Talk:Deluge (history)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

AAMoF the term (Potop szwedzki in Polish) is used mostly as a synonym to First Northern War, other minor conflicts at that time have their own names. Therefore this article seems wrong... What do we do? Halibutt 08:00, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, no. I've seen in some of books that whole series of events is referred as "Potop" (not "Potop szwedzki"). In strict sense you are right, of course. If googling you will find a lot of references to "Deluge" starting with 1648, but in Polish in google you will indeed find mostly "Potop szwedzki". SOme historians just tend to nickname "potop" (as in "epoka potopu", doba "potopu") the whole decade dividing history of Poland in two parts. Szopen 09:16, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

In English, the term "The Deluge" would most commonly refer to the Great Flood, or something like that, and not to an event in Polish history. I think we need to move this to The Deluge (Polish history) and make this redirect to Deluge. john k 19:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done so. --Matthead 00:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence since I think it is very, um...unencyclopedic. "The Deluge may be thought of as an ethnic and religious cleansing of Roman Catholics (particularly the szlachta nobility and landowning classes,) Jews, and Roma within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by Orthodox Slavs, Protestants, and Muslims [1]."

The intro currently ends with "During the wars, however, Poland lost an estimated 1/3 of its population (relatively higher losses than during World War II), and its great power status." Is there any source for this?KarlXII 23:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Start

When in 1655 did the Deluge begin? Appleseed (Talk) 18:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs are a bit confusing. After a quick read, I was still not sure just how, exactly, the Poles managed to select a king when the Commonwealth had supposedly been overrun by the Swedes and the Russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star-lists (talk • contribs) 10:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How about Polish-Lithuanian history

Well there seems to be some things that do not correspond to recent research it was Poland-Lithuania or if you want a short name Commonwealth.--Lokyz 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you refer to the title. The Deluge (history) would be enough, I think - the shorter, the better.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article "the" is necessary. Appleseed (Talk) 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not used by any other Deluges. So, Deluge (history)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Appleseed (Talk) 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No name of the state would be also acceptable. --Lokyz 19:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You realise that Deluge (history) might spark controversy, as Creationists and those who interpret the Bible literally might want to claim that article? Why not Deluge (17th century)? Balcer 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really expect that to be a problem. I think Deluge (history) is the best option. Appleseed (Talk) 15:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

They have their Deluge (mythology) and more to the point, Deluge (prehistoric). I think the distinction between prehistory and history works in our favour here, so I don't foresee problems along those lines.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So are we in agreement that Deluge (history) should be the new title? Appleseed (Talk) 22:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe so.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Appleseed (Talk) 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How to...

How do I add battles to The Deluge box? I'm kind of a knoob, sorry. I spotted that the Battle of Chojnice (1656) was not in there. --Dubcat se 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Someone did just did add "and [[Brandenburg-Prussia|German]]-[http://historicus.pl/pub/potopszwedzki.htm Potop szwedzki]. Can anyone asses a notability of this author and webpage.--Lokyz 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

This article breaches Wikipedia:Neutrality in a pretty blatant way by attempting to damn the rebels to a modern audience by suggesting that anti-semitism was their only motivation. Non Polish historians don't see things that way. Luwilt (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither do Polish, for that way. The above argument is only common to old Jewish historiography.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. The rebels felt oppressed by the Polish magnates, and the anti-semitism was due to the fact that Jews were often caretakers of the holdings of those absentee landlords. ¨victor falk 11:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Skewed picture

The article seems a little too Polonocentric, with insufficient mention of the overall context of the First Northern War (e.g. the fact that Sweden was simultaneously at war with many other powers, and Poland had a number of allies). The Swedish article (being Swedocentric, it is entitled "Karl X Gustav's Polish War") also provides a rather different perspective concerning Sweden's reasons to attack, the peace treaties, and much more detail on the military operations. I'm not really passionate about 17th century POV conflicts, but someone more motivated should try to make the picture more balanced with info from the Swedish article.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe some recent edits have increased the Polonocentric thrust of this article. I don't have enough specific knowledge of the topic to be able to tease out the POV materials and be confident of replacing them with apporpriate NPOV text. Hope someone else can. Pzavon (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Format

