This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I suggest we change the name to either "Charles XII's war on August II" or "Charles XII invasion of Poland" as Sweden and Poland was not officially in war until 1705 I believe and by that time much of Poland was allied to Sweden. Imonoz (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think "Charles XII invasion of Poland" is essentially ok, but I think it needs a possessive: "Charles XII's invasion of Poland".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that seems correct. Imonoz (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
80,000 men is far too large number, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in this war did not have so many troops.Kcdlp (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think the author includes Saxon forces in that, either way, I'll change the numbers tomorrow or the day after to a specific number mentioned 1705. And it's far from this bias.. Imonoz (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply