The Unfamous Russian-Swedish War of Catherine II and Gustav III

40
The Unfamous Russian-Swedish War of Catherine II and Gustav III
Gustav III in the portrait of Per Krafft the Elder (1786) and Catherine II in the portrait of M. Shibanov (April 1787)


Over the centuries, Russians and Swedes have repeatedly fought among themselves. The number of wars given varies because there is no agreement on the starting point. Should we take into account clashes dating back to the times of the Novgorod Republic? Or keep records, starting with the wars of Sweden and the Grand Duchy of Moscow, and then the Russian Empire? And should episodic and not very significant clashes like the Battle of the Neva in 1240 be considered wars?



The first military conflicts were recorded back in the 1475th century - the Novgorod Republic then acted as an enemy of Sweden. In 1476-1554 For the first time, the Grand Duchy of Moscow fought with Sweden. In 1557-1700. marked the first military clash with Sweden of the Russian kingdom. The most famous, long-lasting and difficult conflict for both sides is the Great Northern War, which lasted from 1721 to 1808. It was after it that Russia regained access to the Baltic Sea. The last time Sweden and Russia fought was in 1809-1788; as a result of this war, Finland became part of the Russian Empire. But today we will talk about the unknown war of 1790-1787, which traditionally remains in the shadow of the victorious Russian-Turkish War of 1791-XNUMX, in which Ushakov and Suvorov won their resounding victories, and at its end Crimea became Russian. This war with Sweden was of a defensive nature for our country and ended in a draw, but it was very difficult and very costly for the treasury. Over the course of three years of hostilities, they had to endure five naval battles, and one of them, the Second Rochensalm, is still considered by the Swedes to be revenge for the defeat at Poltava. The actions on land were also not very successful, where the Russians managed to defend Neishlot, but the Swedes “recorded as their asset” not very significant clashes at Kernikoski, Pardakoski, Valkiala and Parkumäki. But in the conditions of a big war with Turkey, a “draw” outcome in the war with Sweden can be considered a positive result.

On the way to another Russian-Swedish war


In February 1771, Gustav III, the husband of the younger sister of the Prussian King Frederick II, came to power in Sweden. Gustav was the cousin of Catherine II, who in her letters easily called him “fat Gu.” She was also the cousin-niece of “Old Fritz”, who at one time recommended her, the penniless Anhalt-Zerbst “Cinderella”, as the bride of a rich Russian prince. But in this “game” the Prussian king “played” on the side of his Swedish son-in-law. Everyone was relatives, but this circumstance did not bother anyone: as they say, it was nothing personal, it was just work.

In 1772, Gustav III forced the Riksdag to recognize a new constitution, which effectively restored absolute power in Sweden and ended the “Era of Freedoms” (1718-1772). Meanwhile, Russia has been considered the guarantor of the Swedish constitution since the Peace of Nystadt.

For some reason, the events in the neighboring country at first did not worry the Russian authorities too much, but revanchist sentiments were rapidly growing in Sweden; among his circle of associates, Gustav III spoke of his intentions to start a war with Russia and occupy St. Petersburg already in 1775. Since Sweden also had territorial claims to Denmark, this country signed an alliance treaty with the Russian Empire in 1773. This caused great annoyance to the Swedish king, who planned to take Norway from the Danes.

Sweden's closest foreign policy partner was France, which traditionally considered this state and Turkey a zone of its influence and a kind of “Eastern barrier”. The French government provided Gustav III with significant subsidies to prepare for war. Many researchers believe that active subsidies from Sweden became one of the reasons for the severe financial crisis in France, which pushed Louis XVI to the fatal decision to convene the Estates General.

One way or another, thanks to French money, in 1782, under the leadership of Frederick Heinrich Chapman, the construction of ten 64-gun ships began at the shipyard in Karlskrona, as well as the construction of new frigates and the modernization of old ones. Now Swedish frigates could carry up to 50 guns and, if necessary, could replace a battleship that was out of action.

Despite all these preparations, Catherine II and her dignitaries considered Sweden too weak a rival and did not prepare at all for the war in the Baltic. There were practically no Russian troops on the border with Finland, and those that were available were garrisons of a few fortresses. And after the start of the Russian-Turkish War in 1787, all the forces and resources of the empire were directed exclusively to the southern front. In the summer of 1788, Gustav III restored the Swedish-Turkish alliance of 1739. And Gustav III declared the equipment of the Russian squadron for a trip to the Mediterranean Sea as preparation for an attack on Karlskrona. It was no longer possible not to attach significance to what was happening, and the Russian envoy A.K. Razumovsky on June 18, 1788, by order of Catherine II, demanded an explanation. The Swedes responded with war, which began 3 days later.

