This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The articles is written solely from the Swedish point of view, extolling the Swedish courage, ignoring their heavy losses and Chichagov's genius, disfuguring the names of Russian ships and eventually presenting one of the worst defeats in the history of Swedish navy as its victory. Should be rewritten. -- Ghirla -трёп- 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
130.234.5.137 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the Russian military historians consider this battle as a great Russian victory. Well, this interpretation is not without base. The Russian Navy beat the Swedish one very badly, destroying a significant part of its fighting strenght; further Swedish attacks towards Vyborg or St. Petersburg were out of question, and Sweden had to adopt a defensive stance for the rest of the war.
But there is still the another interpretation, the Swedish one. According to this view, the Swedes fulfilled their tactical objective in this battle, and the Russians did not. The Russians had an unique chance to capture the whole Swedish Navy, including the King himself. If this would have happened, Russia could have dictated the peace terms. This did not happen, and the reason was (according to the Swedish view) "genial" Admiral Chichagov´s over-confidence and passivity. The Swedes forced their way out of the blockade, inflicted some losses on the Russians, made their escape and saved the King and the main part of their Navy. The Russians had a decisive victory on their finger-tips, and they botched it. Sweden could continue the war, although now with defensive strategic goals.
I realize that patriotic Russians might not like the Swedish version, just like the Swedes might not like the Russian one. If I have understood the idea of Wikipedia correctly, the Swedish and Russian versions are more or less equal here. For this understanding, I have been accused of historical revisionism, original research and Russophobia. I think it is ridiculous. 217.112.242.181 10:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)(Same as 130.234.5.137).
I suspect that "af" in his name is similar to the German "von", so would the proper way to refer to him would be "af Puke"? Even if using the "af" is optional, I'd like to encourage using it because referring to the count as "Puke" is inadvertently humorous: it is a slang term in American English for vomit. -- llywrch ( talk) 19:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ¨Well, he had not became a count at the time. In 1790 his surname was spelled Puke. 85.231.226.37 ( talk) 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone translate "Säallan Värre" properly? I'm rather skeptical of the possibility that Swedes were THAT pessimistic about the fighting power of their own ships. -- Illythr ( talk) 12:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the statement recently added to the article, it should be noted that of the Swedish capital ship losses (8 ships) of the battle (ie. not the pursuit of the Swedish high seas fleet to Sveaborg) none were result of Russian action.
One ship of the line (Enigheten) was lit up and exploded due 'friendly fire' - ie. by fireship Postiljonen - and four other ships of the line plus three frigates (in addition to several galleys and few transports) were grounded (and later captured) due to the poor visibility resulting from the explosion of Enigheten. Only the capture of the two badly damaged Swedish ships of the line the Russian high seas fleet was able to caught up before Swedish high seas fleet reached safety of Sveaborg can be attributed to Russian action. Just stating that pressing the point that Russian fleets performance would somehow been good in the battle is highly misleading, Swedish breakout succeeded with main cause of losses being accidents rather than enemy action. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 09:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, everybody. As follows from the discussion above the outcome of the battle is somewhat contentious. In most language projects it is formulated as follows:
Russian tactical victory, Swedish strategic victory. The Swedish navy managed to break out, but with heavy losses
Victoire tactique russe. Victoire stratégique suédoise
Taktisk rysk seger. Strategisk svensk seger då svenska skärgårdsflottan och örlogsflottan undkom
Taktischer Sieg Russlands. Strategischer Sieg Schwedens
But in the Russian one it is only Russian tactical victory (тактическая победа русского флота).
My attempt to correct the Russian article was reverted with rather emotional comments. So my question is: are there any courses, supporting the opinion of Swedish strategic victory? Thanks in advance for the answer. SlotJam ( talk) 08:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The articles is written solely from the Swedish point of view, extolling the Swedish courage, ignoring their heavy losses and Chichagov's genius, disfuguring the names of Russian ships and eventually presenting one of the worst defeats in the history of Swedish navy as its victory. Should be rewritten. -- Ghirla -трёп- 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
130.234.5.137 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the Russian military historians consider this battle as a great Russian victory. Well, this interpretation is not without base. The Russian Navy beat the Swedish one very badly, destroying a significant part of its fighting strenght; further Swedish attacks towards Vyborg or St. Petersburg were out of question, and Sweden had to adopt a defensive stance for the rest of the war.
But there is still the another interpretation, the Swedish one. According to this view, the Swedes fulfilled their tactical objective in this battle, and the Russians did not. The Russians had an unique chance to capture the whole Swedish Navy, including the King himself. If this would have happened, Russia could have dictated the peace terms. This did not happen, and the reason was (according to the Swedish view) "genial" Admiral Chichagov´s over-confidence and passivity. The Swedes forced their way out of the blockade, inflicted some losses on the Russians, made their escape and saved the King and the main part of their Navy. The Russians had a decisive victory on their finger-tips, and they botched it. Sweden could continue the war, although now with defensive strategic goals.
I realize that patriotic Russians might not like the Swedish version, just like the Swedes might not like the Russian one. If I have understood the idea of Wikipedia correctly, the Swedish and Russian versions are more or less equal here. For this understanding, I have been accused of historical revisionism, original research and Russophobia. I think it is ridiculous. 217.112.242.181 10:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)(Same as 130.234.5.137).
I suspect that "af" in his name is similar to the German "von", so would the proper way to refer to him would be "af Puke"? Even if using the "af" is optional, I'd like to encourage using it because referring to the count as "Puke" is inadvertently humorous: it is a slang term in American English for vomit. -- llywrch ( talk) 19:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ¨Well, he had not became a count at the time. In 1790 his surname was spelled Puke. 85.231.226.37 ( talk) 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Can someone translate "Säallan Värre" properly? I'm rather skeptical of the possibility that Swedes were THAT pessimistic about the fighting power of their own ships. -- Illythr ( talk) 12:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the statement recently added to the article, it should be noted that of the Swedish capital ship losses (8 ships) of the battle (ie. not the pursuit of the Swedish high seas fleet to Sveaborg) none were result of Russian action.
One ship of the line (Enigheten) was lit up and exploded due 'friendly fire' - ie. by fireship Postiljonen - and four other ships of the line plus three frigates (in addition to several galleys and few transports) were grounded (and later captured) due to the poor visibility resulting from the explosion of Enigheten. Only the capture of the two badly damaged Swedish ships of the line the Russian high seas fleet was able to caught up before Swedish high seas fleet reached safety of Sveaborg can be attributed to Russian action. Just stating that pressing the point that Russian fleets performance would somehow been good in the battle is highly misleading, Swedish breakout succeeded with main cause of losses being accidents rather than enemy action. - Wanderer602 ( talk) 09:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, everybody. As follows from the discussion above the outcome of the battle is somewhat contentious. In most language projects it is formulated as follows:
Russian tactical victory, Swedish strategic victory. The Swedish navy managed to break out, but with heavy losses
Victoire tactique russe. Victoire stratégique suédoise
Taktisk rysk seger. Strategisk svensk seger då svenska skärgårdsflottan och örlogsflottan undkom
Taktischer Sieg Russlands. Strategischer Sieg Schwedens
But in the Russian one it is only Russian tactical victory (тактическая победа русского флота).
My attempt to correct the Russian article was reverted with rather emotional comments. So my question is: are there any courses, supporting the opinion of Swedish strategic victory? Thanks in advance for the answer. SlotJam ( talk) 08:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)