Talk:Battle of Napue

Use of modern Finnish placenames

I don't think it's historical correct to use modern Finnish placenames for events that took place 300 years ago. What is now Finland was part of the Swedish Empire at that time. This battle of Storkyro didn't take place in modern Finland. It took place in the Swedish Empire. Just like the battle of Stalingrad took place in Soviet Union and not in modern Russia. And the Germans sieged Leningrad, not St Petersburg. Närking (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It took place in Isokyrö which was and is a unilingually Finnish place. Also, almost all of the soldiers in Sweden's army in the battle were Finnish. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The battle took place in the Swedish Empire. And the soldiers mainly came from the Swedish cavalry regiments of Nyland-Tavastehus, Viborg-Nyslott and infantry regiments of Viborg, Tavastehus, Åbo, Savolaks, Björneborg and Nyland. A majority of the soldiers probably were ethnic Finns, but of course there were ethnic Swedes there as well. And they all were part of the Swedish army. The battle was between Sweden and Russia, not modern Finland and Russia. Remember this is a historical article. At the time places were known by their Swedish names, like Åbo, Storkyro, Vasa, Helsingfors etc. Changing them to modern ones would be like talking about the Battle of Volgograd instead of the Battle of Stalingrad. Närking (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And within the Swedish Empire it took place in Isokyrö, a Finnish speaking parish in Finland. All those regiments were gathered in Finland, from Finnish men. This battlefield was certainly not known by its Swedish name to the Finnish speaking inhabitants of Isokyrö. Also, this battle was very important to the history of Finland, since it directly led to the period of the Greater Wrath, more important, one might say, than to the history of Sweden. Sweden did regain Finland in 1721, but the awful memories of the occupation were burned forever to the minds of the Finns. Isokyrö is not only the modern name, it was the name in the 18th century as well for all the inhabitants of this region. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the people there probably said Isokyrö, but outside the parish it was known by the Swedish name. And yes, it was an important battle for the Swedish empire and for the people who lived in the occupied territories, both Finns and Swedes.

Since this is a historical article we should use the names that was used at the time. And it was common practise to use the Swedish names also for areas that were only inhabitated by ethnic Finns. Even their names were translated to Swedish, just like with my ancestor Markus Påvelsson who most probably said something else himself. Närking (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Your example concerning the translation of Finnish names into Swedish in the official records doesn't help your case: I'm a Finnish student of history and our lecturers on the topic of parish records of the era advice us to translate the Swedish names back to Finnish when referring to the persons who lived in Finnish speaking areas. So if I were writing a study about the peasants of Isokyrö in the 1700s and were to encounter a peasant called Anders Persson in the parish records, I would be advised to write his name in the form Antti Pekanpoika, since that is what he would have called himself. --188.67.181.28 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The very same issue pervades everything in Finnish history with places having at least two names. Since the Finland was part of Swedish realm at the time in question and since the language of that realm in most respects was Swedish it would seem to be proper to call persons/places like they would have been called in Swedish - ie. according to Swedish names - when outside of Finnish wikipedia. That is not to say that fully Finnish names shouldn't be noted when they appear (for example: Åbo ({{langx|fi|Turku}}) -> Åbo (Finnish: Turku)) - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem at using the Swedish place names. The parties in the war were Sweden and Russia and using of Swedish is logical due to the context. The event took place in Finland but it belongs to Swedish rather than Finnish history. Using of Swedish names is not confusing anyone here as you can simply make a link from Storkyro to Isokyrö. But if there is an article about a Finnish-speaking peasant who lived in the area it is more logical to use the Finnish names because of the context. I have faced the same issue when I have written something about a native German in Bohemia during the Austro-Hungarian empire. Then I decided to use the German names of the cities (for example Reichenberg instead of Liberec). If I had written about a native Czech I would have used the Czech names. I know that this is not always simple but I think it is a good guideline. --Gwafton (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If we are talking of persons in clearly their local element then perhaps however this issue gets muddled real quickly. For example the battle of Gangut, Swedish commander is usually known as 'Nils Ehrenskiöld' - also according to fi-wiki fi:Nils Ehrenskiöld - however there are several sources which call him 'Niilo Ehrenskiöld', changing the Swedish 'Nils' into Finnish 'Niilo'. Or Georg Magnus Sprengtporten who is alternatively known as 'Yrjö Maunu Sprengtporten' in some Finnish sources. Which is the reason why i think it would be best to stick with the Swedish name (or even English if there is one) even if the person in question would be of Finnish origin (both persons used as examples were born in Finland) since those are generally the names the persons are known in literature (apart from Finnish) - besides it does not really matter which alternate form of the name is being used as long as they are all noted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what has been the original reason to translate Ehrenskiöld and Sprengtporten into Finnish, to me it makes no sense. Sometimes the name issue can be problematic because some people are better known with their translated than native names. For example in Austria-Hungary many non-German people had German speaking alternative names which they used in parallel with their native names. Therefore Hungarian Pál Járay is better known with his German name Paul Jaray. Some people translated their names officially and then there is no problem but many just lived between different cultures and to them it was natural to use a different name in a different context. --Gwafton (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that both Ehrenskiöld and Sprengtporten had Swedish as their native language, whereas the peasant in question would have been a native Finnish speaker. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder, Närking, would you rename the article on the edict of Milan as the edict of Mediolanum? --188.67.181.28 (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TITLE in case of article titles & WP:PLACE when discussing geography. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Losses