The outbreak of war


First, on June 21 (July 2), 1788, the Swedes staged a provocation. Presenting a staged shootout in the border town of Puumala as a “treacherous attack by the Russians,” Gustav III convinced the Riksdag to start a “defensive war” - and immediately the 38-strong Swedish army crossed the borders of the Russian Empire.

On June 25, Gustav III issued an ultimatum. He demanded the punishment of Ambassador Razumovsky, who was allegedly responsible for the outbreak of the war, the return of Finnish lands that had been ceded to Russia under the treaties of 1721 and 1743, the restoration of Turkish sovereignty over the Crimea (which the Turks were forced to recognize as independent) and the conclusion of peace with the Ottoman Empire, as well as disarmament of the Baltic fleet. These demands were clearly unrealistic, but Gustav did not expect Russia to agree to their implementation. He wanted to fight, hoping to pin down Russian troops in combat operations in southern Finland and capture St. Petersburg, landing a 20-strong landing corps near the Russian capital. The ships of the Baltic Fleet were supposed to be destroyed or blocked in Kronstadt. Great Britain, Holland and Prussia were to be allies. The British then wanted to repay St. Petersburg for the Declaration of Armed Neutrality of 1780; Prussia wanted to weaken Russian influence in Poland. The Danes took the side of Russia, however, they did not have much choice: in Copenhagen they understood that if Sweden won, they would be next in line.

As we have already noted, there were very few troops on the border with Sweden, and therefore recruits began to be urgently recruited - and not of the highest “grade”; even vagabonds were called up. Somehow the size of the army was increased to 14 thousand people. General-in-Chief V.P. Musin-Pushkin was entrusted with the command of the ground units.


V. P. Musin-Pushkin in the portrait of D. Levitsky, late 1780s.

At the end of May 1788, the squadron “to guard the Baltic Sea” began to hastily prepare and arm itself. Admiral Vasily Yakovlevich Chichagov was appointed commander.


V. Ya. Chichagov in a portrait of an unknown artist

It was this admiral who became the hero of a historical “anecdote”, according to which, while telling Catherine II about one of the battles, he became so carried away that he began to use “unparliamentary” expressions. The Empress, noticing his embarrassment, said:

“Nothing, Vasily Yakovlevich, continue; I don’t understand your nautical terms.”

His son, Pavel Chichagov, during this war commanded the ship “Rostislav”, participated in the naval battles of Öland, Revel and Vyborg and was awarded the Order of St. George IV class and the golden sword “For Bravery”. Later, he was unjustly declared guilty of the fact that Bonaparte and part of his army managed to cross the Berezina in November 1812 - and became the hero of I. Krylov’s offensive fable “The Pike and the Cat.”

On June 17, the Baltic squadron was reinforced by five ships of Admiral Greig, which did not have time to leave for the Mediterranean Sea. Chichagov was now at his disposal.


Samuel Karlovich Greig in a portrait by an unknown artist, after 1788: a Scotsman in Russian service, who distinguished himself in the Battle of Chesma in 1770, father of Admiral A.S. Greig

In the fall, five more ships were supposed to arrive from Arkhangelsk.

Admiral intrigues immediately began: the offended Chichagov “said he was ill” and throughout 1788, despite Catherine’s personal decrees coming to him, he remained in Kronstadt.

1788 Campaign


For the Swedes, the war began with a failure at the Neishlot fortress, which was defended by no more than 230 soldiers. In response to the demand for surrender, the one-armed commandant of Neishlot, Major Kuzmin, gave a mocking answer:

“I am without a hand and cannot open the gate, let His Majesty do the work himself.”

Soon the Swedes were forced to retreat.

On this occasion, Catherine II wrote the libretto of the satirical opera “Gorebogatyr Kosometovich” (composer - Vicente Martin y Solera), the hero of which was unable to enter the hut defended by a one-armed old man with a poker. The opera was staged at the Hermitage in January 1789, and the ambassadors of England and Prussia, powers allied with Sweden, were invited to the premiere. Interestingly, this opera was later officially banned.

On July 8, the Swedish squadron captured the 32-gun Russian frigate Yaroslavets and the 24-gun Hector. But on July 6 (17), 1788, Admiral Greig attacked the Swedish squadron off the island of Gogland, commanded by Gustav III’s brother Karl of Südermanland. The balance of forces was as follows: 15 battleships and 12 frigates placed in a line (total firepower - 1414 guns) on the Swedish side, 17 ships carrying 1220 guns on the Russian side. The five-hour battle ended in victory for Greig's squadron, the enemy flagship lowered its flag and surrendered, and Vice Admiral Wachtmeister and 539 crew members were captured.