Why is the content box floating around in the middle of the page (horizontal)? Hiberniantears (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it has something to do with the way your browser processes this page. When I look at it the Content Box (or Table of Contents) it is fixed, just to the left of the Deluge map at the top of the Info Box. This is, I think, not the best place for a table of contents, but it is certainly not floating when I view the article. Pzavon (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference to the Russo-Turkish War

There is a section that states that the Commonwealth benefited from Turkish intervention in the Russo-Turkish War - the name indicates that the Ottomans did more than intervene in the war, they were one of the main parties. The rest of passage is also unclear... Does the writer mean that the Commonwealth benefited from the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War? DavisGL (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Radziwiłł's

Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Radziwiłł's Union of Kėdainiai) is is very wrong. Japan user User:Kintetsubuffalo know better history of Poland and Lithuania like european so let's show to him some facts:

• 1) Radziwiłł never was Grand Duke of Lithuania because only John II Casimir was Duke and only he could decide about Grand Duchy Lithuania (about wars, union etc). Radziwiłł's were usurper and nothing more. Any of Radziwiłł never been Grand Duke of Lithuania!!!

so why u call Radziwiłł Grand Duke of Lithuania? I need fact why?

• 2) In Grand Duchy Lithuania were home war. Never all Lithuania was with Radziwiłł. Sapiecha and anothers magnats were still faithfull polish king and Grand Duke Lithuania John II Casimir.

So why u want write that all Grand Duchy Lithuania were anti Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?

• 3)In this was Radziwiłł was destory so fast in december 1655 he was finish... After it 90% Lithuania were with John II Casimir and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

So why u write that in all this war Grand Duche Lithuania were in war with Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Do u want more arguments? If u answer for it ( with fact and explain that im wrong ) u can delete my edition.

Greetings

--Swd (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

1. stay away from personal attacks on me and any other user. I will not hesitate to report you.
2. your writing and spelling are atrocious. If you cannot properly write English, have a competent friend spellcheck for you before you post here.
3. per "I need fact why?", because it is Wikipedia policy. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
4. multiple editors have now reverted you, this should give you the idea that you are doing something wrong. Per Wikipedia:BURDEN#Burden of evidence, I will revert you again.
5. your next reversion will violate WP:3RR, I would recommend reading it as well.

--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Casualties in major battles and major sieges

Attempt of estimating casualties in major battles at least (numbers taken mainly from Polish wikipedia, some of them from English wikipedia and other sources - I'd like to see what Swedish wikipedia says about this):

It seems that there is almost complete list of losses only for major battles that took place in 1656, not for other years:

1655:

Polish losses / Swedish losses:

Żarnów - 1000 / unknown
Nowy Dwór - 300 killed / unknown (4 killed - English wikipedia)
Gródek Jagielloński - heavy / small
Siege of Krakow - Polish forces at the start numbered 2200 regulars and when the city surrendered, according to different sources 1800 or 1500 marched out of the city and surrendered (so it seems there were 400 - 700 dead or 400 - 700 dead and wounded who couldn't march).
Siege of Jasna Góra - few dozen men / several hundred men

Other major battles (no data on casualties):

Ujście - Polish defeat (but Poles surrendered after just 5 hours of combats and only regulars - ca. 1400 infantry - actually resisted, while nobility did not fight at all, so losses couldn't be significant)
Sobota - Polish defeat
Wojnicz - Polish defeat
Kościan - Polish victory
Krosno - Polish victory
Swedish siege of Danzig - Polish victory

1656:

Polish losses / Swedish losses:

Gołąb - ca. 140 / ca. 100
Jarosław - small (probably 50) / heavy (probably 300)
Kozienice - ca. 60 killed / 240 killed + 30 wounded
Warka - 100 killed + 100 wounded / highest estimate for Swedish losses is 4000 dead; lowest one is 400 killed; Polish historians estimate them as 1500 killed and wounded + 260 captured
Kłecko - 1000 casualties (Polish wikipedia - cites no sources to support this) or 70 killed and wounded including 40 killed (English wikipedia - sources cited) / 500 casualties (Polish wikipedia) or 452 killed + 1309 wounded (English wikipedia - sources cited in the article)
Warszawa - 2000 - 2600 dead / 1000 - 1300 dead
Łowicz - 300 / 1470
Prostki - 250 / 5000
Filipowo - 500 / 100
Polish siege of Warsaw (24 April - 1 July) - Swedish garrison numbered 2484 soldiers at the start of the siege, on 1 July when Swedish garrison surrendered, it numbered 1200 soldiers including wounded; so losses were around 1284 dead. Polish losses were probably much bigger, because there were 3 failed assaults before the final successful. Let's assume they were 3 times the Swedish losses, so probably 3600 dead. Thus losses = 3600 / 1200

Total for these battles from 1656 (not including captured) - ca. 8700 (Polish) / ca. 13000 (Swedish) - if taking into account highest estimates for both sides (but captured not included), except for Warka when I accepted the figure of 1500 wounded and killed for the Swedish side (instead of 4000 of just dead as the highest estimation says).

There are two more major battles from 1656 listed by Polish wikipedia:

Nisko - Polish victory
Lubrze - Polish victory

Sources on casualties in the battle of Prostki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prostki

http://www.halat.pl/article.php?2&2&fs=poland2.html

http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/materialy/battlefields/battlefields.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI66ZNFYTXc

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Prostkami

All of these agree that losses were ca. 250 for the Poles and ca. 5000 for the Swedish-Brandenburgian army (mostly suffered during the retreat).

1657:

Polish losses / Swedish losses:

Chojnice - 18 dead, 30 wounded, 9 captured (or 3000 dead according to Peter Englund - see English wikipedia) / 300 dead + 50 captured Frenchmen (and many others)

Magierow - rear guard of the Transilvanian army (which in total numbered at that time ca. 25,000 - 30,000) was completely annihilated, later many soldiers drown in the river Peltew and neighbouring swamps while being chased by Polish soldiers.

Czarny Ostrow - Transilvanian army was finally forced to surrender after this battle (in which they suffered heavy losses). After the battle surviving Transilvanians were allowed to retreat, after paying huge ransom, but Tatar allies of the Poles did not respect this fact and chased them anyway. As the result on 31 July Tatar forces captured the camp of the Transilvanian army near Trembowla, capturing 11,000 and killing 500. Remnants (possibly several thousands?) managed to escape.

It seems that during these two battles (Magierow and Czarny Ostrow) Transilvanian forces lost at least 5,000 - 10,000 killed alone. Further 500 Trembowla.

Torun - Polish victory (?)
Warsaw - Swedish-Transilvanian-Cossack victory
Skałat - Polish-Tatar victory
Krakow - Polish-German victory

1658:

Polish casualties / Swedish casualties:

Siege of Toruń 1658 - 1800 (1500 Poles and 300 Germans) / 1200

1659:

Szkudy - Polish victory
Grudziadz - Polish victory
Glowa - Polish victory

Other major sieges:

Besieged by Swedish forces:

Puck (they didn't manage to capture it), Malbork, Zamosc (they didn't manage to capture it), Przemysl (they didn't manage to capture it), Lwow (they didn't manage to capture it).

Besieged by Polish forces:

Tykocin, Sandomierz, Leczyca, Kalisz, Torun, Bydgoszcz, Piotrkow

Since this data is far from being complete, I think a good idea would be to put it into some source of table listing battles (with breakdown per each year) and different estimates of casualties of both sides in these battles.

Peter558 (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire, Austria and Hungary since August 1657

Isn't Holy Roman Empire, Austria and Hungary one and the same thing?

Is it really necessary to list each of them separately?

I think that Holy Roman Empire included also Austria and Hungary (Habsburgs).

I will edit this, by removing Austria and Hungary, if you don't mind.

Or maybe I should remove Holy Roman Empire and leave Austria + Hungary?

