Battle of Pälkäne

Battle of Pälkäne

Part of: Great Northern War

Plan of the Battle of Pälkäne

date	October 17, 1713
place	Pälkäne , Finland
output	Russian victory

Parties to the conflict
Sweden	Russia
Commander
Carl Gustaf Armfeldt	Fyodor Apraxin
Troop strength
2,200 infantry 3,700 cavalry 28 cannons	9,000 infantry 5,400 cavalry
losses
577 dead 233 prisoners 12 cannons	118 dead 555 wounded

The Battle of Pälkäne was fought in the course of the Finland campaign of 1713 in the Great Northern War between a Russian army under Admiral Fyodor Matwejewitsch Apraxin and the defending Finnish army of Sweden under General Carl Gustaf Armfeldt on October 17, 1713. The battle ended with a Russian victory and a withdrawal of Finnish troops.

prehistory

Despite the catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Poltava in 1709, Charles XII refused . Peace negotiations from. Denmark and Russia then agreed plans that should threaten Stockholm . Two routes of attack were agreed. One should go through southern Sweden, the other through Finland and the Aland Islands . The Danish attack on the southern route was repulsed in the Battle of Helsingborg in 1710 but the Russian attack on Finland succeeded.

Battle of Pälkäne

The Russian attack on Finland did not go as planned, however, as Peter I was distracted during the war against the Ottoman Empire . This meant that the planned attacks on Åbo had to be postponed. The first Russian attacks consisted of raids and reconnaissance operations with the aim of occupying southeastern Finland. Furthermore, the Finnish countries were to be devastated in order not to offer Swedish forces a basis for operations on their part against Russian-controlled land around Saint Petersburg .

The Swedish army in Finland consisted almost entirely of Finnish soldiers and was led by General Georg Lybecker . He was an unpopular and unsuccessful commander. His previous campaign against Saint Petersburg in 1708 had resulted in the Finnish army suffering significant losses. During the retreat he had to give up his cavalry, which was now missing from the Finland campaign. In April 1713 the attack of the Russian troops began with General Apraxin under the leadership of Tsar Peter I after logistical problems prevented an attack the previous year. The amphibious operation planned to tie the defending Finnish army with part of the army, while other Russian forces should land in the rear of the Finnish defensive positions. Helsinki and Porvoo fell in early May. By August the Russians had advanced as far as Turku , as the hapless General Lybecker constantly withdrew. His failure to defend Finland led to General Armfeldt's recall in September.

Armfeldt took a defensive position on a narrow isthmus between the lakes Pälkänevesi and Mallasvesi in the municipality of Pälkäne to defend the next important city of Tampere . He arranged his infantry behind the Kostianvirta River , which linked the two lakes across the isthmus.

Admiral Apraxin and the Russian Army were located near the nearby Kantokylä . The strong Finnish defensive position was difficult to overcome by a frontal attack, so Apraxin chose a different strategy, which was already successfully used in the Finnish campaign .

course

Apraxin wanted to tie up the forces of the Finns with a frontal attack, while Golitsyn made an amphibious landing behind the Swedish lines by crossing Lake Mallasvesi early in the morning of October 6th. After the Russians were sighted by the Finnish forces at dawn, they prepared for the battle.

Golitsyn's first wave of infantry landed on the stretch of beach west of Apraxin's main line. The Finnish cavalry was still in the quarters in the village of Mälkilä . Armfeldt managed to set up the cavalry on time. Armfeldts planned to mess up the Russians with dismounted cavalry and then attack the Russian flank with a cavalry attack. Because of the delay of the Finnish cavalry, the Russians were able to line up at the landing area in an orderly manner, so that the weak Finnish cavalry could not carry out the mission. Meanwhile, in the east, Apraxin tried to cross the canal. For this he had improvised boats used. The defending Finnish infantry managed to repel the attacks at this point. Apraksin kept the pressure on and started further attacks. So the Russian cavalry was supposed to wade through the lake to attack the Finnish infantry on the flank. This also failed.

While the fighting remained balanced on the eastern part of the battlefield , the Russian bridgehead was reinforced with additional infantry on the western side . Armfeldt tried to prevent this by counter-attacking his infantry reserves. Despite initial success, the attack was repulsed by the poor performance of the Finnish cavalry and the steadily increasing numerical superiority of the Russians. The Finnish cavalry was also dispersed.

With the western wing of the Finnish Army now retreating in disarray, the eastern wing of Golitsyns was also endangered. The Finnish infantry of the east wing hesitated to withdraw after successfully resisting all day, but Armfeldt realized that his position was now untenable and began to withdraw. Pursued by Russian cavalry, the Finnish army abandoned its position and most of its artillery .

consequences

The Finnish Army suffered a defeat but remained in existence and was able to conduct an orderly retreat. Armfeldt and Galitzin met again in February 1714 at the Battle of Storkyro , as a result of which the Russian conquest of Finland was finally secured. Finland remained under Russian occupation until 1721 and experienced a period of great strife .

literature

• Anders Fryxell: Life story of Karl the Twelfth, King of Sweden, Volume 2, 1860, p. 372ff

Individual evidence

1. ^ ^{A b} Johann Friedrich Hartknoch: Contributions to the history of Peter the Great. First volume, 1774, p. 462f