Louis Jean Despres. Battle of Hogland

The Russian fleet lost the battleship Vladislav, which, having lost control, was carried into the line of Swedish ships and forced to surrender. The Swedes retreated to Sveaborg, which was blocked by Russian ships.

At the beginning of August 1788, the Swedes tried to organize an amphibious operation near Friedrichsgam. The first attempt was unsuccessful, during the second it was possible to land about 300 soldiers ashore, who had to be evacuated the very next day. After this, the Swedes retreated to the border. The only “success” of the land army was the destruction of the surrounding area of ​​Neyshlot.

At the end of August, Russian ships under the command of James Travenen cut the sea route off the island of Hanko, which caused serious problems with the supply of the Swedish fleet and army.

The course of the war caused discontent among the officers, some even demanded the restoration of the previous constitution.

Meanwhile, on October 15, 1788, Admiral Greig died “of a cold,” and the immediately “recovered” Chichagov was appointed new commander.

1789 Campaign


Over the past winter, the Swedes built fortifications on the Hanko Peninsula and nearby islands. In mid-June, the troops of generals Musin-Pushkin and Mikhelson entered the Finnish province of Savolaks and defeated the Swedes near the village of Parassalmi. However, already on June 28, the Swedes under the command of Gustav III won a victory at Uttismalm, but this success was not further developed. Moreover, the Swedes were defeated at Kaipias and again retreated to the border. But the Russians also retreated, which allowed von Stedingk’s brigade to move forward and win several battles - at Parkuinmäki Hill and at Laitaatsilt.

In August-October of that year, the Russians tried to capture the poorly fortified Cape Porkkala on the Hanko Peninsula, but were unsuccessful.

At sea, hostilities began in May with reconnaissance off the island of Hanko. Subsequently, Admiral Chichagov acted extremely cautiously and indecisively, without fulfilling the order to join the squadron of Rear Admiral T. G. Kozlyaninov. Finally, on July 14, 1789, off the island of Öland, he met the Swedish fleet, but took a wait-and-see attitude, giving the initiative to the enemy. In the battle that took place, his 100-gun ship "Rostislav" was at a distance from the enemy ships, firing only 20 salvos, while other ships of his squadron - from 500 to 2300, and the ship "Fight" - 2892. The battle ended in a "draw" , in this case, the captain of the ship “Mstislav” G. Mulovsky, who was planned to be placed at the head of the first Russian round-the-world expedition (as a result, it was headed by I. Kruzenshtern), died. A.V. Khrapovitsky (secretary of Catherine II) wrote in his diary:

“It was noticed that Chichagov himself did not want to fight, wanting to better protect the shores of Livland, although he was specifically ordered to search for and attack the enemy.”

Catherine was also outraged and said:

“From the reports received from Admiral Chichagov, it is clear that the Swedes attacked him, and not he attacked them. That he had a skirmish with them, that a captain of brigadier rank and several hundred other soldiers were lost in it, without any benefit to the empire. That he finally returned to the local waters, as if to cover the Gulf of Finland. I demand that the behavior of Admiral Chichagov be compared with the instructions given to him and that it be reported to me whether the above-mentioned admiral followed the instructions given to him with My signature or not, so that I could take the appropriate measures.”

However, executive discipline in the empire under Catherine II was at an extremely low level: Chichagov not only did not bear any responsibility, but did not even deign to give any explanations to “Mother Empress.”

The Russian coastal (galley) fleet of Karl Heinrich von Nassau-Siegen operated more successfully, which on August 24 attacked Svensksund (Ruotsinsalmi) from two sides. Nassau-Siegen received the title of Russian vice admiral for his joint victory with Rear Admiral John Paul Jones over the Turkish fleet near Ochakov on June 17-18, 1788. In Russian he knew only two commands - “forward” and “row”, which he pronounced like "pie" and "mushrooms". For this reason, the sailors called it “Mushroom Pie.”


Karl Nassau-Siegen, nicknamed "Invulnerable" in a portrait by an unknown artist

Having passed through the Rochensalm Strait, the Russian galleys destroyed 39 enemy ships, losing two of their own. IN history this battle became known as the First Battle of Rochensalm. Among those who distinguished themselves in that battle was Lieutenant Alexey Kornilov, the father of the famous Admiral V.A. Kornilov, who died in Sevastopol on the Malakhov Kurgan on October 5 (17), 1854. And the Prince of Nassau received the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called from Catherine II for this victory.

1790 Campaign


Dissatisfied with the course of hostilities, Catherine II ordered a new recruitment and replaced the commander of the ground army operating in Finland: instead of Musin-Pushkin, it was now headed by I.P. Saltykov, who had recently participated in the Rumyantsev army in the Battle of Kagul and the capture of the Ottoman fortress of Khotyn.


