Talk:Battle of Grengam

Two marble plaques on church in St. Petersburg

There are photos this marble plaques on WikiCommons: Image:Memorial marble plaque 1 on Saint Pantaleon's Church (Saint Petersburg).jpg and Image:Memorial marble plaque 2 on Saint Pantaleon's Church (Saint Petersburg).jpg. -- Sergey kudryavtsev —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.239.224.242 (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Battle date

27 july is a old style date. A new style date is 7 august. -- 195.239.224.242 13:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC) (Sergey kudryavtsev)

Swedish victory?

The Russian article sited clearly says that the Russians won (and while giving same swedish losses as the article, it claims that the Russians lost 82 killed, 203 wounded). Checking other wiki's, the Russian and Polish (!) wiki's claim Russian victory, the Swedish - Russian defeat. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If only Swedish wiki claims so, then it is regular swedish propoganda. This battle was clearly a russian victory. --88.91.27.212 (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "88.91.27.212" the country known for history revisionism is rather Russia than Sweden, though the source provided is Finnish. Anyways looking through your edits, I have only discovered nationalistic rewriting. Björnebacke (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh be quiet, Bjorn. It is retarded to claim the Swedes won, when 90% of their fleet was destroyed, and they fled. And Soviet archives are one of the best sources in the world, you ignorant Swede. Last time I checked, you have only been fed Propoganda, and make idiotic opinions about Russia.

PS. What is your source? 1000 skeletons were found dead on an island, and that = Russian sailors ded at Grengam? Please stop bullshitting. It makes me laugh to hard. Facts are clear, Swedish fleet was destroyed. Live with it.

PPS. AND YOU SAY I Have only nationalist editing? UNLIKE YOURS trolling (Seriously, check your own edits), I PROVIDE SOURCES. Now be quiet. --Nikitn (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all Swedish fleet except for 1 ship was either destroyed or captured by Russians but, in Swedish opinion, it's still Swedish victory 8( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Casualties

With all due respect, the source which states 1000+ Russian deads are a project about Åland wrtitten by a Swedish proffessor in 1963.

I would give my trust to the Russian navy and the Grand encyliopedia, which states total casualties are less than 300. --Nikitn (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here I agree with you. I would not consider Matts Dreijer's: Ålands bebyggelse i Ord och Bild a reliable source on the battle. To me the figure of 1000 dead Russians sounds more like local recollections. What does he base his figure on? Did he count the graves - or even visit them? In 250 years a hundred real corpses can easily grow to a thousand in local legends. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle name

When a name has been transcribed from a Western language to Russian, one cannot transcribe once more to obtain the name in the Latin alphabet. Transcription is not a one-to-one mapping, and therefore the name will often be almost unrecognizable after such a process. This has happened in this case. The original Swedish name Gränhamn (later written as Granhamn) was first transcribed to Russian Гренгам. So far so good. To transcribe this once more to Grengam is wrong. Grengam is not a name to be found on any Western map. The correct thing to do is of course to use the name from which the Russian transcription was originally formed. Hence, the name of the battle should be "Battle of Gränhamn" or "Battle of Granhamn". The choice depends on which form is most appropriate, the historic or the modern form of the name. Alternatively, one may use the Swedish form, "Battle of Ledsund". Incidentally, Granhamn is not an island or a place. Hamn means harbor, and Granhamn (Gränhamn) was an anchorage where the sailing ships, sailing between Sweden and Finland, could find shelter, or where they could rest waiting for favorable wind. This page should be moved to a new page with one of the names suggested above. Aavat (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree on that. I would suggest "Battle of Ledsund". But sadly it's not just the name that is the problem with this article since it's not just the name that is clearly Russian. Feel free to rename and rewrite. Närking (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored to Battle of Grengam. The name "Battle of Granhamn" is a neologism and WP:OR. See Talk:Battle of Gangut#Name of the battle. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Added a section Name of the battle in accordance with the outcome of the discussion on Talk:Battle of Gangut#Name of the battle. --Aavat (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted you edits. None of the sources you provided supports either of the nonstandard names for the battle. I do not have printed English language version of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia available, but the original Russian lannguage article on the battle Гренгам (Google translation) does not give a name for the battle. It is listed under the name of the island Гренгам/Granhamn, so using the Swedish language name for the island is only natural. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reintroduced the section Name of the battle, leaving out the part you did not agree on. I have also removed your reintroduced footnote 1, which said that Granhamn is located close to Stockholm. As you know, this is the wrong Granhamn. I have also corrected your following reverts: Granhamn is not an island, but an anchorage. Who would ever call an island a hamn? Look at footnote 7 before you remove it. Гренгам is not a transcription of Granhamn, but of Gränhamn. No Russian would transcribe Granhamn with Гренгам. I have also reintroduced the English translation in footnote 4. Why do you find it more natural to use a Russian text as reference instead of the translated English text? Surely, you must agree that most English readers prefer to read the English translation. -- Aavat (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this source. Someone should extract the {{PD Old}} image of the 1650 map from the PDF-file and add it to the article. I am too lazy today. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally, we now agree on most of the issues I raised; date, transcription and anchorage. (However, I think you should remove the link to Anchorage, Alaska.) With respect to the map from 1650, I have of course already made the pdf file, but I have still not been able to get a permit from Kungliga Biblioteket in Stockholm to use it in Wikipedia. But I am working on it. As you know, I still think the name is wrong, but I cannot do anything about it. However, the least one can do is to inform the readers that the way this name has been formed is not common practice. I have therefore added two sentences in the section Name of the battle. If the readers don't get this information, they might think that Grengam is a well accepted name. However, to the best of my knowledge, no encyclopedia is applying this name. As you have noticed, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia does not use a name for the battle. However as entry word in the English translation, it uses Granhamn and not Grengam. -- Aavat (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Outcome

