Talk:Battle of Shklow

Solar eclipse

Actually, Shklow is some 300 km northeast of the path of totality. Still the sun would be eclipsed to a degree of a little more than 90%. It lasted from 11:27 AM to 1:59 PM local time (UTC + 3) with a maximum at 12:43. While a 90% eclipse would not be sufficient to considerably darken the day, I still can imagine that it made some impression to those who saw it in those circumstances, ordinary soldiers with little knowledge about celestial mechanics. Surely they took it as a divine omen. --88.73.157.111 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as confirmed by the primary sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Significant rewrite and removal of content

Occurred with this edit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The older version appears to be consistent with this English language source [1]. I think what happens is that people sometimes confuse this battle with one which occurred shortly thereafter (probably the one at Sheplevitche/y).

BTW, the battle is mention in Sienkiewicz's Potop and there it is described as a "disaster" for the Lithuanian forces where the whole Lauda regiment was wiped out and, IIRC, the old Pan Bilewicz was killed. Of course that's not a reliable source, but it does illustrate the kind of confusion that goes on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is some confusion because the battle of Shepelevichy is sometimes called Battle on the Shklovka River. However, this is wrong name, there is no such river near Shepelevichy. Concerning William Young, I wouldn't trust him too much in this matter. I've read further and found some serious qualitative and quantitative mistakes like a 150,000 Crimean Tatar army, which is very far from realism. Looks like he just uncritically repeats dubious sources just like 19th century historians did. --Voyevoda (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, Young is a historian and that seems to be the only English language source on the topic that can be located. The 150,000 Tatar army is sourced to Trevor N. Dupuy, a "noted military historian", and it involves a campaign led by the Khan himself rather than some random Tatar raid, so it's not implausible. Anyway - do you have any sources that would suggest that Young is just repeating "dubious sources" - like, which ones for starters? Some of the relevant info in the book is sourced to Robert I. Frost, who is an expert on the period and region. And this source also seems to agree with the previous version of this article.

Also, comparing the previous version to your version, why did you remove the images? Both the hussar and the solar eclipse illustrated the article nicely.

It seems that the changes you made where based on a source by Kurbatov. Can you quote the relevant passages? In particular, can you quote the part where:

1. This is given as a Russian victory

2. The strength of the Russian force is given at 3500

3. The casualties for both sides, and

4. Anything else that might be relevant in that source to this article.

I also don't understand why you removed a section on the background to the battle (the part about Chmelnytsky), the aftermath section - in particular if Baryatinsky did die in this battle that would appear to be notable and should be easier to source.

Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If the sources are contradicting one another, we should present the contradiction, and not decide ourselves which version is better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to merge the old and the new version. Sources available are very poor; VM - you mentioned you have some English sources - could you list them and add them? I cannot find anything useful in English (also, Shklow seems less popular then Shklov...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Baryatinsky did not die at the battle as he was known for some later exploits. So that should probably be labeled as a false claim. The only English source I know off I linked to above. Polish sources are schizophrenic on the battle, though most - and most of them are 19th century - describe "The Battle of Szklow" as a loss for Radziwill (which is probably what Sienkiewicz was following). However, this could be because they're lumping Szklow and Shepeleviche together. Syrokomla is an example of an opposite view where he celebrates Radziwill's supposed victory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The source that Voyevoda added is available on line here [2]. I've looked through it and I can't find anything but two very brief mentions of the battle in passing which basically just state that Russians did indeed fought such a battle but no more than that. There does not seem to be any info in the that source which can source casualties or any of the other details which were/are inlined-cited to it. Voyevoda, can you provide quotes of the relevant passages (preferably with translation)? I can't find them, maybe I'm missing them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Baryatinski