I. P. Saltykov in a portrait of an unknown artist

Saltykov had only 23 thousand people under his command, and the theater of military operations turned out to be very large. The battles of Kernikoski, Pardakoski and Valkiala were unsuccessful. At the same time, the commander of the fleet, V. Chichagov, who already had 60 ships at his disposal (including 27 battleships, nine sailing frigates and eight sailing-rowing frigates), continued to behave passively. In March 1790, a relatively small Swedish squadron launched a surprise attack on the Russian Baltic Port base, destroying all warehouses. On May 31, 1790, Count Saltykov wrote to A. A. Bezborodko:

“The fleets stand against each other without action, and every minute ships come to the royal flotilla, and the enemy on the ground establishes himself, which we cannot prevent him from doing from land, but we must do all this from the water. My concern now is how to keep it from the capital from the ground. The circumstances are difficult, Your Excellency. By God, everyone's strength is depleted. My regiments marched 130 versts in three days, and immediately either went into a fight or went to work, but it was as if we had no naval forces.”

However, by that time (May 13, 1790), Russian ships entered the battle - albeit forcedly: the Swedish fleet attacked them in the roadstead near the port of Revel. The accuracy of the gunners of the Russian ships anchored was higher, and therefore the Swedes, not achieving success, were forced to retreat, losing 2 ships (one was captured by the Russians, the other sank). One of the Swedish ships ran aground, and in order to get off it, the sailors had to throw 42 guns into the water.


Revel naval battle in the painting by I. Aivazovsky

Chichagov did not pursue the retreating Swedes, and a squadron under the command of Vice Admiral A. I. Cruz tried to block their path - 17 battleships and 12 frigates against 29 Swedish battleships. Cruise entered the battle on May 23 at Cape Steersudden (Krasnogorsk naval battle). Through a telescope, Chichagov saw the masts of the fighting ships and the smoke of gun shots, but he led his fleet to help only the next day. Seeing the approaching Russian ships, the Swedes retreated to the Vyborg Bay, where their galleys were stationed. About 400 ships were soon assembled here, which were planned to be used to attack St. Petersburg. They were commanded by Gustav III himself. However, Russian ships and galleys (130 ships) managed to block the exit from the bay. Experiencing supply difficulties, on July 3, 1790, the Swedes tried to break out into the open sea - and in the ensuing naval battle, their fleet suffered heavy losses: 64 ships (including 7 battleships and 3 frigates) and about seven thousand people killed and captured. Catherine II wrote to Potemkin:

“The king is said differently: some say that he left on a longboat between two supply ships; others that he was on his yacht “Amphion”, which was sunk, and seemed to have descended onto the galley. This galley has been taken. From it he jumped into the boat, and this boat was also taken, and from the boat he jumped into the boat, and this boat left. His breakfast was taken: it consisted of six crackers, smoked goose and two bottles of vodka.”

British historian Fred Jane called this battle "Trafalgar of the Baltic".


I. Aivazovsky. Naval battle of Vyborg

11 Russian battleships were damaged, among the dead was the captain of the 66-gun ship “Touch Me Not,” James Trevenen, a participant in Cook’s third voyage, a former midshipman of the ship “Resolution,” which was supposed to sail around the world with Mulovsky, who died off Eland.

But many Swedish ships still escaped from the bay. Sailing ships went to Sveaborg, rowing ships to Rochensalm. And the Swedish historian K. Gillengranat wrote:

“There is no doubt that the surviving Swedish fleet owes its salvation solely to the strange indecision with which the Russian admiral (Chichagov) acted and set sail. Many were sure that he was bribed by us so as not to carry out an attack. But this opinion is unfounded and unprovable, but it is difficult to explain the reasons for such slowness and indecisiveness of the Russian admiral.”

The staff of the Nikolaev Maritime Academy came to a similar conclusion:

“This was not a victory, as the majority believes, but on the contrary, it was a great defeat for us, because we let go of the huge Swedish fleet, which, if Chichagov had acted properly, would have all fallen into our hands.”

However, there was still a victory, and Vasily Chichagov became the first sailor to be awarded the Order of St. George, 1st degree.

On July 9, Vice Admiral Karl Nassau-Siegen launched his galleys into a poorly prepared attack on the Swedish rowing fleet stationed in the Rochensalm roadstead: they say that with his victory he wanted to “congratulate” Catherine II on the anniversary of her accession to the throne. We remember that he already won here - on August 24, 1789. However, now, finding itself under crossfire from Swedish ships and coastal batteries, the Russian squadron suffered a heavy defeat, losing 22 ships (including the flagship) and up to 12 thousand people killed and wounded. In addition, 1412 guns became trophies of the Swedes. Swedish losses amounted to only 6 ships and about 300 people. We have already noted that the Swedes still consider this victory to be revenge for the Poltava defeat. Karl Nassau-Siegen sent Catherine II his resignation and all the orders, but the Empress returned them, writing:

“One failure cannot erase from my memory that you were the conqueror of my enemies in the south and north 7 times.”

