Russian warfare in the early post-medieval period

[HansDuet]

[quote=cegorach;2283888]

It was 'down' before he entered the country. Sapiehas were waging civil wr in Lithuania and lost it at that time so the entire Grand Duchy was still a big mess just like from some 1690. August II was breaking the law and started this private war of his without support of the parliament so the Crown ( i.e. Poland) was pretty pissed off too - see the battle at Klisov where Lubomirski uses only 10 % of the army and leaves the battlefield without a reason to see what I mean.
If you notice how quickly August II lost the remaining support you will see that he was a very unpopular person.

In general that time in our history sees as fracture in the country - factions fight other factions, no unified front exists which is exploited by the enemies. Karl XII just entered and left accelerating certain processes, but it is quite probable there would be a civil war soon without the entire GNW mess.

Yea. So why did the Poles attack the Swedes first time. :hmmm:
Shouldnt they dealt with internal matters rather than go on war against Swedes to exploit its new weak ruler.
Yet again, i dont know what to believe without good sources.
.Czar is quite amusing.

[cegorach]

[quote=HansDuet;2283906]

Yea. So why did the Poles attack the Swedes first time. :hmmm:
Shouldnt they dealt with internal matters rather than go on war against Swedes to exploit its new weak ruler.
Yet again, i dont know what to believe without good sources.
.

Actually Poland wasn't at war with Sweden at that time, SAXONY was. There surely were Poles in August II army, but recruited for his onw money as the ruler of Saxony. Only after the Swedes entered the territory of the Comonwealth Poland and Sweden were at war, though a very confused one.

This webside is pretty good http://www.wfgamers.org.uk/resources/C18/gnw.htm#poland

I don't know any Swedish or English books to recomend in that matter, unfortunatelly.

Czar is quite amusing.

True. I have already quoted his entire post in a forum which I often use to discuss the XVI-XVIIth warfare. The 10 000 dead Poles is something worth showing for sure, pity it never happened ( NEVER in a single battle such losses were caused by Russian or Soviet army - really) , but we can't have everything I guess.

[Panzerbear]

The 'no-considearable effort' was 32 000 strong army sent to take it (18 050 boyar cavalry, 7219 streltsy infantry, 6 000 Tratar cavalry).
The city was capitulated after Ivan's artillery caused a fire which was impossible to extinguish and the entire 500 men ( there were also 1500 armed citizens, peasants etc) strong garrison negotiated a honourable capitulation.

absolutely correct. artillery shelling and capitulation afterwards does in fact mean no considerable effort.

That really made my day !

The 'battle' was a Russian attack from the fortress (as many similar which usually are seen during sieges) which indeed captured a banner... of an infantry regiment and it caused as much as 10 deaths on both sides (most likely it includes the wounded wh died after the 'battle').

you are correct. I made a mistake relying on "history of Velikie Luki" on the website of the city. now that I read many other sources (including this one - http://culture.pskov.ru/ru/history/livon), I do agree with your assessment.

Russian XVIth century chronicles most likely show a different picture - but I think you could use works of modern historians for a change.

I agree. I made a mistake relying on less scientific source and I am guilty as charged.

The war is called 'Livonian War' for a reason man... you do realise that the objective was to re-take Livonia and that Russian LOST this war, do you ?

OK lets go back to the real world, cowboy.

Swedes advanced from the North, Crimean Tatars advanced from the South (hell, they even managed to capture Moscow), and Poles, who were absolutely sure that the weakened Russian territories will not be able to mass a considerable resistance, sent a note to Czar Ivan the Terrible with demands of turning over Livonia and North-Western Russian territories (Smolensk, Novgorod, Pskov among all others). Obviosly Russian Czar told the Poles to go suck a pair.

Poles massed a HUGE freaking army (over 50,000 soldiers according to my sources) and sent them to Russia. With main Russian troops fighting the Tatards, the only possible way to repell Polish attacks were to rely on heavily-fortified Russian cities in the West.