I followed Niktin to this article and am surprised that a dispute even exists - in this case sources from both sides do not even contradict each other, only complementing the dead/wounded ratio. What's the problem with leaving the more precise data (as absolute numbers appear the same)? --Illythr (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have so far mainly added real references instead of a reference to www.absoluteastronomy.com, which of course never can be used as a reference here. I have also added that the battle took place within the borders of the Swedish Empire, instead of just saying it took place in Finland, which didn't exist at that time. I think that's rather important to know for the reader, since earlier most of the Swedish battles took place in other countries. Närking (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, I didn't take time to examine the "source" Niktin was adding: "The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL." --Illythr (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that astronomy page was just a mirror of the Wikipedia article! Good sourcing! Närking (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Finland has existed since she rose from the sea. A country does not need to be independent to exist. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Finland came into existence only when people formed a concept of a territory called Finland. A loose concept of Finland started to evolve around 15th century or so, but in the first phase it included only the present South Finnish regions. I am not certain if Ostrobothnia was considered to be a part of Finland already in the early 18th century.--130.234.68.225 (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived unverifiable information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Heading: Prelude

By 1703 Russian forces had reached the inner parts of the Gulf of Finland, and founded the city of Saint Petersburg. Since the Swedish main army was engaged in Poland and later in Russia, Sweden was hard pressed to defend its Baltic territories. After the battle of Poltava, Russia took all of Livonia, Estonia and Ingria, as well as the counties of Viborg, Savonlinna and Kexholm.

When Charles XII of Sweden refused to enter peace negotiations, Denmark and Russia drew up plans with the purpose to threaten Stockholm. Two attack routes were considered: one through southern Sweden and the other through Finland and the Åland islands. The southern attack was deemed more important, but the attack on Finland was to be carried out in order to tie down as much of the remaining Swedish army as possible there. However, the attack from the south was successfully fended off by Magnus Stenbock's victory at Helsingborg in 1710.

The Russian attack on Finland never developed as planned. Since Peter the Great was engaged in a war against Turkey, the resulting lack of soldiers forced him to postpone the conquest of Åbo. Initial Russian actions in Finland consisted of raids and reconnaissance operations, with the purpose of occupying southeastern Finland and devastating it in order to deny Swedish forces a base of operations against the Russian-controlled areas around Saint Petersburg.

Significant Russian military action in Finland began in 1713, after logistical problems caused the failure of an initial foray the previous year. Already in May, Peter and his galley fleet were seen off Helsingfors, and during the summer all of southern Finland was occupied by Russian troops. The Swedish forces under general Georg Henrik Lybecker retreated inland. Before returning to Russia, Peter commanded Fyodor Apraksin, the commander of the Imperial Navy to attack the Swedish army during the winter.

General Carl Gustaf Armfeldt was given command over the troops in Finland in August 1713. He faced a hopeless task; Lybecker had left him with a neglected, starving, destitute army. Reconnaissance wasn't possible because the cavalry was too worn out to carry out its duties.

Sub-heading 1: The Russian army arrives at Ostrobothnia

Golitzin’s army, consisting of 11 000 men, arrived at Ilmajoki in the middle of February. Armfelt decided to locate the battle to Isokyrö, for some pressure was applied by the Swedish regime, aided by the honour of a military officer. Most of his officers were against this decision, but Armfelt remained assured by local reserves that did not want to hand their homes and families over to Russian terror. Only six of the nearest communes or villages had time enough to send reinforcements. Armfelt had altogether 5 500 men which he at first located on both sides across from the river, in three brigades each consisting of four lines.

Sub-heading 1: The Battle is at sight

After gaining the knowledge that Golitzin’s main troops had a few kilometers earlier departed to the right and were coming from the north, Armfelt relocated his troops so that the brigades of Von Freidenfelt, Von Essen, Maidell and Yxkull were on the northern side of the river. A small group with two guns occupied the hill of Napue. De La Barre’s cavalry of 1 000 men, plus a group of 300 men under Ziesing, were ordered southwest from Napue to prevent Chekin’s free drive along the river. Golitzin’s main forces consisted of 6 500, Chekin’s regiments of about 1 800 men. Before the battle Golitzin ordered three regiments of his northern troops with cossacks to veer west, aiming to amass behind the Finnish mainforces. Chekin as well separated one regiment to veer Finnish troops from the south.