All English non-Russian sources I could find mark this battle as a Russian victory:[1],[2],[3],[4]. Moreover, contrary to the article's contents, one of them states that Russian raids in Swedish coasts did continue after the battle, into 1721. Additionally, this Swedish source states that this battle was decisive to the outcome of the war. Since Sweden lost that war, that would mean the battle was lost too, no? --Illythr (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the outcome has been seen as a draw or even a Swedish victory is that the Russian fleet actually lost 70% of it's percent ships and left the Swedish coast for the rest of the year. The Finnish historian Christian Kuvaja writes in his recently published book "Karolinska krigare 1660–1721" that Siöblad at first had to face a court martial because he had acted against orders and also lost several ships. Although when it became known how many Russian ships that had been destroyed the view was changed. Närking (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should place due weight to the various existing opinions. So far it seems that "Russian victory" is the dominant view. Here's also the "Who is who" source [5], which also calls this battle a Russian victory. --Illythr (talk)

A new Finnish book by Arvo Komulainen calls the battle a "Russian defeat" – or this is at least what the on-line book presentation says:

Peter the Great was planning to attack Stockholm through the Åland Islands, but was forced to abandon his plans after the "defeatfull" seabattle of Grengam. (Pietari Suuri suunnitteli hyökkäävänsä Ahvenanmaan kautta Tukholmaan, mutta hän joutui luopumaan suunnitelmastaan Flisön tappiollisen meritaistelun jälkeen 27. heinäkuuta 1720.)

— Arvo Komulainen: Taistelu Ahvenanmaasta - Oolannin iäisyyskysymys

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, any Russian/Ukrainian or non-Swedish/Finnish source available to reinforce that? If that is a significant view in Sweden and Finland only, it deserves its own section. If it's as widespread as the opposing view - we'll have to cope with a forked article. --Illythr (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we need a forked article since I guess everyone agrees on what actually happened during the battle; location, admirals, ships were lost etc. The difference is what the outcome meant. Närking (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian losses are a strong point of disagreement. It would appear that both sides claim that the other one has fled...? --Illythr (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that everyone seems to agree, that the battle was "decisive". It also seems to be the last battle of the war. Did this battle somehow decide the outcome of the war? if so, for whom? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about "everyone" - some of the sources mentioned say that the Great Northern War was primarily a land war with the naval battles being only a side show. Still, a "decisive" battle is usually a victory for those who won the war. --Illythr (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Christer Kuvaja seems to consider the outcome to be unclear with no real winner. The Swedes lost 4 fregattes but at the same time the Russians lost 43 of its 60 galleys which was a considerable loss. And the Swedish coast was freed from Russian attacks for the rest of the year. Anyway I don't think this battle can be considered to have any major importance to the outcome of the Great Northern War. Närking (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And Prof Matts Dreijer considers that this battle was decisive (although most Russian sources only say that it was "important")... And according to Russian accounts, the only surviving Swedish vessel was the flagship, that barely escaped a boarding attempt and fled the battle, damaged. Considering the Russian losses, if true, this could have been branded only a tactical victory, but since the course of the war wasn't reversed - seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. Anyhow, the Swedish view on the battle is known. So is Russian. What is really needed here is an authoritative English impartial source. I found three, but I don't know how authoritative they are.