Peter558 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

About my last edit (removing Russia, Denmark, Dutch Republic from combatants and Denmark from locations, adding Ukraine)

Russia signed ceasefire with Poland-Lithuania but was never oficially in alliance against Sweden with Poland. Russo-Swedish war was a separate thing and Russo-Swedish combats did not take place on the territory of Poland-Lithuania but in Livonia and Finland. The fact that wikipedia article about the Russo-Swedish war of 1656 - 1658 doesn't mention Poland among combatants - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Swedish_War_%281656%E2%80%931658%29 - is the best argument to remove Russia from combatants in this article about the Polish-Swedish war. Russia can be mentioned among anti-Swedish combatants (alongside Poland and other countries) in the general Second Northern War article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Northern_War . The same applies to the Dano-Swedish war of 1658 - 1660 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dano-Swedish_War_%281658%E2%80%931660%29 . Danish army never fought on Polish-Lithuanian territory and never fought against the Swedish invasion forces that were in Poland-Lithuania. It should be noted that the Swedish army (40,000 men) which fought in Poland-Lithuania was not the same army which fought against Russia between 1656 and 1658 (from 2,230 men in 1656 to 25,000 men in 1658) and also not the same which invaded Denmark in 1658 (and fought there between 1658 and 1660). Dutch Republic also didn't send any forces to support Poland-Lithuania in her fight - that's why it can be included in the general Second Northern War article, but not here. On the other hand, the Holy Roman Emperor really sent a force of 17,000 men to support Poland-Lithuania in its war. Crimean Khanate also indeed sent a unit of 2,000 Tatar cavalry under command of Subkhan Ghazi Aga to support Polish forces. That's why these combatants, on the other hand, should be included.

Peter558 (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to add the fact that the main reason that Poland managed to drive of the the swedish remainants. Was that the swedish main army was moving away in order to attack Denmark who had declared war. Also it should be considered to write more about the countries who was supporting Poland and fighting Sweden. To me it seems like the text is trying to tell us that polish peasents and guerillas alone managed to fight of it's invaders without any greater deal of support. Something who appears strange to me as the swedish army was pretty strong and Poland was in pretty bad state with 25%-45% of it population dead,severe famines and a great deal of cities burned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.142.130.207 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've read a lot about the 50 000 poles in manstrenth were the ones who directly faced the Swedes. I think it's quite impossible that Poland had only 50 000 men facing both Sweden and Russia thoughout 6 years of war dont you? I think it should be noted that the polish force of 50 000 was facing the Swedes, also the Russian forces arent listed at strenth at the polish side, i find that strange since they are at the swedish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imonoz (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

=====

Hi,

Apart from "peasants and guerillas" Poland had a regular army as well in period 1656 - 1660. And actually Poland also sent part of her forces - one division (under Stefan Czarniecki) - to Denmark, to help Denmark fight off the Swedish invasion. In 1655 most of the Polish army betrayed to Swedish forces. Later they came back when they saw Swedish crimes.

Regarding population losses - this scale of population losses which you mentioned, is for the entire period 1648 - 1667, not just for one year 1655 - and I suppose that most of the casualties were caused by epidemies which followed the actual wars.

Peter558 (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Imonoz - regarding the size of forces - it is also impossible that Sweden had only 40,000 throughout 6 years of war against Poland and other enemies. This number refers only to situation in mid-1655 and only Swedish forces fighting the Poles (not Russians) are included here. Why Russian forces are not counted at the Polish side? I guess because when Sweden invaded, Russia was fighting Poland.

You are right that the number of 50,000 is only for Polish forces on the Swedish front in 1655. But it should be noted that they were of worse quality than Polish forces on the Russian front at the same time. I've got some more detailed figures:

These are only figures for 1655. It is impossible to establish exact figures for entire war because all sides were constantly suffering casualties and were also constantly receiving reinforcements and replacements. In 1655 Poland deployed:

1) Against Sweden:

Regular Crown army (in brackets - % of total regulars):

- 700 Winged Hussars (7%) - 6340 other cavalry (light & medium) and dragoons (62%) - 3150 infantry (31%)

In total 10,200. As you can see, not only it was a small force of regulars, but also had not enough infantry (just 31%) and heavy cavalry (just 7%).

