Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Warsaw (1705)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBattle of Warsaw (1705) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 17, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
January 15, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 9, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the Battle of Warsaw in 1705, a Swedish force of 2,000 men defeated a Polish-Lithuanian-Saxonian force five times as strong?
Current status: Featured article

Battle of Rakowitz

[edit]

A disambig claimed that this battle was "also known as the Battle of Rakowitz". I can't find such a name used in English works ([1]) but Swedish interwiki leads to sv:Slaget vid Rakowitz and German, de:Schlacht bei Rakowitz. Since I am pretty sure that neither German nor Swedish name for Warsaw is not Rakowitz, what gives? The battle took place on the outskirts of Warsaw, but I cannot find any information about a place that would be named Rakowitz or similar in Polish or English sources, and neither German nor Swedish wikis seem to explain what Rakowitz is... PS. As far as I can tell, none of the Polish toponyms named Rakowice is located anywhere near Warsaw. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underneath the upper left box on the map you can read something like "Bakowietz", as B and R look quite similar in that old handwriting that hamlet might have been called Rakowietz. --ThePiedCow (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a slight hint, but I'd hope that a search through German or Swedish literature may be more helpful... but there seem to be no books even mentioning it!). As it is, the name seems very dubious, almost like a vandalism. It was a name used on sv wiki when it was created by an editor who even today has no talk page ([http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slaget_vid_Rakowitz&oldid=2205937), and on de wiki it was moved to this name by an editor who doesn't have a user page ([2]). The editor who moved it on de wiki seemed to have claimed it was moved based on the name used in literarute, but that claim is not supported by any references, either in the article or as shown above, by my own google print search. I am unfortunately unable to speak German or Swedish and make enquires to/about those editors on those wikis, or alert their admins to the possible vandalism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you try Warschau and Rakowitz there are two late 19th century sources in German, they both ("zwischen Warschau und dem Dorfe Rakowitz" (=between Warsaw and the village of Rakowitz)and "Sein rechter Flügel stunde gleich gegen Warschau, der linke aber vor Ujasdow gegen dem Dorfe Rakowitz") claim that there was a village called Rakowitz. Maybe someone could find a detailed map of 1700 Warsaw.--ThePiedCow (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a village called Rakowiec, which in modern times is a neighbourhood of the borough of Ochota. Back then it was located to the west of the city, roughly where one of the sides had its' camp, so that would explain the name. Interestingly, the Polish wiki claims the German name of the settlement was... Krebsdorf. //Halibutt 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It's almost certainly that place, considering this image - based on the battle map.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Warsaw in 1705?

[edit]

According to German and Swedish wikis, there was a second battle of Warsaw in 1705, on 18 November: de:Warschauer Friede/sv:Freden i Warszawa. Polish wiki has no entry on it yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If google translate is correct, the German article refers to a peace treaty that was signed at that date. --H8erade (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is what the swedish article is about too. --Skizzik talk 20:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the confusion arose from the fact that the interwikis were incorrect (some artcles about the battle pointed to the treaty instead).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21 or 31 July

[edit]

Sources: for 21 July, for 31 July. 31 July is also confirmed here and by many Polish print sources, so I am assuming the English pdf article is in error.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

de:Schlacht bei Rakowitz mentions both dates, 21st being the Swedish calendar. The old map also gives both dates in the upper left box. --ThePiedCow (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish calendar? Interesting. I'll make a note of it in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commander

[edit]

Re: [3]. What are the sources for Otto Arnold von Paykull vs Johann Patkul? Pl, de and sv wikis give Johann Patkul as the commander. Pdf gives Otto Arnold Paykull indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a common mistake to mix the two Livonian officers Patkull and Paykull. The names are rather close and both were executed in 1707. Patkull was handed over to the Swedes after the Treaty of Altranstädt in 1706 and brutally executed on October 10, 1707 at Kaźmierz. But Paykull was taken prisoner at the battle of Warsaw in 1705. He was taken to Stockholm and executed there on February 4, 1707. His name is sometimes spelled Paijkull in Swedish sources [4].
Also the Swedish commander seems to have his name altered. I have searched several Swedish sources and he is always called Carl Nieroth. I don't know where the extra first name come from. And he never used von in his name. [5] Närking (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you stub the article about Otto? It would help much in the future. As for Carl/Karl, I suggest starting a discussion about his name on the talk of his article, since he does have one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can at least start it, but I don't have much time right now. And I have suggested a move of Nieroth's article on the talk page. Närking (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Warsaw (1705). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

[edit]

