Talk:Battle of Nevel

Untitled
In 1562, in this war participated Polish expeditionary corps under the command of Florian Zebrzydowski numbered about 3,500 men and Stanisław Leśniowolski troops were part of this corps. I also added a modern source (This note is addressed to the user Shervinsky). Kcdlp (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Still, Poland was not at war. Polish troops that were in service of Lithuania represent Lithuania. Don't try to push in Polish state there. I kept your modern source, while you are trying to remove mine. In fact, I made a compromise and kept the data of Plewczyński. However, battle of Nevel wasn't very important, it was exaggerated by Polish chronists and writers like many other battles for propaganda reasons. The Russian state of Ivan Grozny never had an army more than 50,000 - 60,000 people. It is completely impossible that Kurbsky who at that time had the rank of the forth voivode of Velikie Luki leads an army that is a half of the overall Russian military. --Shervinsky (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These troops were be paid by Poland not by Lithuania and Zebrzydowski operate alone without Lithuanian orders and not represent Lithuania. So these were the Polish army, moreover you read about this in every Polish study of this battle. As for the number of Russian troops, as we know that, one side give number of the enemy forces together with camp followers, while its number of troops give without them and probably there was the same. You change the outcome of the battle on indecisive which is not support in any Polish or Lithuanian source. You did not compromise and you trying to pushing your point of view regard other sources for propaganda and you are trying to present them as biased, for example you questioned Swedish source for Lode and Lesnaya. Writing something like that "Modern Polish researches remain widely uncritical of these narrative sources, estimating the number of Russians still as high as 25,000" you write nonsense because Plewczyński double reduced Russian forces participating in this battle and Polish forces gave higher as narrative sources the same situation is with losses.Kcdlp (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What Plewczyński did, is still completely unrealistic. You can't make a Rambo movie look like life just by slightly reducing the killing rate. The scientific methodology of Polish historians looks to be catastrophic. And as I see, you are incapable to argument professionally on the issue. --Shervinsky (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fight in this battle lasted several hours, flanks of Polish troops were protected through the swamp by what the Russians could attack only on a small area. Poles had in this battle artillery and infantry and repulsed the Russian assaults. When repulsed assaults, Polish cavalry counterattacked which resulted higher Russians losses. If you think that 1,500 people in a few hours battle can not be killed, considering the fact that the Russians had there only light cavalry usually armed in a bow it's your problem. I assure you that Polish historiography does not look catastrophic and use the sources, can not be said about Russian publications about e.g. Battle of Kalyazin in August 28, 1609 where trying to create a great victory, ignoring the Polish and Swedish sources which say that there was no battle only small skirmish. But there are also very good historians such as Oleg Kurbatov.Kcdlp (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Russian historians analyze battles very accurately which cannot be said about most Polish/Belarusian/Ukrainian historians who often are looking for creating a national myth rather than researching reality. For example, Alexey Lobin made great research on the battle of Orsha which is also greatly exaggerated in the Polish historic sources. He showed that the numbers of the involved soldiers must have been significantly lesser, but also the strong propagandistic interest of the Polish-Lithuanian side to prevent possible Russo-Western alliances and to downplay the painful loss of Smolensk. In this case, we have an analogue situation. Nobody cared about this "great victory" until the loss of Polotsk, but afterwards it was strongly glorified to raise the national spirit. Have you read the work of Filyushkin you try to remove? He is history professor at St. Petersburg state university and a very respected historian. Considering Kalyazin, everything hints at a serious battle, not just a skirmish. Sapieha was afraid of a new Russian army that was forming at Kalyazin and sent serious forces against it. Time has shown that he was right with his estimation of danger. Russian data is based on state documentation and on methodology, not on narratives. Narrative Polish and Swedish sources often try to downplay or to exaggerate certain events and are quite unreliable, just as any historic narrative. Returning to Nevel, 25,000 is compeletely unrealistic regarding the overall number of Russian military. There is absolutely NO data on exact numbers of the Russian participants and losses. Slightly reducing the fantastic numbers from historic narrative is arbitrariness. --Shervinsky (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * USSR created a many myths and Russia also e.g. Belaya overestimates the importance of this siege and losses are definitely overestimated and the king Władysław IV was to be wounded what not based on sources, also this may be considered a propaganda just as you did with the Orsha. A. Lobin also reduces the strength of the Polish-Lithuanian troops, but 12,000 men together with servants seems to understate the number because servants almost always was 3-4 times more than soldiers, but I do not want to engage in a discussion on the his calculations because I have not read his work, only in Polish wikipedia I read about number of Polish-Lithuanian troops which he gave. Nobody says that Nevel was "great victory" just a the victorious a defensive battle, about the number of troops I wrote earlier that one side give usually the number of enemy troops with servants and so it is with every battle, e.g. Basya, Polish-Lithuanian troops here is overestimated because is here given the number of troops together with servants and the Russians without, description of this battle on wikipedia also leaves much to be desired, because Ivan Khovansky was defeated by Czarnecki in Druck or Tołoczyn in October 27, 1660. Marek Plewczyński was a professor at the National Defense University of Warsaw and also is a respected historian. Have you read some Polish work about battle of Nevel? About Kalyazin, here there are three Polish sources (Józef Budziłło – "Historia Dmitra Fałszywego", Mikołaj Marchocki - "Historia moskiewskiej woyny prawdziwej", Jan Piotr Sapieha - "Dzieje Marsa Krwawego") and one Swedish (letter of Swedish officer Krister Some to Peder Nilsson from August 22, 1609 Julian calendar, Gregorian calendar is September 1, 1609, Krister Some was commander of the Swedish contingent in Shuisky troops and participated in this "battle") all sources say that there was no battle, please read one of the comments on this site there is Russian text from 1907 confirming these sources. Tell me, historians should be based on old sources or on own imagination to define the number of troops? Kcdlp (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have enough time to have a discussion about all possible battles. I think, in disputable cases and in cases where there is simply no clear data, it's helfpul not to put any numbers into the infobox. Because data in the infobox appear to be official or more valuable than others. It's the best to discuss the numbers in the text. And I think you can't remove Filyushkin's justified objections. My compromise: because of troops of Polish origin I included Poland in the infobox, although it's not clear, whether Poland was at war at that moment. --Shervinsky (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay in that case numbers will be only in the text. But what to Lithuania in infobox, this is an obvious mistake, the point is not that these troops was Polish origin but that they were paid by the Polish state treasury, they were not mercenaries and were not part of the Lithuanian army, these troops acted independently in relation to the Lithuanians. As I wrote earlier commander of the whole Polish corps was Florian Zebrzydowski who was hetman. These troops marched on Lithuania from Livonia, where he was stationed. The second issue is the outcome of the battle, both tactically and strategically it was a Polish victory, because strategic objective of the Poles was to withdraw to the main forces which were Jezieryszcze (in Belarusian Езярышча), and do not be defeated, what the Poles did. At the tactical victory, all Russians attacks were repulsed and Russians have suffered greater losses. In contrast, the Russians did not achieve both the tactical or strategic objective, have numerical superiority troops, they were not able to defeat opponent. After the battle when the Poles withdrew, the Russians did not dare to attack them. So outcome of the battle is clear. The current text there is biased and suggests that Polish historians uncritically accept old sources. Old sources give number of enemy troops together with servants, which does not mean that these numbers are not realistic, of this number, soldiers could be four times less as servants. And why did you delete Leśniowolski coat of arms? Kcdlp (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)