Add to this:

- 5300 voivode and private forces (1650 cavalry and 3650 infantry) - 4300 levy peasant infantry (so called chosen infantry or łan's infantry) - 32,000 nobles from Levée en masse

Total of 51,800 - but 70% of this were troops of very low combat value (32,000 + 4300) and further 10% (5300) troops of often dubious loyalty.

Of those 32,000 noble levies many would like to see Charles X on the Polish-Lithuanian throne more than John Casimir.

13,000 of those 32,000 noble levies (so over 40%) surrendered at Ujscie on 25 July 1655 without a single shot.

2) Against Russian-Cossack alliance:

Regular Crown army - 9400 Regular Lithuanian army - ca. 10,000 (partially betrayed to the Swedes after the Treaty of Kiejdany) Łan's infantry - 300 Noble levies - 4000 And also 15,000 Crimean Tatars, who previously had been supporting Cossacks but now fought on the Polish side vs Russo-Cossack alliance.

As you can see, actually much more (19,400 compared to 10,200) regulars fought vs the Russian-Cossack alliance than vs Sweden.

But Russian-Cossack army operating against PLC in 1655 was much bigger than the Swedish army.

And Swedish forces at the beginning were 34,000 regular army (12,950 cavalry, 1200 dragoons and 19,800 infantry), shortly later they grew to 42,000 regulars at the start of August, then to 55,000 regulars - and by the end of the year (1655) they amounted 68,000 regulars, despite already large losses.

These are just Swedish regulars. Add to this all other forces - Swedish allies and Lithuanians and Poles who joined Swedish side.

The perfect army composition for war against Sweden was much different than that mobilized in 1655.

Initial defeats against Sweden in 1655 were caused by - among other factors - by the fact that PLC's army which was mobilized to face the Swedes in 1655 was much weaker than PLC's armies which fought against Sweden in previous wars - those in years 1601 - 1629. It was strong on paper when it comes to numbers, but quality and composition of this army in 1655 was much worse than quality of armies which fought in previous wars vs Sweden.

There was also problem with espirit de corps - many citizens would like to see Charles X on the Polish throne rather than John Casimir.

And also commanders of Polish-Lithuanian armies at that time were not as skilled as during previous wars against Sweden. One of the best commanders of PLC's armies at that time - Janusz Radziwill (who for example won against Russians and Cossacks in the battle of Szklow on 12 August 1654, where his forces were outnumbered) betrayed to the Swedish side, signing the Treaty of Kiejdany with Charles X Gustav. Regarding composition:

We should compare the composition and quality of army which faced the Swedish invasion in 1655 especially with the composition and quality of Polish army mobilized for war against Sweden in 1635 (this war in the end did not take place - that's why some historians call it "armed demonstration against Sweden" - but it didn't take place because Sweden agreed to sign the favourable for Poland Treaty of Stuhmsdorf on 12 September 1635).

Regular Polish (Crown) army mobilized for planned war against Sweden in 1635:

- 4060 Winged Hussars (17%) - 4890 "cossack" cavalry (20%) - 620 reiters & 1900 dragoons (10%) - 12,700 infantry (53%)

Total regulars: 24,170 regular Crown army. Add to this 3630 regular soldiers of the quarter army and from Lithuania, as well as ca. 7,000 registery Cossacks. In total around 35,000 soldiers - including 28,000 regulars and 7.000 registery Cossacks.

And this was considered as the perfect army composition for war against Sweden, based on experiences from previous wars.

Unfortunately, in 1655 Poland did not manage to mobilize an army of such composition against Sweden. It was caused by the fact, that Poland already fought against multiple enemies at the time when Sweden invaded her from behind. And for example most of Polish regular units - so the best part of the entire Polish-Lithuanian army - was fighting on the Russian front when Sweden invaded.

Regards, Peter558 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if someone states a number it should be well written of where it accurs to. You got a lot of interesting numbers there which you should add to the article. However, Swedish allies shouldn't be included in the swedish numbers.

It doesn't really mather of what shape the soldiers were who were fighting Sweden in the beginning of the war, soldiers/fighter are what they are but it would be good if that was mentioned in the article somewhere. I just think troop strenth of the beginning of each particat would be enough since as you said, it will be to hard to get total strenh of every nation.

