of the air to fit a certain POV? No, they don't, they use all possible archival sources, which in this case would be 300 years old. Of course the different sources are tried and checked, one has to remember who wrote them, for what reason etc. All this is done with reference to the original archival sources. And an article in Wikipedia should also have references, not to archival sources but to scholarly works. Please remember that before editing. Närking (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Errm, not to defend Niktin or anything, but using Swedish sources for Russian losses seems to be bad style. Wouldn't providing the historyofwar.com number be at least a valid compromise? --Illythr (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not only Swedish works used as reference, but also English and Finnish for example. The problem with sites like historyofwar.com is that they don't have any references. I would guess they use some kind of imperial Russian sources in this case, but that's just my guess. If you can find such source you can of course add those figures as an alternative. But it does seem like a majority among historians don't trust them, just like other imperial Russian sources that claim Swedish losses higher than the entire Swedish army at a battle. Närking (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(By the way I have checked several works about the Battle of Grengam that give a new understanding of what happened. Will get back to that when I have more time.) Närking (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As the only sources of battle information at the time tend to be the direct participants, who have exactly the same motivation for overestimating enemy losses and underestimating their own, I see no reason to prefer one side in any of them. The deciding criterion should be the non-Russian and non-Swedish historical sources. In this particular case, the problem can be solved by replacing the Swedish authors with others, and adding the (probably Russian) numbers of 977KIA and 675 WIA. Note that the German article uses the smaller number and references a German source, # Robert K. Massie: Peter der Große - Sein Leben und seine Zeit. Fischer, Frankfurt/M. 1987, S.399. Here it says that these losses were reported, which is probably good reason to implement the same solution as in the Battle of Polava article. --Illythr (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all I don't see any of the historians above as pushing any special POV in their works. It's modern historians that can deal with tendency in original sources. But of course we can do as in the Poltava article here also. But would be better with a real reference than a book for wargamers. But at least it's better than historyofwar.com. Närking (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that any or all modern Swedish historians are POV-pushers (as I don't know any of them) - merely that they are much more likely to use original Swedish figures and not original Russian ones - just as modern Russian historians are more likely to do the opposite (for once, simply because own archive data is more readily accessible to them). --Illythr (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Yey, Narking! I know how historians operate very well. But facts are, they use a 200 year old estimate (which is at least as biased as imperial Russian estimates). Not neutral research, archival research. Do you comprehend this? Or not? Also, using 200 year old Swedish propaganda sources (as Illythr said) for Russian casualties is just ridiculous.

PS. Why do you think Historyofwar uses an imperial Russian figure? Because it doesn't fit your view of reality? Learn to respect other, superior sources.

PPS. Only Swedes and Finns use Swedish bias sources. As you clearly see, neutral English quality sources use neutral figures (like the one at historyofwar). --Nikitn (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what makes an unreferenced website a "superior source"? And please let Illythr speak for himself. Närking (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the historyofwar does reference one "Rickard J," and I provided two more that are definitely referenced. To respond to Nikitn, the smaller figure is likely to be Russian because of the two sources I found, one is a biography of Peter the Great and the other says that these losses were "reported." There are only two sources for the losses - Russian and Swedish, it's lot like there were any independent UN observers at the time or site of the battle. Thus it's logical to assume that the smaller number was reported by the Russian side.--Illythr (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

UPD:This search provides a more definite confirmation, the first hit says in Russian (Шведы утверждали, что русских погибло около 6 тыс. человек, а русские признавали лишь 547 убитыми, 675 ранеными и 630 пленными) "Swedes claimed that about 6000 Russians died, but Russians acknowledged only 547 dead, 675 wounded and 630 captured." --Illythr (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious that each side always claim less or higher losses. And I can also name original sources from and after the actual battle, but that wouldn't help here since that would be WP:OR. Now we have numerous historians that have done the work for us and we cite those in this encyclopedia such has been done in the article. And as you suggested I have also added the Russian figure as an alternative.

