Comments on: Three Hundred Years Ago Today – The Battle Of Poltava

By: montanan

montanan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:11:47 +0000

I loved reading this stuff Skan- you always find a way to fill in the interesting blanks. Keep up the good work!

By: montanan

montanan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:09:38 +0000

If you can point to a Russian (or Muscovite) victory prior to Peter the Great that wasn’t won by sheer numbers then by all means, please correct us. But if my history is correct, the Russian military before Peter consisted of conscripted peasants and the Streltsy, not trained military units. It wasn’t until Peter asked a couple of French Generals and tacticians to come over and help him train a modern army that the Russian military machine became a truly good fighting force. Even when Peter took Azov from the Crimean Khan he had a poorly trained peasant army and an officer corps made up of leftovers from his “toy army” that he used to put down the second Streltsy rebellion. The only “real” soldiers in the Russian military at that point were the Streltsy and the freerider Don Cossacks.
This is not to say that the Ruskies weren’t tough, don’t get me wrong. I have a great ammount of respect for the legendary Russian tenacity.
BTW: that quote you have about having to push a russian over after killing him originated from Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, when Russian soldiers were known to pretend to be dead on a battlefield only to rise up and kill when the battle was over and the enemy was moving among the dead. I can’t cite the source because it was in a history book I read back in middle school.

By: Streiff

Streiff — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:38:27 +0000

what would you offer as evidence of your thesis. Admittedly, the Russian soldier, conscripted for life, was physically tough and could endure incredible privation. I see no evidence at any point in Russian history, prior to the last year or so of WW II, where the Russian army displayed anything like strategic, operational, or tactical dexterity.

By: pilgrim

pilgrim — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:27:28 +0000

The occupation of Russia’s Kremlin for 2 years by the Poles may explain somewhat the phenomena I never understood. Russians seem to really hate Poles.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:19:57 +0000

I’m in a game of Diplomacy right now (Albanian troops just succeeded in a key invasion of Italy, breaking the back of the Italians and setting up the Austrian empire to finish them off).

What I couldn’t understand though is why land units were allowed to march between Denmark and Sweden.

Now I know, heh.

By: fishbreath

fishbreath — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:54:35 +0000

…is largely an artifact of the Soviet era. Russian line infantry in the 1700s was not particularly well-trained with the musket (as Suvorov said, “The bullet is a mad thing; only the bayonet knows what it is about”), but was known for its skill with the bayonet and its iron discipline (I heard a quotation along the lines of “First you must kill a Russian, and then you must push him over”, but I can’t find a source).

Either way–they did suffer some embarrassing defeats, but the manpower over quality myth is one that could do without repeating. >.>

By: red4ever

red4ever — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:17:57 +0000

Not to undermine the importance of what you wrote, but you need to read Eric Flint’s 1632 series. It’s scifi. The basic premises is that a cosmic event sends a town from West Virginia to Germany in 1932. Now, the guy who leads the West Virginians is a union leader, but still a decent enough guy. What they do to Germany, the 30 years war and the relationship between Sweden and Denmark would make the outcome of Battle of Polstava very different.

Again, just for fun. What you wrote needs to be remembered, especially it effect on the world today.

By: red4ever

red4ever — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:17:57 +0000

Again, just for fun. What you wrote needs to be remembered, especially it effect on the world today.