Verel Peace


By August 1790, Russian losses amounted to 6 thousand people, Swedish losses - about 18 thousand - and only less than three thousand on each side died in battle, the rest died from various diseases. The Swedes were exhausted by this unsuccessful war, however, the Russian Empire, which continued to fight the Ottomans, needed peace in the north. The desire to end the war was mutual. The peace treaty was signed on August 3 (14), 1790 in Verel and ratified by the parties on August 9 (20). He confirmed a return to pre-war borders. The Russian government recognized the Swedish constitution of 1772 and agreed to grant Sweden the right to annual duty-free purchases of grain and flour in the amount of 50 thousand rubles. And already in 1791, Russia and Sweden entered into a defensive anti-French alliance.
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    8 July 2024 08: 15
    Many thanks to the Author, I read it with interest. There are, in my opinion, a couple of controversial points.

    "The British then wanted to repay St. Petersburg for the Declaration of Armed Neutrality of 1780,"

    However, the reasons for Britain's support for Sweden were more serious.

    "Later he (Chichagov) was unjustly declared guilty of the fact that Bonaparte and part of the army managed to cross the Berezina in November 1812"

    Why is it unfair? As far as I understand, in war and in politics, the deceived is always guilty.
    1. VLR
      +3
      8 July 2024 08: 28
      I do not idealize Chichagov at all, but it must be admitted that it is unlikely that anyone would have acted better than him then. At that time, probably no one could beat Napoleon in a direct confrontation. There is an opinion that Kutuzov restrained the movement of his troops, hesitated, giving Napoleon time to deceive Chichagov, in general, he did not act ideally, and for very personal reasons - he did not want Chichagov to go down in history as a commander who took the captivity of Bonaparte himself and thereby pushed him out of his place as the protagonist of 1812. In general, there was a chance to end the war through common efforts, but there was no coordination of actions - that’s why Napoleon left.
      1. -1
        8 July 2024 09: 11
        Quote: VlR
        that Kutuzov held back the movement of his troops, hesitated, giving Napoleon time to deceive Chichagov,

        In order to allow Napoleon to deceive Chichagov, Kutuzov had to know Naroleon’s plans, which is unlikely.
        Quote: VlR
        At that time, probably no one could beat Napoleon in a direct confrontation.

        He was forced to return along the ruined old Kaluga road.
        And if he had not been beaten, he would not have ended his days on an island 2000 km from France.
        1. VLR
          +2
          8 July 2024 09: 30
          In fact, returning along the same route was not a stupid idea: after all, the abandoned garrisons had to prepare forage and food. And the pursuing Russian troops found themselves in an even worse situation (and, indeed, the non-combat losses of Kutuzov’s army were great). Napoleon did not take into account the actions of partisan detachments that burned warehouses and intercepted forage teams. And Bonaparte’s strategic mistake - he left Moscow too late.
          1. +1
            8 July 2024 11: 02
            Quote: VlR
            In fact, returning along the same route was not a stupid idea: after all, the abandoned garrisons had to prepare forage and food.

            and what happened? So it was a stupid idea. Let’s read Koleikur:
            20 Oct ... wanting to attack Kutuzov, he moved further at an accelerated pace, intending to throw Kutuzov back as a result of the victory he expected for Kaluga and deciding to destroy the armory plant in Tula — the largest in Russia; after this, the emperor hoped at all costs to head to Smolensk, where he wanted to set up his vanguard post.

            I wanted to frolic in the unravaged provinces, but I had to return from Maloyarosavets to Borovsk (and turn the army back) and then to Mozhaisk on the ruined road. Eventually:
            The road and roadside on both sides were strewn with the corpses of the wounded, who had died from hunger, cold and want. Even on the battlefield one could never see such horrors.
        2. +2
          9 July 2024 09: 43
          After Napoleon left Moscow, his plans were known to everyone - to run beyond the Neman along the shortest road. It’s too late to go to St. Petersburg, to Kaluga and Tula it’s pointless and simply dangerous - every fine day counts. Napoleon could only go along the same road, which was controlled by the troops left there earlier
          1. 0
            9 July 2024 09: 52
            Quote: vet
            After Napoleon left Moscow, his plans were known to everyone - to run beyond the Neman along the shortest road. It’s too late to go to St. Petersburg, to Kaluga and Tula it’s pointless and simply dangerous