Heading: The battle

Sub-heading 1: The Beginning of the battle

The Finnish troops took the first step and started the fight with two guns on their left wing, getting an answer from the Russian artillery on their right. The Russians burnt the nearest house of Turppala, and the Finnish artillery used all the 64 shells that they had left and after one joint shooting, the infantry rushed fiercely against the Russians. The battle at close quarters was carried out with swords, bayonets and spears, and soon there were so many killed and wounded men that it was difficult to get over them and carry on the attack. The Finnish troops, especially the brigades of Maidell and Yxkull near the house of Turppala were very lucky and pushed the Russians backwards so that Armfelt thought that the battle could end up in victory.

Sub-heading 1: A Change of luck

But at this stage the over 2,000 Russians that were sent to veer the Finns from the west appeared at the back of the Finns, who had no reserves to call for help. It was three o’clock in the afternoon. Only a half of Freidenfelt’s and Essen’s men were left, 1,300 Finns were fighting for their lives against 3,000 Russians. Ziesing’s small group in the south was beaten as well as Taube’s group at Napue. It is more than likely that General De La Barre’s 1,000 men fled without taking real part in the battle. That is also the opinion of the local vicar Nils Aejmelaeus who was viewing the battle at a close distance - maybe on the so-called Rock of Kaam near the monument, on the other side of the road. As Aejmelaeus himself arrived to Vöyri, De La Barre's cavalry was already there. Now there was a clear way for Tsekin’s troops to attack at the rear of the rest of Finns. Soon almost all the Finns were surrounded, and Armfelt commanded Maidell and Yxkull to withdraw, which in that state was more easily said than done. Almost all the commanders were killed. Von Essen fought with his sword up to his end having 32 wounds in his body. 82 per cent of his regiment was lost. The battle field was filled with dead and wounded men. The rest were trying to flee to the rocky hill behind the present monument, and from there towards Laihia. Very few of the local reserves were lucky enough to survive. Armfelt himself had to fight his way towards Laihia.

Heading: Aftermath

Sub-heading 1: The Sad end of the battle

This bloody battle had lasted a little over two hours. Concrete signs of it were seen on the field for over two hundred years. At Napue, on an area of about four hectares there were 17 graves in the middle of the 18th century. And in the beginning of the 20th century there were still open piles of human bones. The Finnish army lost over 3,000 men, 2,645 of whom were killed. Only 512 were taken prisoner, but most of them were killed on the way to the Russian ships or died in the terrible conditions of Saint Petersburg. The Russians lost, according to their own announcement, about 1,478 men. According to a Russian scholar, Aradir, the figure was over 2,000. Isokyrö lost 45 percent, Laihia 60 percent, and Vähäkyrö 70 percent of their male population. The figures from Ylistaro are not known exactly, but they must have been about 50 percent.

Sub-heading 1: The terrible sufferings of the civil population

The human losses did not end at this, for after the battle the situation turned to hell for the civil population. The Russian soldiers were allowed to ”do whatever they wanted to”. Almost all the women were raped, people were killed and tortured for no reason, houses were burnt, and robbing of possessions and cattle was widespread. Furthermore, a huge number of young children were captured and taken as slaves to Russia. Just a few percent of them managed to come back home. People fled to distant cottages or saunas that were earlier built for tar burner workers. At least fifteen stone bases are still to be found in the woods of Isokyrö. So it is no wonder that people in this area have for a long time had some doubts and mistrust concerning Russians. The saying: “A Russian is a Russian even if fried in butter”, was based on these terrible collective memories.

A contemporary Swedish historian, Jonas Nordin from the University of Stockholm stated in 2000, the Finnish part of the kingdom was not properly defended. Many of the Swedish authorities considered, as crown prince Adolf Fredrik in 1746, Finland as their storeroom and wall against Russia.

This review of the battle is revised to respond the knowledge of today as found for example in the book “The Folk of Hard Tribulations”, “Kovien kokemusten kansaa” by Kalervo Mielty in 2013, which is based on thorough investigation of all the available studies and local tradition of today.