Velikie Luki (with 6,000 defenders of Voeikov) was one of them. it fell after many days of fierce fighting and surrendered only when the entire city caught fire, after 9 days (the fire went to arsenal and the huge explosion shattered the Russian fortifications).

nearly simmultanious attack was launched by Poles on a small fortress of Zavolchje. the brave defenders of that fortress were fighting for two weeks, but still had to surrender to Polish massive army.

next year Polish king led an assault on Pskov (a major Russian city), again, with a MASSIVE army of many many thousands. Pskov had a stationed 4,500 soldiers and 12,000 armed pesant militia. the brave Russian defenders held the walls for 143 days and repelled 31 Polish attacks. Polish even managed to break through two towers (ruined by artillery fire), but they were quickly pushed back by the Russians. Pskov defenders also made 46 assaults on Poles outside of the city walls and were quite sucessful at demoralizing the Poles. in January of 1958 the ciese fire and peace treaty for 10 years were signed a Poles lifted the siege and walked away form Pskov.

Poles got Livonia, Russians got the captured cities back. Pskov defense was the key to Russian success in these negotiations. Especially if you keep in mind that Russia simmultaniously fought against the Swedes and Tatars.

I am glad Peter the Great fixed this turn of events.

Ok, I mistyped - but would Russians reveal data on this battle like they over-spam about their 'super glorious victory over 1500-2000 Teutonic forces' in battle on Ice

this coming from a person, who few weeks ago denied that Battle of Neva took place ?

what shocking data would your reveal on the battle on Chudskoe Lake?

obviously, the numbers are ALWAYS debatable (it always depends on your source), but I am sure as hell they average out in a following manner:

Russians had Alexander Nevsky with his 900 horsemen + ~3,000 infantrymen (archers and footmen - the exact figures are hard to determine from chronicles).

the Teutonic Order had over 400 Germans (mostly horsemen) and up to 1,200 Estland footmen.

the casualties on both sides were not massive by all means. the Order obviously lost the battle. according to Russian chronicles, about 400 Germans were slain (20 Bruder Knights among them), 50 Germans (6 Bruder Knights among them) were captured alive, and "countless" of their allies (i.e. Ests - it is obvious that they probably suffered massive casualties indeed)...

I will be really surprised if you will come up with anything else.

Ah Lesna, most sources (exept the russian once offcourse) gives that it was russia that had superiority in numbers 12 000 swedes against 15 500 russians.

obviously, this must be communist propaganda then .

He [Peter the Great] detached a flying column from his main army, made up of 6,795 dragoons and 4,830 mounted infantry. More troops were in the area, but for most of the battle the Russians were actually slightly outnumbered by Lewenhaupt’s column.

source: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...s_lesnaja.html

here is just one source. many others report very similar numbers.

[Nissedruva]

obviously, this must be communist propaganda then.

source: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...s_lesnaja.html

here is just one source. many others report very similar numbers.

Well actualy far from all off the swedish forces was gatherd at the beginning of the battle. Lewenhaupt had less than 8000 men the initial phace of the battle the rest was covering the supplywagons (also over 1300 men was assigned to just man the waggons).

The initial russian attacks was directed to this force of 800 men and they outnumberd those forces with atleast 1/3. The Swedes was attacked in the back and was forced after heavy fighting to fall back to support the supply collumn wich was threatend by russian units. After that the battle continued were neither sides gained much ground (Lewenhaupts possibilies to launch offensives was restricted to his fear of losing the supplies).


There the fighting eventualy took a stalemate, Lewenhaupt top priority was to secure that the supplywagons were not captured and he began moving them accross the river Lesnjanka. Due to the poor weather (snow and rain) many of these wagons was bogged down(around 1/3 of them) however the swedes decided to use them as a barrickade while covering the crossing of the ones still "intact".



4000 men was left to defend the barrickade and they manage to hold the position during the remaining of the day while the rest of the swedish force escaped. When a russian cavallry unit of 8 regiment under General Rudulf Bauer(4076 men) arrived to the battle the overmight against the remaining swedes was huge. When the remaining swedish forces (around 4000 men)tried to pull away from the battle they got stuck in the mud and later druing the night catched up by russian cavalry were they surrenderd or was killed.


Russian forces at the battle was

11 631 men in the inital force.

4075 men of Bauers units


Swedish forces

around 12 000 men (8000 in the main force and 4000 seperated from battle covering the supplywagons)


Sources:

Lewenhaupt, Adam Ludvig, Adam Ludvig Lewenhaupts berättelse med bilagor / utg. genom Samuel E. Bring. - Stockholm, 1951

Trudy Imperatorskago russkago voenno-istoričeskago obščestva. Tom I. - S:t 1909 (swedish translation)

Svenska slagfält (2004)

[cegorach]

OK lets go back to the real world, cowboy.