            Caulaincourt, Armand divisional general, diplomat, confidant of Napoleon I, rode with him in the same carriage to Moscow and from Moscow, knew EVERYTHING, he wrote about the campaign in Russia, in particular:
            :
            20 Oct ... wanting to attack Kutuzov, he moved further at an accelerated pace, intending to throw Kutuzov back as a result of the victory he expected for Kaluga and deciding to destroy the weapons factory in Thule — the largest in Russia; After this, the emperor hoped to head to to Smolensk, where he wanted to set up his vanguard post
            .
            1. VLR
              +2
              9 July 2024 11: 12
              The implementation of this plan would probably lead to the death of the entire Grand Army of Bonaparte. It is not surprising that he refused it. Napoleon really didn’t even want to go to Smolensk, let alone to Tula. Bagration and Barclay de Tolly literally dragged him along to Moscow. And then - euphoria, anticipation of peace proposals, loss of time, disintegration of the army, which, when leaving on the return journey, represented a poorly organized armed crowd and each soldier and officer was dragging with him a heap of stolen “goods”. Rusks and gunpowder were thrown away to make room. Where to go to Tula with such “eagles”? Somehow we could get them to the Neman.
              1. +1
                9 July 2024 11: 24
                Quote: VlR
                The implementation of this plan would probably lead to the death of the entire Grand Army of Bonaparte. It is not surprising that he refused it.

                He refused because Kutuzov did not give him the opportunity for a general battle and yes, Maloyarosavtsi would have completely exhausted him. But the army died anyway.
                Quote: VlR
                Napoleon really didn’t even want to go to Smolensk, let alone to Tula. Bagration and Barclay de Tolly literally dragged him along to Moscow

                we are talking about the time after leaving Moscow
      2. 0
        8 July 2024 10: 21
        Quote: VlR
        At that time, probably no one could beat Napoleon in a direct confrontation. There is an opinion that Kutuzov restrained the movement of his troops, hesitated, giving Napoleon time to deceive Chichagov, in general, he did not act ideally, and for very personal reasons - he did not want Chichagov to go down in history as a commander who took the captivity of Bonaparte himself and thereby pushed him out of his place as the protagonist of 1812.


        “Thou shalt not make an idol” (c). Napoleon was beaten many times by us, the Austrians, and the British. True, the score as a whole was in his favor, but in the end he lost :)

        Chichagov was tasked with blocking Napoleon's road - he failed, of course, he is the main culprit, not Napoleon :) A lot of things have been written and written about Kutuzov - right down to his desire to give the "Golden Bridge" to Napoleon. This is all speculation; Kutuzov was so cunning that no one can reliably say what he wanted.

        The phrase that was attributed to Kutuzov was “Of course, I won’t be able to defeat Napoleon, but I’ll try to deceive him.” It looks like that's what happened.
        1. +1
          9 July 2024 09: 50
          Excuse me, but when did the Austrians beat Napoleon? And “Golden Bridge” seems to be true.
  2. +2
    8 July 2024 08: 45
    active subsidization of Sweden became one of the reasons for the severe financial crisis in France, which pushed Louis XVIII to the fatal decision to convene the States General.

    Not Louis XVIII (this is from another opera), but Louis XVI. And, in fact, he decided on his execution, which took place quite soon, albeit in a mild form - by guillotine..

    In general, France’s desire to harm Russia in one form or another ended badly for France itself: the same Louis, Napoleon, 1870.

    Russia, of course, did not have enough resources to fight two difficult wars in the South and North at the same time.

    Therefore, Peter the Great was successful in the North, and Mother Catherine was successful in the South. True, Catherine did not have the Prut pose
    1. VLR
      +3
      8 July 2024 09: 00
      The typo with Ludovic was corrected a long time ago (almost immediately), but thank you, sometimes typos are corrected precisely thanks to the attentiveness of commentators :)
    2. +1
      9 July 2024 09: 46
      The defeat of Prince Nassau is almost the same as the Prut campaign of Peter 1, only at sea. But the consequences, of course, are different, the peace conditions here are decent - unlike the Prut peace.
      1. 0
        9 July 2024 09: 55
        Quote: vet
        almost the same as the Prut campaign of Peter 1

        What, they chipped in for a bribe, like a Turkish vizier?
        1. VLR
          +3
          9 July 2024 10: 44
          There was no bribe in the Prut campaign. This is an invention of Charles XII, who was in Bendery, who wanted to disgrace Peter by hiding behind a woman’s skirt. Supported by the Crimean Khan Devlet-Girey II, who was not allowed by the Grand Vizier to plunder the retreating Russian army. There were traditional gifts, without which it is impossible to begin negotiations with the Ottomans - and not from Peter, but from Ambassador Shafirov:
          2 good gilded squeaks, 2 pairs of good pistols, 40 sables worth 400 rubles
          .
          The fact that there was no bribery of the Turks is written by the Turks themselves, Peter’s European mercenaries, and even the English Ambassador to Constantinople Sutton:
          The vizier is supported not only by the Sultan and his ministers, but also by the ulema, the largest and best part of the people, the chief of the Janissaries and, in general, all the military leaders and officers, in accordance with whose advice he acted... Only a few of the mob listen to the words of the Swedes and Tatars..., that the vizier was generously bribed by the king.