That "Who's who in Naval History" book surely does look authoritative to me, though. --Illythr (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

But what does the Russian sources say about the Russian losses? Närking (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, this is where it gets interesting. I did a search in Russian sources available online and here's the result: First, these two imperial (1850s) sources provide two slightly different accounts:

Prelude:

• Sweden allies itself with England as a last resort, the English fleet joins the Swedish one in the Baltic and threatens to attack Peterburg, but is quickly recalled to Stockholm by the Swedish king, who felt that shores of Sweden were threatened by Russian ships that were sighted near Umeå. On 9th of July, 1720 an unanticipated skirmish leaves one Russian galley abandoned and captured by a Swedish galley squadron. Upon hearing of this, Peter orders Galitsin to move his galley fleet into the area and destroy the Swedes. Galitsin led the expedition himself with 1) 52 galleys and 14 boats or 2) 61 galleys and 29 boats. Instead of a galley flotilla, a group of 1 ship of the line, 4 frigates and 9 smaller boats was discovered anchored 1) at Lemland 2) behind Frisberg. It was decided to attack them once the wind becomes favorable.

The battle:

• But suddenly, the Swedish ships attacked. Galitsin ordered a retreat, as the wind and battlefield favored the Swedes, who pursued the Russians to Grengam, where the Russian fleet turned around and attacked the four frigates that came ahead of the Swedish group during the pursuit and entered the narrow and shallow strait between the islands Brende and Fliese. Siöblad hastily ordered the frigates to form a battle line to bombard the Russian galleys with artillery, but two of the ships ran aground while trying to perform the manoeuvre and were quickly boarded by the agile Russian galleys. Siöblad ordered a retreat and his flagship made a sharp turn (by dropping the anchor and then cutting it) in order to catch the wind. This move blocked the two remaining frigates that were promptly boarded as well. All four frigates were captured in a pitched 2 hour battle. 1) Only the flagship managed to escape, 2) The flagship took some hits in the stern, but managed to escape with the rest of the Swedish flotilla. The Swedes lost 1) 407 crewmen captured, 103 killed in battle 2) 510 crew 140 of them dead. Russian losses were 82 dead (all Russian sources give this number) and 1) 203 - 2) 246 wounded. The imperial sources mention no losses among the Russian galleys (Krotov (see below) provides a document detailing the sinking of one galley, destroyed by Swedish artillery, and the ramming of one other, by a frigate (he says it didn't sink, though). Its crew then proceeded to participate in the boarding and capture of that frigate).
• A number of modern Russian sources, [6], [7],[8] mention that 42 or 43 galleys were badly damaged in the battle and had to be scuttled afterwards. A number of others dispute this claim as "mythical" (see below).
• Another source, historian P. A. Krotov, attempts to synthesize various Russian and Swedish sources and offers the following figures: 411 Swedes captured (8 of whom died from wounds later) and 103 killed in battle. He also notes that no data is available on the casualties on the Swedish flagship and galley which took part in the battle, although it is known (from Swedish sources), that commander of the Pommern, commodore K. Paulin was killed, which means that this is a bottom estimate. His Russian losses are consistent with the imperial figures above - 82 dead, 203 wounded and 43 more singed by a gunpowder explosion. He also dismisses the claim of 43 scuttled galleys as a "myth created by F.F. Veselago" (a 19th century Russian seaman and writer) and provides a 1720 letter stating that the victory was achieved with only minor losses.
• The sources also state that Peter the Great was overjoyed. "Not a small victory," he wrote to Menshikov, "because it was achieved before the eyes of the English, who came to aid the Swedes." All participants of the battle were richly awarded. One of the sources says that the motivation of the British fleet to defend Sweden has declined after this battle and they have withdrawn by October 1720, abandoning the country to its fate. The sources also mention an extended Russian raid on Swedish coasts in May-June 1721. --Illythr (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. I wonder where that figure of destroyed galleys come from originally. But if there wasn't any destroyed galleys why didn't the Russian fleet continue the raids for the rest of the year? They had raided the Swedish coast during 1719 and had planned to do the same in 1720, although after this battle it never happened. (There had been some minor raids in the north around Umeå during the spring of 1720) But they did come back in 1721 when they raided they coast north of Gävle up to Piteå. Närking (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Finnish web-site hylyt.net, which lists all known shipwrecks in Finnish waters only knows of one wreck from this battle. If there where more I would guess some of them would have been found. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Two of the sources imply that the British fleet guarding the Swedish coast was a big enough threat to avoid further raids, given the current size of the Russian fleet. Sweden was also suing for peace by August-September 1720. By the time the British fleet left the Baltic (late October), new raids became infeasible due to the onset of winter. Peter spent the winter in building up his fleet and land army, so that by spring 1721, when the British fleet returned in April, a 5000-strong raid by Lassie's could be conducted in summer 1721, with the main fleet still standing guard against the British. Shirokorad marks this raid as the final drop that forced Sweden to cease diplomatic resistance and sign the the treaty of Nystad.