Swedes advanced from the North, Crimean Tatars advanced from the South (hell, they even managed to capture Moscow), and Poles, who were absolutely sure that the weakened Russian territories will not be able to mass a considerable resistance, sent a note to Czar Ivan the Terrible with demands of turning over Livonia and North-Western Russian territories (Smolensk, Novgorod, Pskov among all others). Obviosly Russian Czar told the Poles to go suck a pair.

He, he. Ivan earlier demanded whole Lithuanian Grand Duchy, Livonia, Ukraine, Volhynia, Podolia etc.
He justified taking Livonia by claiming he is an ancestor of Emperor Augustus and some weird legend there was his brother living somewhere in Livonia...
Take THAT !
Smolensk was in Poland-Lithuania only half a century earlier and was a border city so no wonder, however the main and virtually the ONLY objective was reclaiming the entire Livonia and Polock - this is one of the reasons why later Sigismund of Sweden was elected for a king (because Estonia was a part of Livonia) - to allow a peaceful transition of the rest of mainland Livonia.

Poles massed a HUGE freaking army (over 50,000 soldiers according to my sources) and sent them to Russia.

Which wasn't bigger than a Russian one in any of the given years (I can give very detailed data if you insist). Mind that in case of a siege you simply HAVE TO have more men than the defenders - otherwise there is no point to move at all.

With main Russian troops fighting the Tatards, the only possible way to repell Polish attacks were to rely on heavily-fortified Russian cities in the West.

Tartar attacks seem to have VERY LITTLE effect in the northern front - Swedish activities were half-hearted and very limited too (and mostly happened in the last phase of the war when Ivan had to strip some northern areas of soldiers).

The Tzar seems to have little trouble in ammassing a large army in every of the given years - 1579, 1580 or 1581-82. Of course he DIDN'T have the initiative and he sent too many soldiers to defend Smolensk for much of the war, but that was all.
After all only during the Vielkiye Luki campaign he had 30 000 men concentrated close to Pskov, but he didn't know where to use them...his mistake.

Velikie Luki (with 6,000 defenders of Voeikov) was one of them. it fell after many days of fierce fighting and surrendered only when the entire city caught fire, after 9 days (the fire went to arsenal and the huge explosion shattered the Russian fortifications).

The explosion happened AFTER the city capitulated. It defended for roughly 8-9 days and the earlier fires were extinguished anyway.
Sure the incendiary cannonballs were a suprise, but they had only limited, psychological effect.

nearly simmultanious attack was launched by Poles on a small fortress of Zavolchje. the brave defenders of that fortress were fighting for two weeks, but still had to surrender to Polish massive army.

This time quite correct when it comes to the time of the siege (started on the 9th October 1580 and the castle surrendered on the 23th i.e. BEFORE an attack was launched), however the main issue was not the bravery of the defenders (which was a fact), but the place the castle was.
It was on AN ISLAND and during the siege two floating bridges were build to allow the assault which didn't happen because the defenders capitulated when those were ready. Of course it was a sensible decision - no relief coming, no chance to defend and basically they did what they could, but THAT IS ALL - brave, yes - heroic no.

Also there was only 16 000 or 18 000 force sent to take the castle (the rest was kept to rebuilt Vielkiye Luki after the fire and the explosion or sent to Polock.

next year Polish king led an assault on Pskov (a major Russian city), again, with a MASSIVE army of many many thousands. Pskov had a stationed 4,500 soldiers and 12,000 armed pesant militia. the brave Russian defenders held the walls for 143 days and repelled 31 Polish attacks.

Of course he wouldn't appear with forces smaller than the defenders had, for the God's sake... The Pol-Lit army numbered 39-40 000 ( 16 000 infantry) concentrated in this area and for this campaign.
Contrary to the earlier campaigns it was worse prepared, though (I mean artillery and gunpowder) so the army had to resort to a blockade after the first (and only) assault.
It wasn't enough to take the city so the siege failed, but the war was won anyway so whay should I complain...:hmmm:

Besides actually not 31, but ONE - because there were no more attacks - unless you count those from 28th October - 3rd November and that is it ! ONE, you can have one and a half of an attack if you insist.

