Russian warfare in the early post-medieval period

[Nissedruva]

Split from here - pannonian.

Or, in other words, Russia made sure Sweden will never be a superpower again. Sweden clearly lost most of their territories and influence in balticum, so their defeat was a complete one. needless to say, that Swedish allies added quite a few thousands to their strength (Ottomans, Ukrainian Cossacks), yet, for some reason, people chose to disregard this fact.

Mayby becasue first of all : Cossacks were useless on the 18th cent battlefield (they were used primaly as a scouting and hit and run force thats why you russian liked to use them so much when terrorising innocent civilians) and those allied with Sweden was not united and not so many . The Ottomans stayed quiet innactive (and neutral) during most of the war....counting all ottoman forces to the stack of swedish allies would be a complete lie.

Sweden did not only face Russia but also a number of other countries (including Denmark Sachen, Poland etc) and manage dispite this fight for over 20 long years against this overmight.

Id say this...put a 12 000 men swedish army against a 12 000 rusian army Anno 1700 and yould see that 9 times off 10 the swedish one would have wiped you off the floor. Even after Poltava Swedens armies were more compitent and superior to the russian ones when equal in numbers.

Russia won the war off that it had more resources and men , not superior soldiers.

Swedens status as a regional superpower was doomed to not last long anyway due to the above metioned facts (too small population and resources) however i think you can both admire and despair over that the country manage to fight of such a overmight in enemies for over 20 years sacrificing so many of its population.
Given the state the country was in 1721 i think that the lost of the batlic provinces was acceptible.

However if Peter had decided to move into the Swedish "hartland" against Stockholm it would had cost him many many of his men (he did a small attempt att Baggenstäket were his forces lost, he also had plans for a large invasion together with denmark via skåne that was laid down).


And yeah...Sweden did not declare war on the Russians in 1700.

[Panzerbear]

Mayby becasue first of all : Cossacks were useless on the 18th cent battlefield (they were used primaly as a scouting and hit and run force thats why you russian liked to use them so much when terrorising innocent civilians)

well, in that case you do not have any clue about Cossacks.

not only they were superb light cavalry, they were also good quality fearless infantrymen, who learned how ride a horse and how to handle weapons since the time they can walk...

even 19 century battlefield was very fit to role of cossacks. the Donskie Cossacs (26 regiments) alone just in a half of year 1812 killed over 18,000 Frenchmen, captured prisoner 10 French generals, 1,047 French officers and 40,000 soldiers. They also captured 15 French flags, 364 artillery pieces, 1,066 ammo boxes.



besides, it was a cossack bullet that stroke Swedish king Charles XII in the foot during Poltava siege .

Id say this...put a 12 000 men swedish army against a 12 000 rusian army Anno 1700 and yould see that 9 times off 10 the swedish one would have wiped you off the floor. Even after Poltava Swedens armies were more compitent and superior to the russian ones when equal in numbers.

smells like BS. even take Poltava battle. Swedes invaded Ukraine with 32,000 troops and laid siege to Poltava. after numerous inconclusive skirmishes, in the final assault, Charles ordered his army forward in the classic pattern of attack, sending 18,000 Swedes against 44,000 well-entrenched Russians, with drums beating and bayonets fixed. this brought about his defeat quickly as the Russians massacred his advancing troops and overrrun the rest with cavalry. Swedes lost almost 7,000 men, the losses of Peter the Great were less than 1,400...

I am not sure how to rate these superior Swedish elite fighting skills and/or tactics - bravery or stupidity?

you are merely referring to the fact that Russians lost at Narva (honestly, no wonder - at that time Swedes had the best soldiers in Europe). Czar Peter the Great, embarassed by such a crushing defeat, shortly reorganized his men along the lines of European armies, adopting their warfare tactics, and he began to win one battle after another...

want to line up 12,000 Swedes vs Peter's own lifeguard - Preobrazhensky and Semonovsky elite regiments (who didnt even blink an eye during Narva) ??? - make my day .