Similar views as presented above were also represented by professors Heikki Yli-Kangas and Kustaa H. J. Vilkuna in Napue-seminar, spring 2014. These views will come up in the coming film document (starring Yli-Kangas, Vilkuna, Knaapi, Mielty, Loukola), November 23, 2014.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ruining the article of the Battle of Napue

I had thought that Wikipedia is for increasing information – not for destroying and ruining an article that is based on latest information performed by military experts and historian like Kustaa H.J. Vilkuna and Heikki Ylikangas in 2014 here on the spot of the event (in Isokyrö). My humble role as a local historian was to gather the information together and perform it in a short form. I have studied all the Battle places meter by meter, as well as visited the remains of hiding places for local civil people. It may even be that I have more verifiable and updated knowledge about the battle and other events here in my birth parish than Mr. or Mrs. Manelolo. --Kmielty (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kmielty: The article can be restored to its old form (I see that most of the text in the article was removed 6 November 2017 by a certain user). I don't support the removal of the text, which I presume you wrote. You can restore the article to its former state, but I would at the same time recommend you resource it and put the citations where they due in the article and not just at the very end of it, that way your text will hold much more value and not be as easily challenged. Imonoz (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you – Imonoz. I am sure that professors Vilkuna, Ylikangas and Jonas Nordin would approve all that I wrote. I would be grateful if you could restore my article so that Manelolo does not at once destroy it as my desperate counteraction. By the way, the name of the battle should be the Battle of Laurola for the most part of it happened on the Northern side of the river (Laurola). The statue was built in Napue for practical reasons. Napue was in fact the place of running away as you can see on the meritorious document: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjFglWuwn6g&vl=fi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmielty (talk • contribs) 06:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kmielty: I have restored the text. I recommend you to go through it and put the sources where they are needed in the article. I've put "Citation needed" marks to suggest where. I presume the four sources you have added in the end of "The terrible sufferings of the civil population" are the ones you used for it. Put these citations after each sentence(es) where they due (this is important). Imonoz (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Imonoz. I will add citations and some further remarks of those two professors concerning "terrible sufferings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmielty (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

To my mind, this article on the battle of Napue and events after that is verified well enough for a synthesis – not a dissertation. I have studies this issue here on the spot for years, starting as a schoolboy by attending the 250-commemoration in 1964 (on which I have all the recordings). Fifty years later, I wrote a book on the topic, which contains a much more detailed battle review (based on numerous studies) than here and accounts of what happened during the next few years in the region. I have co-operated with The Finnish Heritage Museum (Vesa Laulumaa) in bringing forth and marking real spots of happenings 300 years ago. I am sure that my article is in line with all modern knowledge of the event, but I have no time or will to go through all the vast material in providing every single sentence with citations. I am sure that any of the scholar that I mentioned earlier would approve my article (which can be seen by watching the document film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmielty (talk • contribs) 04:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I get what you're saying and I do not distrust the sources used. The problem is that no original research (WP:NOR) can be used on Wikipedia, it should be verified by published sources which the readers can easily follow up. Not necessarily for the truth in the article, but the reliability of it. Sources like "Numerous updated reviews of military and history experts: Brigade of Ostrobothnia, Colonel C-B.J.Petander, General Apraxin etc." - "Riviews of the Brigade of Ostrobothnia, colonel Petander, general Apraksin, professor Ville Sarkanen, etc." - "Military and local parish records" does not cut it very well here, in my opinion. I just don't see how the reader is able to follow that up (to check the sources) easily. Paholaisen sota, Viha: perikato, katkeruus ja kertomus isostavihasta, Ett fattigt men fritt folk and Kovien kokemusten kansaa looks to be good ones, but the pagenumbers in the books, for each claim in the article, is missing. There can be many sentences with only one final citation, but then that book has to support all those sentences as well (including the pagenumbers). Whenever there comes a sentence not supported by "citation1" you should stop and put "citation1" before the new sentence and then keep going with "citation2" for the new one and so forth. Imonoz (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I get what you mean. But writing an up to date article on a special event like this regards using of newest knowledge, especially if (as in this issue) the old published material is not reliable any more. Scholars in the 300-year feast here in Isokyrö presented the newest knowledge. There are reviews of the lectures (for researchers) to be found in newspapers (Pohjalainen, Ilkka) of that time (20th of February 2014). Reviews of the Birgade of Ostrobothnia and colonel Petander have been published earlier as well as prof. Vilkuna’s and Jonas Nordin’s works. Local parish records are public material as well, and they serve contemporary knowledge of what happened to local population during the time of seven terrible years. I hope that there will in future be a complete and detailed survey of the battle of Napue as well as of all the sufferings that it brought to people. My humble part has been to collect the pieces together before the traditional knowledge disappears completely (the earlier collected material was in loose sheets). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmielty (talk • contribs) 11:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Article contains nazi propaganda.

The finnish wikipedia is full of nazi propaganda. In this article too I feel that claims of "a saying", can be considered such. The finnish state machinery and many people holding and expressing inappropriate militaristic and sexist views that can be considered nazism or compared at least, is wide spread problem, but one that has been hus hussed too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:52:4261:B82D:8585:EF5:E8E2 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)