Polish even managed to break through two towers (ruined by artillery fire), but they were quickly pushed back by the Russians. Pskov defenders also made 46 assaults on Poles outside of the city walls and were quite sucessful at demoralizing the Poles. in January of 1958 the ciese fire and peace treaty for 10 years were signed a Poles lifted the siege and walked away form Pskov.

46 assaults- finally an accurate and realistic number ! It might include the attempts to lure some Pol-Lit soldiers/units under the fire of Pskov's guns, but I agree.

About the demoralisation - not true. The assualts improved the morale, actually because inactivity during the blockade brought more problems than the fighting. And of course there was the winter too, however chancellor Zamoyski kept the army tight and in shape to the end of the blockade.
If I am not wrong Frost in the 'Northern Wars...' uses this example as a piece of best conducted acton of this kind in the entire history of the conflicts.

Now you might like to add something about the Gustav Adolph's assault to compare...


I will use the example of Smolensk defence in 1609-11 - the fortress was similar in size and number of defenders, but the siege was better prepared
than the ones at Pskov.

If you are proud of the defenders of Pskov - I am not suprised, of course you can, but don't allow the pide to cloud your judgement.

Poles got Livonia, Russians got the captured cities back. Pskov defense was the key to Russian success in these negotiations. Especially if you keep in mind that Russia simmultaniously fought against the Swedes and Tatars.

I am glad Peter the Great fixed this turn of events.

Actually Radziwill's raid from the winter of 1581-82 and the destruction it brought in about 400 000 square kilometers (not to mention the fact that the mad Tzar was personally in danger once) 'might' have something to do with the fact that Ivan finally succumbed.
Of course the faked 'conversion of Russia' ( Antonio Possevino - anyone ?) case had something to do with it too - the Pope started pushing for a cease fire and renouncing claims to Vielkiye Luki in particular (before Ivan renounced claims for Dorpat).

And Swedish and Tartar atacks - a distraction with no direct consequences except some limited cooperaton in Livonia ( Wolmar's case) because in no way it didn't change the way the bulk of the Russian forces in the region was deployed or used.


The main issue in the negotiations was Livonia, the main issue in the entire war was Livonia and the main issue in the campaigns waged by Bathory was Livonia too - after all it took much time before Ivan renounced his claims to that - after all even in 1582 he still tried to keep Dorpat to launch an attack on Narva easier - he was ready to leave a number of cities in the mainland including Vielikiye Luki.

Of course it could be said Russian would lose more, but it lost the war and the loss was a massive one - even Tzarist historians of the XIXth century see that - if you don't I cannot say much...

[Trax]

So Mongols were just an annoyance?
If that's not an understatement then I don't know what is
Mongols were the defining moment in Russian history.

[Panzerbear]

Mongols were the defining moment in Russian history.

May be for Moscovites and the southerners.

you keep on forgeting that both Novgorodian territories and many other key Russian cities in the North and the West and some in the South didnt even see Mongolians...

furthermore, its not like Mongolians had some "armies stationed in occupied territories". all the Mongolian forces were stationed in Mongloian territories. it is just that the Russian rulers had to pay Mongolians, so they dont invade Russian territories.

but even those payments were shortlived. Russian Knjazs started to pay mongolians in 1243. in 1260s there were already first rebellious cities (who were nevertheless supressed by Mongolian "punishment" armies).

in 1285 Knjaz Dmitry (son of Alexander Nevsky) was the first to crush such "a punishment invasion". in 1340 the system of payment to Mongolians were completely abolished due to comple lack of ability to enforce them from Mongolian side. in battles of 1378-1380s Mongolians were completely crushed.

afterwards, Mongolians had many (some successful, some not) attempts at regaining their nominal rule over Russian key cities (including Mosow), but all of those attmepts eventually failed, the payments to Mongolians became pretty soon very irregular, Russian rulers implemented their own independent policies, and so on and so forth.

in 1408 Mongolians came up with the last ditch effort to regain their status in Russia, but yet again they failed to capture Moscow and other main cities. in 1476 Russians completely stopped paying anything to Mongols and frankly told them to piss off. they also backed up their case with crushing defeat of Mongols in 1480. ever since then, Mongols completely abolished all claims to Russian cities and quickly disappeared from Russian steppes.

as you can see, Mongols did not rule parts of Russia, they merely struggled to get their payments for Russian Knjazs the last 150 years of their so-called "rule" .

[Panzerbear]

I corrected the estimates for which I could not provide the back up for in an edit few hours ago. please do not correct something that I already corrected myself.

as far as the source of the description of the battle goes,
http://www.vpk-news.ru/article.asp?p...les.history_01

PS: you seem to have a very bizzare pleasure of describing how, while numerically outnumbered, Swedes would throw their forces against the enemy and then bounce off like a ping pong ball, while "breaking the first lines"... do you know what the first lines in the defense usually are? thats right, cannon fodder, led by young junior officers. so stop claiming this to be as "close to victory, but we were overwhelmed by numbers". of course you were. shouldnt have scared a hedgehog with a naked ass...

who the hell would throw a 10,000 strong army vs 35,000 strong enemy? that is stupidty. you are not attacking a bunch of peasants with knives. you are attacking regular army units, who trained for such battle no more than you did... it is just common sense. so stop pretending it is some kind of heroism - it is willingly leading the troops into a sure death just to prove a nobile point. arrogant Swedes paid dearly for their arrogance - that is the bottom line.

[Nissedruva]

PS: you seem to have a very bizzare pleasure of describing how, while numerically outnumbered, Swedes would throw their forces against the enemy and then bounce off like a ping pong ball, while "breaking the first lines"... do you know what the first lines in the defense usually are? thats right, cannon fodder, led by young junior officers. so stop claiming this to be as "close to victory, but we were overwhelmed by numbers". of course you were. shouldnt have scared a hedgehog with a naked ass...

who the hell would throw a 10,000 strong army vs 35,000 strong enemy? that is stupidty. you are not attacking a bunch of peasants with knives. you are attacking regular army units, who trained for such battle no more than you did... it is just common sense. so stop pretending it is some kind of heroism - it is willingly leading the troops into a sure death just to prove a nobile point. arrogant Swedes paid dearly for their arrogance - that is the bottom line.

Heroism no..bravery,yes

I do find the swedish karoline tactic interesting and also facinating in the way that it was so successful in so many battles(i can namedrop if you like).

I know you russians has a love of retreating and surrender when meeting anything you do not outnumber by atleast 3-1 and i wont try to change your view about the karoline tactics.

Regarding the battle you have based your statement on only dubtable russian source(s). Quite frankly their value seems limited at best as the over and under exaggerations of facts you have presented in this thread have shown.

[Panzerbear]

Heroism no..bravery,yes

I do find the swedish karoline tactic interesting and also facinating in the way that it was so successful in so many battles(i can namedrop if you like).

as far as I understand, karoline was adopted to pretty much any military.

I know you russians has a love of retreating and surrender when meeting anything you do not outnumber by atleast 3-1 and i wont try to change your view about the karoline tactics.

was it supposed to be a taunt? no, Russians always fought MOST BRAVELY when they are greatly outnumbered. against the Swedes included. I already gave you an example of Russian (lifeguard) regiments holding their lines against vastly numerically superior Swedes at Narva till the end of the day, while rest of the Russian peasants were routing, ******** their pants.

Regarding the battle you have based your statement on only dubtable russian source(s). Quite frankly their value seems limited at best as the over and under exaggerations of facts you have presented in this thread have shown.

dubtable Russian sources? your sources are doubtable. you are arguing with a very respectable military magazine, who most likely quoted the original sources.

[molonthegreat]

was it supposed to be a taunt? no, Russians always fought MOST BRAVELY when they are greatly outnumbered. against the Swedes included. I already gave you an example of Russian (lifeguard) regiments holding their lines against vastly numerically superior Swedes at Narva till the end of the day, while rest of the Russian peasants were routing, ******** their pants.

And do you have any sources for that?

[Nissedruva]

as far as I understand, karoline was adopted to pretty much any military.



was it supposed to be a taunt? no, Russians always fought MOST BRAVELY when they are greatly outnumbered. against the Swedes included. I already gave you an example of Russian (lifeguard) regiments holding their lines against vastly numerically superior Swedes at Narva.



dubtable Russian sources? your sources are doubtable. you are arguing with a very respectable military magazine, who most likely quoted the original sources.