          La Moutreuil:
          I received information from various Muscovite officers... that Madame Catherine, who later became empress, had very little jewelry, that she did not collect any silver for the vizier.

          Even Pushkin, in the notes to “The History of Peter the Great,” wrote “all this is nonsense.”
          This insulting legend for the Russian army about the bribery of the Turks by Catherine was remembered by sycophants when she ascended the throne. Since then, this myth has been circulating from one work to another.
          1. 0
            9 July 2024 11: 17
            Quote: VlR
            It looks like there was no bribe in Prutskoye

            maybe it wasn’t, although there is also such a thing: captain P. Bruce, a participant in the campaign, a relative of Y.V. Bruce, wrote that Catherine not only collected a debt of jewelry, money, but also gold and
            silverware and sent it all to the vizier
            1. VLR
              +2
              9 July 2024 11: 25
              Do you know what Catherine actually did with her jewelry?
              Yust Yul:
              She gave away all her precious stones and jewelry to the first servants and officers she came across, but after peace was concluded, she took these things back from them, declaring that they were given to them only for saving
              1. 0
                9 July 2024 11: 28
                Quote: VlR
                Do you know what Catherine did with her jewelry?
                Yust Yul:
                quoteShe gave away all her precious stones and jewelry to the first servants and officers she came across, but after peace was concluded, she took these things back from them, declaring that they were given to them only for saving

                Do you know what she did later, when the issue of peace was resolved?
                TOOK them back from the gifted, which made them very disappointed
  3. +2
    8 July 2024 09: 26
    having lost 22 ships (including the flagship) and up to 12 thousand people killed and wounded... By August 1790, Russian losses amounted to 6 thousand people, Swedish losses - about 18 thousand - and only less than three thousand on each side died in battle

    What is that supposed to mean?
    1. VLR
      +2
      8 July 2024 10: 21
      As usual in those years, the main losses were not in battles, but from diseases, and in winter, also from frostbite and hypothermia.
  4. +1
    8 July 2024 10: 52
    Quote: VlR
    As usual in those years, the main losses were not in battles, but from diseases, and in winter, also from frostbite and hypothermia.

    12.000 in one battle And only 6.000
    1. VLR
      +2
      8 July 2024 11: 36
      Oh, it’s clear: the first figure is the loss of killed and wounded, the second is the dead.
  5. +1
    8 July 2024 12: 03
    And should episodic and not very significant clashes like the Battle of the Neva in 1240 be considered wars?
    This is by way of mild provocation wink ?
    And I myself wanted to use the name Unfamous War. But Cristobal Josevich managed to do it earlier.
    Strugatsky brothers Monday begins on Saturday.
    1. VLR
      +2
      8 July 2024 12: 31
      What provocation? The Battle of Neva was a clash between the Swedish and Novgorod detachments, which did not have any special consequences. The Swedes know nothing about it at all. Probably, one of the border jarls tried to take tribute from the local tribes, which were “protected” by Mr. Veliky Novgorod (the fact that it was Birger is Kostomarov’s unfounded assumption). The Novgorodians were indignant and ordered the invited prince Alexander Yaroslavich (who, like the others, was a prince only in name: in fact, the minister of defense - “foreigners unanimously considered the lord of Novgorod and directly called the local archbishop) to deal with the raiders. He sorted it out. Central Swedish The authorities did not react to this episode in any way.
  6. +1
    8 July 2024 16: 22
    Quote: VlR
    Oh, it’s clear: the first figure is the loss of killed and wounded, the second is the dead.