On the origins of the 43 burnt galleys figure, Krotov states that Swedish historians H. Tegengren and A. Hornborg suggest that Russian losses must have been much bigger, due to the 43 galleys lost, which would have been indisputable (due to large numbers of marines stationed on those vessels), if proven true, but he says they based their research on the "myth created by F.F Veselago." I was unable to find a book by Veselago which would detail this version, and could only find some snippets of criticism against him in Russian sources.

To summarize, we have both sides agreeing on the general course of the battle and the resulting Swedish losses. Disagreement arises only from the 43 burned galleys claim (that is present in some Russian sources) and the 1000 Russian dead (no Russian sources provide this figure). Both sides claim victory based on accepting or rejecting these claims.

One more thing, the Swedish wikiarticle and Krotov both state that the Swedish fleet was bigger - it included at least one more frigate. Krotov provides a battle registrar by Brigadier I.F. Baryatinskii of 30 July 1720, which details the Swedish forces present: Following the main group of 4 frigates and the Pommern were: the galley «Pelican» with Sioblad on board, frigate Ebenezer, 3 more galleys, lesser frigates Pakan and Lilla Fenix, frigate Anklam, brigandine Ikkorn and three skerry boats, making that 17 ships in total. --Illythr (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"F.F. Veselago (a 19th century Russian seaman and writer)" must be Theodosius F. Veselago (Russian: Феодосий Федорович Веселаго) referred to on this page (Google translation) – it's funny how Google translates Russian patronyms! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that must be him. Funny indeed. :-D --Illythr (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it really would be interesting to know where this "funny" man got his sources from. And it's strange that the Finnish site records just one shipwreck at the site of the battle. Shouldn't there be at least four Swedish frigates? And the wreck they have recorded seems pretty small to even be a galley. Although the site states there were 43 Russian galleys destroyed, but I guess that goes back to the "funny" man. The figure 1000 dead Russians is most probably made up from the destroyed galleys. I doubt there are any church records left that can confirm it, but I will check it anyway. But if the Russian fleet was almost intact after the battle it's anyway hard to understand why they returned home. Närking (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The four Swedish frigates were brought to Petersburg, paraded on the Neva, entered Russian service and were part of the Russian fleet for a while. See the infobox pic I just added.

According to Krotov, the destroyed galley "Wesfisch" was a skampaveya - a light galley with 15 pairs of oars.

My bet would be that the Russian fleet did not dare venture further due to the danger the British fleet posed, but this is merely speculation.

It would also be interesting idea to find out (and add to the article) what was Sioblad doing at that island, and whether he really had these reinforcements that Krotov mentions as prompting the Swedish fleet to attack. --Illythr (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so they managed to move all four frigates to St Petersburg. But even with the English fleet there it's strange they didn't continue, which I guess had been their plan. It also would be interesting to know what's said in the Swedish military court records about Siöblad. Närking (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Russian sources say that the fleet was specifically tasked with the elimination of the Swedish galley flotilla. I suspect they took quite a bit of damage from the Swedish ships anyhow. One other point would be the capture of the frigates - not only are they excellent booty worthy of returning with acclaim, but engaging in further battles while having to guard the 400+ prisoners with the 4 large ships in tow seems like a bad idea for an already damaged fleet. But again, mere speculation here. What would be very interesting to look at are the records of Sioblad's court martial and subsequent commendation. --Illythr (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the court records surely would be interesting to read. But the problem is that I can't refer to them here since I guess that would be OR. But I will see if I can find any reference to them in any books. Närking (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This source mentioned above says the waters around Granhamn and Flisö is the most wreckfilled in Åland due to this battle. Närking (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it says something on those lines. I do not think it is reliable. Hylyt.net list only one wrek. If there are wrecks, they may be there for other reasons. This was a harbor for centuries. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence that the: "The battle ended Swedish supremacy in the Baltic Sea" with a highly questionable source. At the time the Royal Swedish Navy had considerably more ships of the line than the emerging Russian navy. However, Denmark had a considerable navy hostile to Sweden. For a large part of the war England-Hanover also deployed naval forces in the Baltic sea hostile to Sweden. Although England swtiched sides to the end. It is simply not correct to refer to a Swedish naval "supremacy". As for the battle, it involved a minor Swedish force. The main fleet was elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibnrustah (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Section break