@Imonoz: and other editors: I will be copy editing this over the next few days. I tend to boldly change; this irritates some people. I will try to make changes discrete, so if you don't like anything it should be easy to revert. Or just ping me and ask me what the heck I thought I was doing. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Imonoz: and other editors: I have finished my first run through. I will have another look in 24-48 hours, when I have 'fresh' eyes. In the meanwhile you might like to have a look at the edits I have made and give any feedback you feel appropriate. I thought that it was an interesting, informative and well referenced article for what that is worth. It is clear that a lot of hard work has gone into it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gog the Mild. There are about three sentences which I will write here on the talk tomorrow, which needs a little look over (in this case, it was my initial text, poorly written, that caused a misunderstanding). Overall, I'm surprised of how well you've understood the text and I'm so happy that you're doing this. And don't feel any rush. Imonoz (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so here are a few sentences I want to check with you.
At the end of Prelude: "Meanwhile their enemy, the Saxons moved from Krakow to Brest and departed for Warsaw in early July," The source which a cite here, says that these were already in Brest, but it made clear that it was the same Saxons that had initially been evicted from Krakow by Nils stromberg. Basically "Meanwhile their enemy, the Saxons [that had] moved from Krakow to Brest, departed for Warsaw in early July,"
What do you think of my amendment?Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one works really good! Imonoz (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also at the end of Prelude: "This commitment to an aggressive posture was arguably contrary to the instructions of Augustus, which were merely to be disrupive." do you think we can remove this sentence? It doesn't match the source [Otto Sjögren] (he remains rather passive on that subject). Maybe it's enough to have it in the "End of the battle" sector?
Yes, you are correct. It smacks of original research. Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth paragraph of Initial skirmishes: "Bonde carried on with his task, issuing instructions to prevent any attempt made my the coalition to cross the river." In this case, I meant that Bonde was issued (by Nieroth most likely, although the source is not very clear of whom these instructions came from) with instructions to prevent any attempt made by the allies to cross the river.
Sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Imonoz (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of Allied forces: "The Saxon reserve line consisted of some Cuirassiers to the left, three squadrons of 200 men each," the sources say "commanded Cuirassiers", which was there earlier. I think this means that a few cavalrymen were handpicked from each squadron, to make up a new one working as the reserve. Maybe there some good word for it? If it's even necessary to have there.
"Commanded doesn't mean anything in this context, which is why I left it out; "handpicked is perfect. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Commanded" was never a good word to use here, although that's what the Theatrum Europeanum used for their scetch of the battle, furthest down on the battle order. Handpicked should work much better, like you say. Imonoz (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was your word. I just stole it! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the beginning of Rakowiec: This sentence was removed "This head-wind further prolonged the Swedes who, after some 2,5 kilometers, finally discovered their opponents who came to receive them" is it not significant enough to have in there? Maybe we can add that back but with a little better structure.
I thought that you would query this, I nearly pinged you. Elsewhere it states that the wind was from the south west, in which case it was blowing from behind the Swedes and cannot have been a headwind. Are you sure that you are translating the source correctly? Also, "finally discovered their opponents who came to receive them" seemed redundant as this bit is covered again later. I should have left the 2.5 km bit in. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think there's a misunderstanding somewhere here. Just above it says "as strong western winds swept over their heads." in this case, if the Swedes marched from Warsaw, which is about east of the initial battle area, shouldn't they march in head-wind (that's what the source itself states)? Anyways, this part might not be significant enough to be included. Like you say, I think the 2.5 km is however. The "finally discovered their opponents who came to receive them" is more about when the two armies could clearly see each other, and in the perspective of the Swedes; they saw their foes likewise marching in on them (so after about 2.5 kilimeters, they discovered their foe). This part was not about when the two forces actually clashed with eachother, which happened a little later after the Swedish split of the line. What do you think should be included? Imonoz (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will trust the source re the head wind. (Note that in the battle map the Swedes are attacking from the south west. Actually, I don't think that north is at the top! D'oh!) Will you check me please? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. That battle map has confused me several times as well. Here's a true directional map of Warsaw, which I had to follow instead. It's good because the village of Wola (to the direction of where the Swedes marched) is also noted there. Your edit is perfect. Imonoz (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before I make any changes myself, I want to check with you so we are on the line with each other, and would most preferably have you rewrite it, if it's OK with you. Imonoz (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten. That's fine with me; I am here to help get this fine article up to the next level. I was rather sweeping with my changes when editing, but I felt safe not to mess around too much as I expected you to pick me up if I missed the point - which you have; thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like the bold edits, I've checked through the whole article after sentences that might not stay true to the sources after the copy-editing, and these were the only ones I found. And to this, I must say, that I'm also of the very picky kind. What I am essentially trying to say is that I'm positively surprised with your work on the article. Imonoz (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you. I appreciate that. We aim to please. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit query

[edit]

In the lead it states "Paykull... took the initiative, without the advice of Augustus". Does this mean against the advice of Augustus? In which case it should say that. Or without any advice from Augustus and not knowing what that advice might have been? In which case, IMO, it is not significant enough to be in the lead. Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your work so far. Augustus, the Polish king, ordered Paykull to "interrupt" the ongoing coronation, but these orders did not include a battle with the Swedes. Basically, Paykull achieved this order by just remaining close to Warsaw, threatening it with his army (the result was a lot of fleeing noblemen participating in the parliament). But a German source, which a cite further down at the "End of the battle" sector, says he [Paykull] probably got encouraged to seek battle seeing how strong he was in numbers, and not because this was part of the order. I haven't seen the first hand source of the letter myself, but I don't think Augustus adviced him not to seek battle, either, so it's probably not an "against the advice". I think you should choose. Imonoz (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I that this belongs in the Prelude section rather than the lead. I will take it out of the lead, and place it in the prelude as a 'marker'. Would you like to write it up there? If not, then I will. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit query (2)

[edit]

"This resulted in a combative personal of 550 men of the regiment, left after the battle, as the rest were either dead, wounded or without horses or other lost equipment" does not really make sense. But it is difficult to copy edit as I am not sure what you are trying to say. Could you help? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. That was sloppy. Basically, because of the losses of manpower, horses and equipment (weapons, sabiers etc) during the battle, the Östgöta Regiment could only muster 550 men after the battle. The point of the sentence is to provide information about the significant amount of horses lost, basically. Imonoz (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it was sloppy; I think that the sentence just got too complicated :) . I have had a go at rewriting that but you will need to have a close look at it. Feel free to edit if I haven't got it right. (I don't need to say that of course - this is Wikipedia!) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Warsaw_(1705)&oldid=1206188057"