    Maybe there are still not 12.000 losses, but 1.200?
  7. +4
    8 July 2024 16: 24
    The Unfamous Russian-Swedish War of Catherine II and Gustav III

    Wow, not famous - the three largest fleet battles in the Baltic. smile
    The Battle of Krasnogorsk alone lasted two days - the second-line and reserve ships that made up Admiral Cruz’s squadron managed to successfully hold back the Swedish fleet until Chichagov’s approach.
    1. VLR
      +1
      8 July 2024 16: 33
      How many people are there who know well about the events of this war? Everyone knows about the victories of Suvorov and Ushakov. And if anyone heard about the actions of Greig, Chichagov and Nassau at the same time, it was most likely “out of the blue.”
      And the name is also a hint and allusion to Tvardovsky’s poem about the Finnish War:
      As if dead, alone,
      As if I'm lying here,
      Modest, small, dead
      On that war, unrecognized,
      Forgotten, small, I lie.
      1. 0
        8 July 2024 19: 00
        Quote: VlR
        How many people are there who know well about the events of this war?

        Everyone who has read Pikul's The Favorite. For all his shortcomings, he was a good popularizer of history.
        Quote: VlR
        And the name is also a hint and allusion to Tvardovsky’s poem about the Finnish War

        Well it is clear. When you hear the words “unfamous war,” the first thought is about the Soviet-Finnish war.
        1. +1
          9 July 2024 09: 40
          You overestimate Pikul. I read “The Favorite” and didn’t remember anything about what was there about the war with Sweden. I saw your post - and like a spotlight on a memory cell - for sure, something happened. But I remember about the war with Turkey at Pikul. Apparently, Pikul’s superficial information in this case was superimposed on the existing, more solid knowledge from history lessons. But for the war with Sweden there is no such foundation, and everything fell out. Therefore, it is in vain that you find fault with the name - the war is really little-known
      2. 0
        9 July 2024 07: 30
        Well, everyone who watches Makhov’s lectures knows this war in a volume exceeding this article
        1. 0
          9 July 2024 09: 36
          Questions have arisen. Who is Makhov? Why should everyone listen to his lectures? How many of these “all” are there? Will there be 500 people? I suspect that different audiences and in terms of reader coverage, putting Makhov against VO is the same as putting a fly against a heavyweight.
          1. 0
            9 July 2024 10: 43
            Actually, Makhov posts articles here too, which is why this craft surprised me.
            1. 0
              9 July 2024 15: 06
              Makhov posts articles here too

              So, Mr. Cartalon, you are our provocateur? Are you trying to push heads and even quarrel between two authors of the same publication?
              in a volume exceeding this article

              As for “more or less”: you need to compare articles of the same size. Here everything is presented briefly, clearly, in good literary language. Need it longer and bigger? No to me. Most readers who are simply interested in history, I’m sure, do the same. Do you need more and longer? Read not educational articles from Voennoye Obozreniye, but scientific monographs. What problems?
              1. 0
                9 July 2024 15: 35
                I am a rightist, an enemy of the Soviet regime, etc.
                But if I read an article and don’t learn anything new and interesting from it, I have the right to report this, maybe someone is interested not in catching provocateurs, but in learning something on the topic and they can be addressed to another author who is interested in this topic knows much deeper.
                And the opinion about my personality is parallel to me.
                1. 0
                  9 July 2024 17: 38
                  You persistently confuse sweet with salty and an educational article for a wide range of readers with a scientific one. "VO" is not a scientific resource, thank God. But it is not a refuge for alternativeists, folk historians and other evil spirits. It is thanks to these two circumstances that he has so many registered users and unregistered readers. And we don’t need to tilt in one direction or the other.
  8. 0
    9 July 2024 05: 05
    Both Greig and Chichagov were Freemasons of the English Lodge. For refusing to follow her orders, Greig “caught a cold.” There is also such a version.
  9. 0
    9 July 2024 08: 15
    It’s interesting, of course, but there are some incomprehensible moments. For example, “the Swedes fortified the island of Hanko all winter,” while in August-October of that year, the Russians tried to capture the poorly fortified Cape Porkkala on the Hanko Peninsula, but were unsuccessful. So was it strengthened or not?
    1. +2
      9 July 2024 10: 47
      Quote from splin44
      It’s interesting, of course, but there are some incomprehensible moments. For example, “the Swedes fortified the island of Hanko all winter,” while in August-October of that year, the Russians tried to capture the poorly fortified Cape Porkkala on the Hanko Peninsula, but were unsuccessful. So was it strengthened or not?

      Do you want me to confuse you even more? The Hanko Peninsula and the Porkkala Peninsula are located 80 km apart.
      Hanko/Gangut is the exit from the Gulf of Finland. And Porkkala is near Helsinki, opposite Tallinn.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  10. 0
    9 July 2024 19: 00
    Thanks to the author for the material.
    However, I would still like to receive information about the economic causes of the war, the interests of the allies, the strengths of the parties, the general political situation. Then perhaps the actions of the parties, for example, the passivity of Chichagov (the war with Turkey is not over yet) or the adventurism of Pie-with-Mushrooms, will become more clear.