Volunteer Marek, what do you mean exactly with "I would just take that out until it can be clarified why that claim is being made"? Thank you. --Voyevoda (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean that I'm sure that Baryatinski did not die in this battle. So the claim that he did should not be in here unless we can figure out exactly why it is - and IF it is - actually being made.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Piotrus added this false information, so we should ask him why he did that and which sources he had used. I don't think he has done it viciously, he can only be blamed for uncritical attitude towards sources. Unfortunately, historical Polish sources often prove to be inexact or made for propagandistic purposes, a classical example are documents about the battle of Orsha. I think if there are Polish documents which claim that Baryatisnky was killed we need to mention it because it is an important hint which of the contradictory versions is more to trust, especially if the death of Baryatinsky is described in the same source on which the bigger part of the Polish version is based. As for me, I've asked a friend of mine to order a copy of a 1654 document (РГАДА. Ф. 210. Столбцы Московского стола. № 255. Ч. II.) from the Russian State Archive which can help to get more clarity about the battle and the numbers. This was an official document for internal use, so I think it's far from propaganda. I hope, we get the copy soon. Sincerely, --Voyevoda (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Both Polish and non-Polish, including Russian or Ukrainian, sources can be propagandistic, though in this case this appears to be a simple mistake or perhaps confusion over family members. As I've mentioned above, most Polish sources describe this event as a defeat of the Poles/Lithuanians, with some even calling it a "disaster" - so I doubt it's because of propaganda. There are however some other Polish sources which talk about a tactical or temporary victory for Radziwill, which was undone at the follow up battle of Szeplewicze (or whatever spelling you want to use). The victory vs. defeat question appears to be related to the general confusion between the two battles (Shklov and Szeplewicze) and some free interpretation. I think some of this was also just a straight up translation from Polish wikipedia.

The source given in the article states:

"Bili się tak przeszło pięć godzin z nadzieją wygranej i przegranej, zmordowani i z końmi ledwie żywi - ale kiedy pod noc nowe pułki nieprzyjacielskie nadeszły i chorągwie chwiać się poczęły, hetman widząc, że mu posiłków nie stawa i albo nieprzyjaciela przełamać albo zginąć trzeba, całemu wojsku uderzyć kazał i tak desperacko prawie na Moskali skoczyli, że ich nareszcie odparli i przeszło mile aż do taboru pędzili. Zginęło Moskali 6 do 7000 ludzi, naszych 700 zabito. Zginął kniaź Bariatyński, co był z Oboleńskim posłem we Lwowie 34).

Radziwiłł rozłożył się obozem pod Hołowczynem, Czerkaski cofnął się za Dniepr i połączył się z Trubeckim

Translation:

"They fought in this manner for five hours, with the hope of victory or defeat shifting, deadly tired with exhausted horses - but when by dusk new regiments of the enemy (Mosow) arrived and the (Lithuanian) standards began to waver, the hetman, seeing that he had no more reserves and the only choice was to either break the enemy or to die, ordered his entire force to attack and they jumped at the Moscovites with such desperation that finally they pushed them back and chased them more than a mile back to their tabor. There were between 6000 and 7000 Moscovite dead, and ours 700. Kniaz Bariatynski died, the one who was a envoy in Lvov, together with Obolenski"

"Radziwill set up his camp near Holowczyn, Czerkaski retreated to the other side of the Dniepr and joined with Trubecki"

The book was published in 1910. Is it possible that there was more than one Baryatinski, brothers or something? One died here and the other survived and fought Stenka Razin, maybe?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, Yuri Baryatinsky had only one brother, Fyodor, who died in 1670. Of course, one can continue to insist there was a further, unknown Baryatinsky, but to me a false propagandistic claim seemes more likely, since it occurs quite often in Polish-Lithuanian sources that the leaders of "Muscovite schismatics" are declared killed in glorious battles while in reality these men lived quite a long period afterwards. For example, after the battle of Konotop, Grigory Romodanovsky was declared dead, while in reality he was one of the key figures in Russian politics in the following decades. Returning to Baryatinsky, I would prefer to add the information on the source's false claim on Baryatinsky, allowing the reader to decide himself about the source's realiability, especially on numbers. --Voyevoda (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If the source explicitly said that the Baryatinsky that was killed was Yuri I'd be okay with that. But it just says "knaz Baryatinsky". The Baryatinskys were a large and prominent family so it could have been someone else. Basically, at this point, we don't know so that's why I would rather leave it out.

I think, at this point of the discussion, the burden of proof that there were some other unknown Baryatinsky lies on you. (This is like you claim there is a Santa Clause and want someone to disprove it). The Baryatinsky family was not very numerous at that time and is well-documented. Nobody of them died in 1654. I presented the data already. If you still have doubts, you can go on researching, but you must agree that, based on the actual stage of discussion and presented sources, a further Incognito-Baryatinsky is quite unlikely. Moreover, it makes no sense that some ordinary (even if noble) participant without commando authority would be mentioned just like that, because in a battle many such people die. A not specified mentioning of that kind only makes sense if the commander is meant, a well-known and unique man. I think, that all this justifies that until the contrary is proved we treat this as a mistake (propagandistic or not) of the source and mention this mistake in the text to allow the reader to evaluate the overall reliability of the source, especially the phantastic numbers given there.--Voyevoda (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I also looked up Obolenski-Repnin's diplomatic mission to Lvov [3] but didn't find the Baryatinsky.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you find Yuri or didn't you find ANY Baryatinsky? If so, it's only one more hint on the lack of accuracy of "Ojczyste spominki". Concerning Yuri, it is known that he was on diplomatic mission in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1653. So it's very warm. --Voyevoda (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The information wasn't false, it was sourced to an old text. Old texts are not very reliable, but sometimes they are all we have. I am fine with removing the claim. Old sources were also often designed "propaganda", but you don't really want to start a discussion on which were more biased, Polish or Russian (or any other nation, take your pick). :D As I wrote in the article, 19th century Polish sources should be as suspect as Russian, each side cared more about propaganda than history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also a footnote to the above quote I gave: "Z obozu litewskiego 13 August. 1654. List z Wilna 20 August. 1654 Amb. Grab. Oj. Spom. I, 114, 120. - Radziwiłł pisze o tej bitwie do prymasa: „A jakom raz szczęśliwie impare marte pod Szkłowem uderzył, wiadomo wszystkim. Kotłubaj 397. - Car kazał donieść Chmielnickiemu, źe według raportu Czerkaskiego z d. 7 sierpnia (st. kal.) Radziwiłł pod Szkłowem został pobity, a Trubecki, który wysiekł Mścisław i w bitwie pod Szkłowem nie brał udziału, dostał rozkaz iść za Radziwiłłem w stronę Mohilewa i Borysowa, a Czerkaski miał zająć Szkłów i Bychów. Akty J. i Z. R. XIV p. 17.-Gdyby Czerkaski pobił Radziwiłła, nie trzebaby było posyłać Trubecktóry z tego powodu nie mógł się połączyć z Chmielnii zająć Wołyń, jak mu rozkazano."

Translation: "From the Lithuanian camp, 13 August. 1654. Letter from Wilno 20 August. 1654. Amb. Grab. Oj. Spom. I, 114, 120. - Radziwill wrote about the battle to the primate: "How I succesfully impare marte attacked at Szklow, everyone knows. Kotlubaj 397. - The Czar ordered that Chmielnicki be told, that according to the report of Czerkaski from 7 August (old cal.) Radziwill was defeated at Szklow, and Trubecki, who cleared (wysiekl - cut down? VM) Mscislaw and did not take part in fighting at Szklow, got the order to follow Radziwill towards Mohilew and Borysow, and Czerkaski was supposed to take Szklow and Bychow. Acts J. and Z. R. XIV p 17. - If Czerkaski did deafeat Radziwill, there would have been no reason to send Trubecki for that reason could not join up with Chmielni (sic - Chmielnicki. VM) and take Volhyn, as he was ordered."