Dont play stupid you know what i mean when i write "The Swedish karoline army".


Yes russians fought bravely...Narva is a great example

The russian force defending the bridge surrenderd after the bridge had collapsed under the pressure of the thousand of fleeing soldiers. The western flank were most of the "elite" russian forces was stationed was leaved alone while the prusuing of the fleeing enemy was continued. During the evening the victorious swedish forces celebrated with plunder and drinking the rich alcohol supplies there. If the remaining russian flank would have dared to attack at the moment it could have cost the swedes dearly instead they surrenderd without a fight .




Have you even botherd to look at the page i used as a source?....you will see that the text about the battle is a true "history publication" that shows facts in a correct and scientific way and not some simple magazine article like yours. Dont worry i have actually botherd to search for sources translated to english so everybody can read it.

[Trax]

One small remark from me, then I'll crawl back under the rock
If you choose to argue with .czar, try to remain civil (I know it's hard) otherwise you undermine your own credibility.

[Panzerbear]

Dont play stupid you know what i mean when i write "The Swedish karoline army".

to be honest, I do not know what "karoline" means. Karoline is actually a female name, if anything.

or you were probably referring to formations of Swedish forces into carre (i.e. infantry squares) - which indeed took place at that battle when they had no more cavarly support. but as far as I remember, Swedish squares more like rectangles.

Yes russians fought bravely...Narva is a great example

I already said, Preobrazhensky and Semeonovsky regiments fought so well at Narva, that Peter the Great increased everybody (who participated in that battle and repelled Swedish attacks) in one military rank.

in fact, the performance of those two regiments were the only good news for Russian Czar. please dont act as if you dont know what I am talking about.

The western flank were most of the "elite" russian forces was stationed was leaved alone while the prusuing of the fleeing enemy was continued.

LMAO! yes, they just decided to leave that flank alone, during the battle! that is a great one... DECIDED TO LEAVE IT ALONE OR SIMPLY COULDNT BREAK IT?

If the remaining russian flank would have dared to attack at the moment it could have cost the swedes dearly instead they surrenderd without a fight .

the Guards regiments were on the RIGHT flank and repelled all the attacks sucessfully.

the LEFT flank also fought very fiercly, until their commander (General Wiede) was wounded. then they were morally broken, got surrounded by the Swedes, and ultimatelly surrendered. the RIGHT flank NEVER surrendered until the orders to cease fire at dark. as I said before, the vast majority of Russian troops at Narva were fresh recruits and these are the ones who were routing in a rather pathetic manner. only Lefotovsky, Preobrazhensky and Smenovsky regiments had prior combat experience, and they did fairly well in that battle, against the overwhelming odds.

you will see that the text about the battle is a true "history publication" that shows facts in a correct and scientific way and not some simple magazine article like yours. Dont worry i have actually botherd to search for sources translated to english so everybody can read it.

oh yes, I completely forgot it is the *SWEDES* who have monopoly on history. sure, go ahead and dismiss our assessments as commie propoganda. oh wait, they didnt invent communism in the 1700s yet...

yes, it does appear that Russians had nearly two times the strength of Swedes - but so what? they still got 84 KIA and 324 WIA . this only implies that all their strength must have NOT been engaged during the battle.

or the Swedes must have horrific aim . seriously, lets put aside your "20,000 soldiers". let go with the 8,700 Russian soldiers (dragoons, mentioned erlier) - and only 400 soldiers got scratched in this battle? that is what, less than 5% of those who apparently participated in the fighting? dont you think, it would not matter whatsoever how many troops did Russians bring - 4,000 or 40,000? the result would still be roughly the same, holding other things constant.

but oh well, I am sure you will find a good excuse to justify the loss. I am even more excited about what you will have to say about battle at Lesnaja village in 1708 (the number of Russians and Swedes were almost equal, Swedes being higher actually)...

[molonthegreat]

Well do you have any nonrussian sources that describes that the russian force was so small? The Swedish army was far superior to the russian accept it.

[Panzerbear]

Well do you have any nonrussian sources that describes that the russian force was so small?

I already did.

