Talk:Battle of Trzciana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name[edit]

The name is much more unknown because the real Polish name of Honigfelde today is Trzciano (with an "o" at the end) wich is a village some kilometers south of Sztum (German: Stuhm). Astonishing even Polish historians don't know this! The other name of the battle is "the battle on the Stuhme Heath" (German: Stuhmer Heide) but "the battle of Honigfelde" is much more common.

Knut Grünitz

Casualties[edit]

It says, in the info bar "1,200 Swedish dead and 500 captured" may I ask from which source this is claimed? However, in the "After the Battle" it says: "The Swedish cavalry had suffered serious losses during the battle, with about 600 dead and 200 captured by the Poles, including many high-ranking officers. (Earlier accounts of the battle incorrectly speak of only 200-300 lost on each side). The Swedish infantry, however, remained mostly intact, and overall the balance of forces in the war remained largely unchanged." So if the Swedish cavalry lost 600 men and the infantry was mostly intact how come the Swedish casualties were 1,200 dead? Are camp-followers included in this number or what? Old Swedish proparganda talks about 200-300 dead Swedish soldiers. Modern Swedish historians claim about 700 dead and wounded Swedish.Imonoz (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This for example.Imonoz (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Podhorodecki: "On the field of battle there were almost 1200 dead Swedes, around 150 Poles and probably the same number of Austrians. The victors took almost 400 (note - not 500, VM) prisoners, 10 canons, 15 standards and much valuable loot".
The fact that Field Marshall Wrangel's son died in the battle might be worth mentioning.VolunteerMarek 17:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the source you link to - this is a bit of a difficulty. It's a web forum so technically not a reliable source. The poster does not really reference his conclusions. And we have other sources which give different information. However, looking at the post, it seems to me that the poster knows what they're talking about and issues such as whether Stoop was at the battle or if it was THE Wrangel that died should be verifiable.
The person who posted that info, refers to "Swedish sources based on von Arnim". Looking at his blog [1], it seems he is active there so maybe an email asking him which specific sources he is referring to (or maybe even if he could help out with the article, presuming he speaks English) could resolve this situation.
If not, personally I'd just go with giving a range, with maybe a comment that the lower numbers are more likely.VolunteerMarek 17:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your listening. Obviously the Swedish casualties by GIIA was heavily underestimated (200 dead) even modern Swedish historians state that, just as much as the 1,200 dead Swedish which some Polish (ex. "Podhorodecki") claims are exaggerated. The correct number lands somewhere in between as that guy I linked stated. However, I had to translate it in google so I had a bit of difficulties understanding. So according to the article at the "After the Battle" sector it states at least 600 was killed (prob. around 700), this is far more reliable than the 1,200 dead. Question now is, what source was used for that statement? It's probably a Polish one so I'll have difficulites finding it. Also I may try contacting the guy who wrote that casualty statement.Imonoz (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should be included in the article as well "Field Marshall Wrangel's son died" it's a good thought.Imonoz (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know what source the "600 killed" come from but I agree that they appear more plausible than Podhorodecki's info (that research is more than 27 years old).
In that forum post the guy does a bit of his own original research - to debunk the 1500 dead - by comparing regimental rosters from May and June. Adding up his numbers you get 479 cavalrymen died during the period, with 1052 cavalrymen sick, wounded, or horseless. He attributes the high number in the second category (the 1052) to mostly the bad living conditions in the Swedish camp, rather than the battle. You throw in some infantry deaths, round off, etc and you get close to the 600 dead.
With the Wrangel thing - I miswrote. What I meant is that Podhorodecki also says that the Wrangel that died at the battle was the Field Marshall's son, but the forum poster points out that it couldn't be him since he would've been 13 at the time. Instead it was another Johan/Hans Wrangel, a colonel.VolunteerMarek 20:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the data that Grimme sent I'd have the article say "around 500" and cite... well, cite Sveriges Krig, except I'm not sure which one he's referring to (I think it's this one). We could also add a footnote which goes into more details on the numbers.VolunteerMarek 00:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, we'll think of something. By the way the book, is there a chance it is this one? That one is more popular than the other one (not even sure I've heard the other book before) but oh well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imonoz (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost captured[edit]

According to Podhorodecki, GA was almost captured not by a cossack (which here I think just means light cavalry) but by a Polish hussar - perhaps there is some confusion between "hussar" and "light cavalry". VolunteerMarek 17:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Trzciana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Trzciana&oldid=1206186562"