Talk:Battle of Lesnaya

Nada Sources

No Sources at all, Who wrote this? Seems to be almost copypaste from the Karl XII (Charles XII) article80.197.1.72 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Draw?

This was a Swedish defeat, at least a strategic one. --88.114.242.180 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit-wars

Notice the recent edit-wars this artcle has suffered. I have several sorces that claims it was a draw, and even a Swedish victory, alltough Voyevoda stills claims it was a Russian victory. Maybe strategical and morale, but tacticly, no.

Coments, please. /Snillet 09:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment: you failed to provide a NEUTRAL (non-Swedish) source for your questionable claim. All web sources describe Lesnaya as Swedish defeat, here are some of them: [1], [2]. I suggest, we lock the article with the more traditional interpretation until Snillet delivers neutral proofs for his sensational history revisionism. Voyevoda 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Browsing through Google, I agree that most English-language sites assert that the battle was a Russian victory, particularly because Sweden's supply lines were heavily damaged. If Swedish sources claim it was a draw or victory, though, that fact should be included - e.g. "Swedish historians *name*, *name* and *name* challenge the general consensus that this battle was a Russian victory, suggesting instead that.... blah blah blah" --Hyperbole 10:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is crazy in the extreme: the German, French and Italian articles all claim a Russian victory. Looking at the September 28 articles I can add Greek and Dutch wikipedia. All of these authors have no historic axe to grind. Calling something a tactical draw because half of the Swedish losses were due to drunkenness is plain silly, of course. Shall we call Pearl Harbor a draw because the US Navy was caught with their pants down? Calling it a draw because the Swedes "managed" (or were forced) to engage a numerically superior opponent and could even disengage from the fight (in "some" fashion, I would add) is even worse: by that token, even Waterloo is a draw. The undisputed fact that the Russians lost fewer men than their opponents is already telling, it is quite atypical for battles involving any Russian army.--Paul Pieniezny 10:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing atypical about it, look at Russo-Turkish wars or the Seven Years' War, the Russo-Persian wars or many battles of the Great Northern War. In the most battles, the Russians had more moderate losses. Voyevoda 12:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Internet source that claims a draw (http://www.birthday.se/kalender/2007/09/29/):

"Slaget hade ingen given segrare men Peter den store, som förde befälet över de ryska trupperna lär senare ha kallat slaget "Poltavasegerns moder".

"The battle had no direct winner, but Peter the Great, who commanded the Russian force, later said the the battle was the "mother to the Battle of Poltava". /Snillet 15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you overseen that your main fault is the inability to bring any NEUTRAL (non-Swedish) sources? Voyevoda 11:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So the heart of this edit war is what we're going to put in the "result=" field, more than the editorial content of the body of the article, right? What about something like "result=Generally considered a Russian victory"? It does appear (as best I can tell, since I don't read Swedish) that while the general international consensus is that the Russians won this battle, the Swedes do not consider this a military defeat, largely because a great portion of their losses came during a mutiny after the battle was over. It definitely needs to be mentioned in the article that many Swedes do not now, and perhaps never did, consider this battle a defeat. (By analogy, see Vietnam War, where there has been controversy over the "result" field and a paragraph discusses the fact that many Americans do not consider the war a military defeat, but rather, a political one). --Hyperbole 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbole: I like your idea! /Snillet 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, one can mention it in the article, but in the "result" field there must be definitely the more common interpretation. After all, in the Battle of Borodino article there is written "French victory", though Russians do not to consider the battle as Russian defeat. Voyevoda 11:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, our account of Borodino says both sides retreated for the night, while there is a contemporaneous Polish source claiming cossacks ruled the battle field and had even taken over the notorious fleches. Control of the battlefield is often a parameter used to decide who won when there is an unclear issue to a battle. But so is the direction of the troops the day after and the casualty count, and those are generally taken to favour the option that the French won. In any case, the fact that most Western historians favour the French victory vision, is probably due to the Russophobic atmosphere in Britain from 1815 to 1905. --Paul Pieniezny 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We could add a reference-mark and then write that Swedish historians thik it was a draw or Swedish victory. /Snillet 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, there must be a mention of which Swedish historians claim it is a draw or even a victory. Something like that in a note needs to be sourced specifically (just write the name of the historian). By the way you can sometimes force Google books to show a snippet of text from the book, by searching for a text string like the Swedish for " victory at Lesnaya". That is better than useless edit warring. --Paul Pieniezny 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

..

Out of the 6000 men lost, 1000 were killed on the swedish side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.44.122 (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Swedish casualties

The article says that Sweden lost 6,307 soldiers, wich must be incorrect because 1,500 managed to get back to Riga, so they should not be included in the "casualties"-box. /Snillet (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)