The Swedish army was far superior to the russian accept it.

if they were superior, they wouldnt lose wars to Russia .

Yes, Swedish army was superior until Peter the Greats reforms. And even after that mano a mano Swedish were propably better.

Yes, Sweden was a superpower back then and they had VERY strong and very experienced troops. And obviously, Peter the Great had only few regiments who he could trust in combat (i.e. life guard regiments, who were established when he was a kid - they all played war together as kids, learned how to shoot cannons since they were 12, and so on and so forth). you have to remember that before Peter the Great, Russia didnt even have regular professional army regiments. or Navy for that matter.

after the military reform of Peter the Great, Russian army became quite capable militarily, at least on the same level with Prussians, if not better.

and as far as man per man soldiers - I actually believe Russians were just as good (i.e. just as good at combat and being fearless fighters), it is just that they lacked extensive training and combat experience of the Swedes, and their generals were obviously less capable as well. there seems to be a direct relationship between the amount of troops you command simultaniously and their efficiency. i.e. a general that commands 1,000 soldiers will be more efficient man-per-man vs a general, who commands 10,000 soldiers.

[HansDuet]

if they were superior, they wouldnt lose wars to Russia .

Economical and number advantage.

[Panzerbear]

Economical and number advantage.

every army, who marches into the enemy territory has BY DEFINITION economical and numeric disadvantage vs. th enemy. especially if this enemy is territory is RUSSIAN EMPIRE .

I do not see it as any problem.

numbers numbers numbers

http://www.vpk-news.ru/article.asp?p...les.history_01

В распоряжении Мардефельда находилось около 4000 человек кавалерии, 3000 пехоты и до 20 000 поляков, сторонников Лещинского.

translation: Merdefeld had around 4,000 cavalry, 3,000 infantrymen and up to 20,000 Poles (under Leshinksi). obviously, I imply that "up to 20K" is an artificial amount. if you want to be extremely conservative, one should probably divide this number by half.

further,

Меншиков располагал 17 000 драгун, около 15 000 кавалерии находилось в распоряжении Августа.

translation: Menshikov had 17,000 Dragoons, Avgust had about 15,000 cavarymen.

further,

Мардефельд построил свои войска в две линии. Шведская кавалерия и пехота (7000 человек) находились в центре, а 20 000 поляков стояли на флангах.

translation: Mardfeld arranged his troops into two lines. Swedish Cavalry and Infantry (7,000 soldiers) were placed in the center, and 20,000 Polish covered their flanks.

then we have a description of the battle. they key two sentances here:

Видя упорное сопротивление противника, Меншиков приказал нескольким эскадронам спешиться, а коннице, стоявшей на правом крыле, ударить во фланг шведам. Затем союзники перешли в общее наступление с фронта и флангов.

translation: After seeing the level of Swedish resistance, Menshikov ordered few eskadrons to dismount themselves, and the cavlary, which was stationed on their right wing, to stike the Swedish flank. Then the allies came to a complete attack from the front and the flanks (i.e. Swedish forces crumbeles and began to rout).

(eskadrons - unit of measure of Russian cavalry. one eskadron = unit of 128 horsemen).

further,

После трехчасового ожесточенного боя шведы были разбиты. Мардефельд сдался в плен. На следующий день сдались в плен и поляки Лещинского. Противник потерял несколько тысяч человек, 5000 были взяты в плен. Потери русских составили 84 человека убитыми и 324 ранеными.

translation: After the hard 3-hour long fighting, the Swedish ranks were broken. Mardefeld gave himself to captivity. Next day the Poles of Leshinski were also captured. the enemies suffered few thousands casualties (i.e. Swedes AND Poles), 5,000 were captured prisoners. the combat casualties of Russians were 84 KIA and 324 WIA.

Is that enough, or you want me to continue?

[HansDuet]

every army, who marches into the enemy territory has BY DEFINITION economical and numeric disadvantage vs. th enemy. especially if this enemy is territory is RUSSIAN EMPIRE .

I do not see it as any problem.

Yes. I was talking about quality of troops. Swedish troops were clearly better in that matter. If you trust the casualty rates.

[molonthegreat]

I already did.



if they were superior, they wouldnt lose wars to Russia .

Where are those sources?

Numbers numbers numbers.