It sounds like there was some propaganda going on on both sides - not surprisingly given the ongoing Moscow-Chmielnicki and Chmielnicki-Poland negotiations - as soon as the battle was over. However, the remained of that source describes the battle of Szepelewicze and there the author does not spare Radziwill and his forces so I doubt the 1910 source is propagandistic. Mistaken, maybe. But it doesn't read like propaganda.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda could be used on both sides and each side had an interest in presenting the others as liers. Nothing new so far. And exactly because of that, if we want to reconstruct an objective picture, we have to point out contradictions and mistakes to find out which version is more trustworthy. --Voyevoda (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree with that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That's very good. And the mistake with Baryatinsky is one of such mistakes we have to draw attention to in this disputed situation. --Voyevoda (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really - at least not without a reliable source which explicitly mentions this document and calls it a mistake. The source says that a "Prince Buryatinski" died at this battle. We know that THE Yuri Buryatinski didn't die at the battle. But we don't know if the source is referring to that specific Buryatinski or some relative, or why it makes that statement. To add "which is obviously wrong" at the end is then essentially Original Research. You need a source for that. Now, I'm guessing that it very well *might* be wrong, but that's just a guess. Hence, the best thing to do is to just not include the claim in the first place.

Also, can you provide the text for verification as requested above?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I already explained why the burden of proof is now on you, but you didn't react. Concerning the verification, if you give me your e-mail or your ICQ number, I'll send you an excerpt of the "Книга сеунчей" of 1654-1655, where the Russian victory claim as well as the course of the battle is clearly described. Kurbatov's short description of the battle is based upon it. --Voyevoda (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you just post the excerpt here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can.

Августа въ 7 день, писали къ Государю бояре и воеводы Князь Яковъ Куденетовичъ Черкаской съ товарыщи: Августа жъ въ 2 день послали они за гетманомъ Радивиломъ для подлиннаго вѣдома ертоулнаго полку стольника и воеводу Князь Юрья Борятинского, а съ ним изо всѣхъ полковъ головъ съ сотнями; и того жъ числа прислалъ къ нимъ Князь Юрьи Борятинской, что онъ пришолъ къ Шклову, и подъ Шкловымъ у него съ Литовскими людьми бой учинился. И они напередъ себя послали къ Шклову товарища своего окольничего и воеводу Князя Дмитрея Петровича Львова, а сами со всѣми ратными людьми отъ Копыси пошли къ Шклову на спѣхъ, и пришли на бой съ большимъ поспѣшенiем, и зъ гетманомъ Радивиломъ и съ Литовскими людьми у нихъ был бой и на томъ бою многихъ Литовскихъ людей побили и въ полонъ поимали; а Радивилъ со всѣми людьми изъ подъ Шклова побѣжали.

Беляев И. Д. Книга сеунчей 162 и 163 гг. 1654 июня 10 - февраль 1655 г. // Временник Общества истории и древностей российских. — М.: Университетская типография, 1854. — Т. 18. — С. 7.

Translation:

On August 7th, the boyars and voivods Prince Yakov Kudenetovich Cherkassky with fellows wrote to the Sovereign: On August 2nd they sent for hetman Radivil and the reconaissance a detachment of stolnik and voivod Prince Yuri Baryatinsky and with him from all polks the commanders with sotnias. On the same day Prince Yuri Baryatinsky sent them that he arrived at Shklov and was involved in a fight with Lithuanian people. In front of himself, he sent his fellow okolnichy and voivod Prince Dmitry Petrovich Lvov, while quickly going with all his warriors from Kopys to Shklov. They approached the fight with great hurry and had a battle with hetman Radivil and with Lithuanian people. In that fight, many Lithuanian people were killed or became prisonrs. And Radivil with all his people fled from Shklov. --Voyevoda (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was asking about this source: Очерки развития тактики русской конницы «сотенной службы.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You can find it here: [4] The battle of Shklov is called "ранний ратный успех" of Baryatinsky - his "early fight success". But this is of course not the main source, the main is "Книга сеунчей" and the expected excerpt from "Столбцы Московского стола" --Voyevoda (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Shklow (1654). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701174153/http://www.laborunion.lt/memo/modules/myarticles/article.php?storyid=53 to http://www.laborunion.lt/memo/modules/myarticles/article.php?storyid=53

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)