Well, Sweden didn't get skilled until GIIA became the king, before that they were just an reasonly born independent state. And the main reason why they lost the war in the end was because (according to swedish modern historians) the lands didn't give the swedish army enough recources, they had a lot of problems with that.

I think the Russian strengh should be included in the Polish allies as well. It's not really accurate otherwise since Sweden fought of russians pretty active 1656. And more of so, I wonder why the danes are included in the Deluge? They were included in the Northern War and attacked Sweden cause of the Deluge but they weren't involved in the fighting in Poland. Imonoz (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

When only I will have more free time, I will try to include these numbers in the article. And maybe do some more edits. The Russian strength should probably be included in the Polish allies, yes. But in such case we would have to include also the strength of Swedish forces which fought against the Russians since 1656 onward. And I have no idea how strong were those forces. But when we compare forces in 1655, Russians were still fighting against Poland and not against Sweden. The balance of forces was different in 1655, different in 1656, different in 1657, 1658 and 1659. So I guess it is hard to establish one "balance of forces" chart. There should be a different one for each year.

According to Polish historians the Swedish army lost the war not because "the lands didn't give the Swedish army enough resources" (I actually I doubt in this claim, considering that Polish-Lithuanian lands at that time were much richer and more densely populated than Sweden or entire Scandinavia), but rather because they had not enough soldiers to control & hold what they captured, and they were doing well only until Polish forces were not putting up any strong resistance. The Swedish army hardly captured any fortress or fortified city which actually resisted them during this war. They only captured those cities / fortresses which didn't resist them much / surrendered quickly or had very weak garrisons.

Swedish forces never captured towns / fortresses like Lancut, Przemysl, Rzeszow, Lwow or Danzig.

And the map described "Swedish-Russian occupation of Poland-Lithuania" is quite misleading. Actually they never had enough soldiers to occupy and control the countryside - they only could hold the most important cities / fortresses in their hands. It should rather be described as "the line of furthest extent of advance" of Swedish / Russian armies during that war.

And also it shows situation in November of 1655 - so in the worst period of war for Poland. Polish wikipedia mentions this, English wikipedia doesn't say that this map shows situation as it was in November 1655, so someone might think that Polish-Lithuanian territory was "occupied" like this throughout the entire period of 1655 - 1660, which is completely false (already by the end of 1657 / early 1658 vast majority of territories previously captured by Sweden were back in Polish hands).

Cheers, Peter558 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right that the Danes were not included in fighting in Poland. But I think the Danes are included because Poles were involved in fighting in Denmark - and probably from the Polish perspective Czarniecki's expedition to Denmark was also part of "The Deluge".

Cheers, Peter558 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusing

The articles states the the deluge is both a "Polish–Lithuanian Pyrrhic victory", but also that "During the wars the Commonwealth lost an estimated one-third of its population as well as its status as a great power".

This article should make up its mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordanvind (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You should check the definition of the Pyrrhic victory first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

"A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately lead to defeat. Someone who wins a "Pyrrhic victory" has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll and/or the detrimental consequences negates any sense of achievement or profit. There is, therefore, no reason to celebrate."

And also most of civilian population losses were caused by epidemics which followed those wars.

Peter558 (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. It would also need restructuring; currently most content is under one section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Strenght reports

Is there anyone who have some information on the Polish troops facing the Russians and Cossacks etc in 1655? As the article 'infobox' now states, one could misstake the 50,000 Poles faced both Sweden and Russia. This is not the case, as they only faced the Swedes. And also, maybe the troop strenght of the Russians who invaded Swedish Livonia, when the Swedish-Russian war started? I feel like this infobox could be missleading. Imonoz (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused of what 'The Deluge' really is, judging from the campaignbox, this is the Swedish Deluge, however, there's also Russian and Cossack etc as Belligerents. Imonoz (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on major conflict infobox

A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

.

American-style dating should be changed to the European format

Currently, the article employs the American format (MM-dd) for whatever reason. Shouldn't it be changed to dd-MM?--Adûnâi (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)