Could it be argued that Russian fleet captured four grounded Swedish frigates but suffered (heavy) damage during the battle? And same placed to the casualties and losses box? - 80.220.36.118 (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the above exchange, it is unclear whether the Russian fleet did lose 40-something galleys in that battle. It's even not clear, where the information about this loss comes from. --Illythr (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but i was not referring to Russian fleet losing some 40 or so galleys. I was referring to the accounts that Swedes reportedly damaged (more or less heavily) 40 or so Russian galleys, hence 'damaged'. Even if only very few actually sunk that would probably have had an impact on the Russian galley fleet (two thirds of the ships damaged) as the fleet didn't carry out its intended task. - 80.220.36.118 (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

These accounts are currently present in the two "Swedish accounts" subsections. The main problem now is reconciling the two divergent views, which can't be done until a reliable source detailing what exactly happened to the 43 galleys is found. --Illythr (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This winter a new book was published by two wellknown Swedish military historians (Lars Ericson Wolke [9] and Martin Hårdstedt[10]: »Svenska sjöslag« [11]) and on pages 191–193 Martin Hårdstedt writes about »Striden vid Flisö 1720«. He concludes that the result of the battle was that the Russian fleet lost 43 out of 61 galleys (some sank during the battle and some were so damaged the Russians had to burn them later) and as a result the Russian campaign along the Swedish coast was stopped for the rest of 1720. Närking (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding to old discussion, something about the issue from Shirokorad (a bit controversial perhaps but far better than nothing) at http://militera.lib.ru/h/shirokorad1/4_15.html - which state following:

В ходе Гренгамского боя русские захватили фрегаты "Венкер" (30 пушек), "Данск-Эрн" (18 пушек), "Кискен" (22 пушки) и "Стор-Фенис" (34 пушки). Шведы потеряли 103 человека убитыми, и 40 человек были опалены раскаленными газами при стрельбе из пушек, что свидетельствует [341] о стрельбе почти в упор — борт к борту. В ходе боя 43 русские галеры были столь сильно повреждены, что не могли совершить переход морем, и их пришлось сжечь. Остальные галеры ушли в Або. Шведские фрегаты отвели в Ревель, а в августе 1720 года — в Кронштадт, откуда их торжественно ввели в Неву. Затем они несколько лет служили в русском флоте под прежними названиями. Гренгамским сражением закончилась кампания 1720 года.

Which translates (from the relevant part): During the fight, 43 Russian galleys were so badly damaged that they could not make out to sea again and had to be burned. The rest of the galleys went to Åbo.

So according to that Russian view while no galleys were lost 43 were badly damaged of which at least had to be scuttled and rest returned to Turku instead of raiding Swedish coast. In other words while Swedes didn't technically sink any galleys in the battle (according to Shirokorad) the fight still pre-empted the Russian raids. Tactical Russian victory - after all they captured four frigates - but strategic Swedish victory since raids were mostly prevented in 1720. Opinions? - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The new published Swedish book "Sjöslag och rysshärjningar" by Lars Ericson Wolke says: "the battle of Ledsund was considered a Russian victory by the Russian themselves, however, at a heavy cost of 43 ships which were damaged, so that they later had to be scuttled. Once again medals were handed and big celebration parties were taken place because of the so called victory, by Peter I. It pumped up to a huge victory in the Russian proparganda, the fact that the battle was fought on the six-year celebrating day gave it extra weight in Peters eyes.