I haven't seen the figure 6,000 killed Russians in any Swedish work. But that the Russian losses were heavy can be understod when tsar Peter brought Repnin and Johan von Chambers to court martial after the battle. They were first sentenced to death but was later reprieved. Närking (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. One of the contemporary sources from after the battle says the Swedes were digging graves for seven days after it. Närking (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have Robert Massie's (Pulitzer Prize winning) biography of Peter the Great -- in his account of this battle, he gives the Russian casualties as 977 dead and 675 wounded. The source he gives for this section is Captain James Jefferyes's Letters from the Swedish Army, 1707-1709. I think by the way that a more important issue with this article is that it fails to give enough background, especially the fact that this battle occurred near the beginning of a campaign that would end in total Swedish disaster at Poltava. Looie496 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that the article surely needs expansion and also needs to be sourced. Like all the other articles about the battles during this campaign. Närking (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you understand narking? That The figure is neutral English one, and far better then a Swedish "report" that was written 200 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitn (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Both figures are 200+ year old reports. Either side had motivation to exaggerate or underestimate the losses (although Russian sources always cite the Swedes for Swedish losses in this battle). Respectable Western historians cite both, so do we. --Illythr (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like too point out that the Swed´s were rather fanatical in their documentation, roll call was a standard procedure, expecialy after a battle, the comander needed too know his losses, how many were fit for duty and how many recrutes would be needed to fill his companies. Reports would be sent back home where they would be recorded in the military arkives, so one can be sure the numbers on the Swedish side are pretty accurate. As for the enamey´s numbers, that will alway´s be guess work, point in fact, at the battle of Narva Czar Peter never did fill in his casulty list, the belief being it was more than he wished too admitt. Wr have to use the numbers given for lack of any others. Ryttar 2012-11-25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talk • contribs) 17:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WP Note

I've reviewed this for WP:POLAND and I don't believe it is important enough to be included under that project. Milhist Polish task force is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"In battle"

@Gvssy Do you have access to the source and can verify what was added in this edit? It kind of changes the meaning of the article to describe the Swedes defeating a numeriorically superior enemy and then claiming Russia only had 9,000 "in battle" when Sweden is described to have had 12,500. Since you have been editing the topic a lot I thought you may be able to have a look at this added inconsistency. TylerBurden (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, unfortunately I don't. Although I agree that it is inconsistent. This source 1 which I found, seems to claim the Russian army consisted of 39,000 men, although the preview image does not show it. The quote is: slaget vid Holowczyn i juli 1708. En rysk armé omfattande 39000 man besegrades av 12500 svenskar och Dnjeprövergången föll i ...

That being said, I think it's best to get @Dushnilkin to provide the quote from the book, seeing as it's an offline source. Gvssy (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry for the late answer, I'll quote now.

Despite being outnumbered 12,500 to 28,000, his attack on the centre put a wedge in the Russian lines so that only 9,000 Russians could actually take part in the fighting. Out of all of his victories, he reputedly considered Holowczyn to be his favourite. Dushnilkin (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

So through tactics, the actual number is 28,000. Then this is not something that needs to be in the infobox. TylerBurden (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

28,000 is the immediate strength of the army, not all formations of which even saw the Swedes during the battle. According to this logic, in page instead of the numbers 16,000 and 42,000, 30,000 and 75,000 should be indicated. Dushnilkin (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Then go to that page and apply whatever logic you want to push. TylerBurden (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did it anyway (although similar figures were indicated before me, I just shortened the infbox). In general, I am guided by the design of similar articles, I decided that it would be more correct. In general, why do you think that such a thing should not be indicated in the infbox? Its essence is a summary of the information from the article, so why don't we enlarge it a little? Dushnilkin (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

You added this figure with zero context or expansion to the article, not remotely in line with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. If you think it is important enough to be in infobox, then add the reason why this reduced number happened as well, otherwise it makes no sense. TylerBurden (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already added this data directly to the text of the article below the infobox, similar information was also indicated earlier, just without specifying the numbers. Now you can specify this in the infobox? Dushnilkin (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Details such as armies fumbling their numerical superiority belong in the body, since it is something that needs to be explained in more detail than the infobox is meant for. TylerBurden (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)