[Nissedruva]

well, in that case you do not have any clue about Cossacks.

not only they were superb light cavalry, they were also good quality fearless infantrymen, who learned how ride a horse and how to handle weapons since the time they can walk...

even 19 century battlefield was very fit to role of cossacks. the Donskie Cossacs (26 regiments) alone just in a half of year 1812 killed over 18,000 Frenchmen, captured prisoner 10 French generals, 1,047 French officers and 40,000 soldiers. They also captured 15 French flags, 364 artillery pieces, 1,066 ammo boxes.



besides, it was a cossack bullet that stroke Swedish king Charles XII in the foot during Poltava siege .



smells like BS. even take Poltava battle. Swedes invaded Ukraine with 32,000 troops and laid siege to Poltava. after numerous inconclusive skirmishes, in the final assault, Charles ordered his army forward in the classic pattern of attack, sending 18,000 Swedes against 44,000 well-entrenched Russians, with drums beating and bayonets fixed. this brought about his defeat quickly as the Russians massacred his advancing troops and overrrun the rest with cavalry. Swedes lost almost 7,000 men, the losses of Peter the Great were less than 1,400...

I am not sure how to rate these superior Swedish elite fighting skills and/or tactics - bravery or stupidity?

you are merely referring to the fact that Russians lost at Narva (honestly, no wonder - at that time Swedes had the best soldiers in Europe). Czar Peter the Great, embarassed by such a crushing defeat, shortly reorganized his men along the lines of European armies, adopting their warfare tactics, and he began to win one battle after another...

want to line up 12,000 Swedes vs Peter's own lifeguard - Preobrazhensky and Semonovsky elite regiments (who didnt even blink an eye during Narva) ??? - make my day .

Cossack were useless against a modern army in the early 18th century...thats a fact. Put them against a squadron off Swedish Dragoons or "Drabanter" and they would have lost greatly(mosty of the times they wouldnt even had put up a fight just run away). Most off the times they meet such a resistance they fleed as fast as they could. Please name one battle were a cossack force defeated a Swedish cavalry unit.

The cossacks wasnt useless, as i have said they were exellent hit and run units and scouts but on the battlefield they had no chanse. Neither the Russians or the Swedes used them on the battlefield during the GNW how do you explain that?

------------------------------------------------------------------
OK well i can line upp swedish units as Livgardet, Drabantkåren and wipe anything the russians had in that scenario.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swedish forces had very little use of bayonets they used "värjor" and pikes instead.
-------------------------------------------------------------
At Poltava the Swedish army actualy broke through the first line of russians defence positions . If the swedes would have had reserves the outcome off the battle could have been different instead the russians could attack with overwelming superiority in footsoldiers cavallry and artillery and win the day.

[Panzerbear]

Cossack were useless against a modern army in the early 18th century...thats a fact.

how is that a fact??? I already showed you example of very sucessful use of cossacs vs. Napoleon Grande Army a century later. that merely implies that a during 1700s Cossacs could have used in the warfare and WERE used.

Put them against a squadron off Swedish Dragoons or "Drabanter" and they would have lost greatly (mosty of the times they wouldnt even had put up a fight just run away).

it is rather pointless to assume since I do not recall coassacks fighting the Swedes, so we cant find factual evidence as either proof or contrary.

Most off the times they meet such a resistance they fleed as fast as they could. Please name one battle were a cossack force defeated a Swedish cavalry unit.

again, I do not recall Cossacks actually fighting Swedes. Peter the Great relies on his own REGULAR Army and Navy units. I am not aware of any use of Cossacs in Great Northern War among Russian troops.

The cossacks wasnt useless, as i have said they were exellent hit and run units and scouts but on the battlefield they had no chanse. Neither the Russians or the Swedes used them on the battlefield during the GNW how do you explain that?

actually Swedes had Ukrainian Cossacs (of Ivan Mazepa) as allies during this war - so you tell me.

------------------------------------------------------------------
OK well i can line upp swedish units as Livgardet, Drabantkåren and wipe anything the russians had in that scenario.
-------------------------------------------------------------

another attempt at measuring penis size? did the Livgardet and Drabantkaren particiapte in battles against Semonovsky and Preobrazhensky regiments in the first place?

At Poltava the Swedish army actualy broke through the first line of russians defence positions.

well, I would be very surprised if Swedes, while having 18,000 soldiers, could not break through at least the first line of Russian defense positions . that doesnt really prove much. it merely shows that Swedes were capable of gaining some kind of ground in a concentrated frontal assault. but then they were chewed and spit out...

I do not know if Swedes could have done much more even if they had double the strength. in order to rliably win, the attackers need to have 3 times the strength of the defenders (behind well-fortified positions). may I remind you that Swedes had 3 times less the soldiers, yet arrogant SOBs still rushed their soldiers into combat (hoping they can win against the "filthy Russian peasants" )? well these Swedish soldiers bounced off the Russian lines like ping pong ball...

[Trax]

how is that a fact??? I already showed you example of very sucessful use of cossacs vs. Napoleon Grande Army a century later. that merely implies that a during 1700s Cossacs could have used in the warfare and WERE used.

