Talk:Siege of Narva (1704)

Casualties

The English article here says for Sweden: 3,200 dead or wounded 1,900 captured; for Russia: 13,000 dead or seriously wounded. The Russian article says for Sweden: 2,700 dead, 1,800 wounded; for Russia: 359 dead, 1,340 wounded. The Swedish article says for Sweden: 2,700 dead, 1,800 captured; for Russia: 10,000 dead. The German article says for Sweden: 2,700 dead, 1,800 captured; no casualties are given for Russia. The Estonian article says for Sweden: 2,700 dead, 1,800 captured; for Russia: 359 dead, 1,340 wounded.

There seems to be a consensus for the Swedish casualties except when Dupuy is referenced. The Russian casualty figures are all over the place though. Determining bias is tricky as well, because both the Swedish and Russian articles use Russian sources yet disagree widely, yet the Estonian article agrees with the Russian one's low figures, but it cites a variety of sources... — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Boland (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What source is the higher Russian figure? Imonoz (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The account of Russian casualties is extremely exaggerated, with the number of “dead” and “seriously wounded” (a strange term for the infobox; I haven't seen it before) being higher than that in any other version of this article. Had the troops of Peter I and von Ogilvy lost 13,000 men during the battle, they would have lost a shockingly large number of regiments and bled on the field, but there is virtually no evidence that they encountered such a problem. Even worse, Lundblad’s "History of Charles XII" (1835), which is cited as the source, does not say anything about the “13,000 dead and seriously wounded” anywhere on p. 339. Russian sources claim that the casualties were up to 3,000 killed and wounded, not 13,000 (Военный энциклопедический лексикон. Часть 9-я. СПб, 1845, p. 376). I’ve cleaned this up. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)