"The Russians forgot in their celebrating that the cost of this victory was so high that the fleet of which participated was almost eradicated and no further attacks on the coast of Sweden could be done this year. Therefor, the Swedes achieved the most out of the battle; It took so many Russians lives comparing to their force, that the Czar can't possible praise himself as the victor." This book, is however, modern and written by a well-knowned Swedish military author. As seen the Swedes were shocked of why Peter I called it a victory. And judging by the actual result I think it's safe to say this was a strategical Swedish victory since it stopped further operations of the Swedish coast that year. Imonoz (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree; the "actual result" in Shirokorad is taken by his own admission from Veselago, whose reliability on the question of the 43 galleys was already challenged in his own day and can be seen in the earlier discussion. There still is no evidence for 43 galleys being put out of action and scuttled, basically, that does not originate in Veselago. Your modern and well-known Swedish military author is relying on a disputed Russian source. 204.50.74.170 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In any case, even if 43 galleys were scuttled/burned afterwards (where?), there is no mention of 10000! deaths even in Shirokorad or Veselago. They claim the ships were unseaworthy, not that they didn't have crew to sail them. All other Russian sources agree on 82 deaths and some hundred plus wounded. I suspect Russian inactivity for the rest of 1820 has a lot to do with the British presence in the area, and just a slow-paced approach to operations because of that. As soon as the British squadron left in October, the Russians sent an envoy for peace talks. Notably, Lassy's cossacks also took a break from their successful raiding for the period.204.50.74.170 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Umm, I just noticed, the picture in the infobox was not updated, but changed - the "bringing" is the original one that shows the parade, but the new one is called "battle of Grengam" and depicts, well, the battle. I'll try to fix this now. --Illythr (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. --Illythr (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Ledsund-1720 in Gunnar Unger's book

a = Pommern; b = Danska Örn; c = Vainqueuer; d = Kiskin; e = St. Phænix.
Are these not in fact the Russian ships?

Thanks to User:Narking for scanning and uploading the image. There is something wrong with the description in the book, see Commons:File talk:Ledsund-1720.jpg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(Moved here from Commons:File talk:Ledsund-1720.jpg#Identity of ships and fleets?. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC))

It seems that Gunnar Unger has mixed up the fleets. I see the Swedish fleet attacking in favorable winds from the left (south east?) and the Russian fleet with the galleys in anchor on the right. The ships marked with the letters (a to e) are clamed to be the Swedist capital ships. This cannot be true. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was first surprised too, but I guess it's correct. The Swedish frigates are chasing the Russian galleys and soon they will find themselves agrounded. The other ships to the left must be the rest of the Swedish fleet. Unfortunately the book doesn't give any names to those ships although they have letters on the drawing. I'm not sure where the picture comes from since the book doesn't say anything about it. Although my guess is that it might come from Herman Wrangel's book "Kriget i Östersjön 1719–21". The library here doesn't have that book but I will try to order it, although I guess it can take some time now during Christmas. But hopefully that book can give much more information. Närking (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? The picture does seem to have taken liberty with the Russian galleys (put them way too close to the frigate and the Pommern; I like to imagine that the curvy stuff behind the galley fleet are not shore rocks, but wash from the galleys' movement as they are about to storm the baffled frigates :-) ), but aside from that, it seems to depict the descriptions more or less accurately - The frigates got carried away in chasing the galleys and went far ahead of the rest of the fleet with only the Pommern making it to the field of engagement. It also depicts a number of Russian galleys apart from the main fleet - which is in accordance with a (Swedish) account Krotov describes - about 20 galleys lingered behind at Grengam, while the main fleet lured the frigates into the strait, where two of them ran aground and were then attacked from two sides, further hampering their manoeuvring capability as well as cutting them off from the rest of the fleet. --Illythr (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

Gentlemen! I have added a new sub-chapter with the analysis of the aftermath accounts. What can you say/add to this? Thnax on advance! --Muravov (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a rule with regards to original research: WP:OR. While your research might be interesting wikipedia is not the place for it. You need to have actual sources backing up the statements. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have made several references to the corresponding books and Wiki-articles. So the analysis is a compilation of what has been written and approved previusly in the Wikipedia. --Muravov (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet the conclusions - i.e. the research - is your own. Please read the WP:OR. It doesn't matter if the information you based your analysis on is in wikipedia if the conclusion is not sourced. You can find more of that from WP:SYN. Technically even if the conclusion as such would be somewhere in wikipedia you really shouldn't use it unless you could verify that it is what the source really states - as wikipedia itself is not a reliable source WP:NOTSOURCE. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)