The cossacks were highly useful in the "Small War" but fairly useless in the formal pitched battle. You both are right so stop arguing.

well, I would be very surprised if Swedes, while having 18,000 soldiers, could not break through at least the first line of Russian defense positions .

The final Swedish attack after the Russians came out of the fortified camp and formed battleline was 4000 Swedes vs 22000 Russians, who were deployed in two lines and covered by the heavy artillery in the camp.

[cegorach]

The cossacks were highly useful in the "Small War" but fairly useless in the formal pitched battle. You both are right so stop arguing.



The final Swedish attack after the Russians came out of the fortified camp and formed battleline was 4000 Swedes vs 22000 Russians who were deployed in two lines and covered by the heavy artillery in the camp.

Exactly !

Thank you Trax for your comment - this way I don't need to add anything more which is a relief.

[Nissedruva]

how is that a fact??? I already showed you example of very sucessful use of cossacs vs. Napoleon Grande Army a century later. that merely implies that a during 1700s Cossacs could have used in the warfare and WERE used.



it is rather pointless to assume since I do not recall coassacks fighting the Swedes, so we cant find factual evidence as either proof or contrary.



again, I do not recall Cossacks actually fighting Swedes. Peter the Great relies on his own REGULAR Army and Navy units. I am not aware of any use of Cossacs in Great Northern War among Russian troops.



actually Swedes had Ukrainian Cossacs (of Ivan Mazepa) as allies during this war - so you tell me.



another attempt at measuring penis size? did the Livgardet and Drabantkaren particiapte in battles against Semonovsky and Preobrazhensky regiments in the first place?



well, I would be very surprised if Swedes, while having 18,000 soldiers, could not break through at least the first line of Russian defense positions . that doesnt really prove much. it merely shows that Swedes were capable of gaining some kind of ground in a concentrated frontal assault. but then they were chewed and spit out...

I do not know if Swedes could have done much more even if they had double the strength. in order to rliably win, the attackers need to have 3 times the strength of the defenders (behind well-fortified positions). may I remind you that Swedes had 3 times less the soldiers, yet arrogant SOBs still rushed their soldiers into combat (hoping they can win against the "filthy Russian peasants" )? well these Swedish soldiers bounced off the Russian lines like ping pong ball...

Well first one good example off the russians using cossack was in their attacks on Sweden 1719-1721.
After the defeat of the russian forces at baggenstäket the russian fleet carrying troops moved along the whole coast north off stockholm burning almost every costal city they could get theire hands on. The prime units off this force was cossacks and they did the only thing they were good at , hit and run. Everytime swedish forces tryed to fight them they just used their superior speed and moved along pillaging and burning other areas before embarking back on the fleet.


Concerning Mazepas Cossack they were not as organized and so great in numbers as you seem to belive. By the time seden made contacts with them they were shatterd and dissorganized due to that the russian had attacked their homeland and "capital".

Also its woth to mention that there wasnt only one "great cossack nation" they were many different "tribes" and people.


Now that we have concluded that russia did use cossacks together with the information given in earlier post we can agree that neither the Swedes or Russia saw them useable as an actual battleforce or do you have any facts to counter with?



Regarding Poltava..it was a great gamble but considering the state of the swedish army in russia at the time (starvation, diseases etc) it was a quite resonable decision. Rather then letting your army melt away and facing certain failure an attack was the most right decision in my opinion.

Now looking back the whole invasion off russia was a doomed cause(the numbers off the swedish military simply wasnt big enough) however thats another discussion.


And btw it was you that started to namedrop "elite" regiments.

[christof139]

Sometimes the Cossacks were superb and sometimes not. In earlier times, the 1600's for example, the Zaporozhian Cossacks quite frequently fought dismounted with their firarms as well as mounted, but their great strength lay in their infantry with its firearms.

Here, look for yourself: http://tinyurl.com/26w2of

Chris

[Panzerbear]

actually, in Medieval 2: Total War the Russian Cossacks were represented fairly well... lightly armored, mobile, effective archers and cavalry - and in later periods - quality marksmen .

[christof139]

They were represented Ok too in the game 'Cossacks'. Chris

[HansDuet]

Attacking deep in russia is never wise.
Karl XII underestimated Russians who had learned from their mistakes.
I suppose Karl didnt face Russians in major battles after Narva until Poltava. He might have been overconfident due his victories over Poles and Denmark etc.
But Peter the Great had reformed the Russian army.
And there is a bit of a Swedish arrogance.

Small war: Raiding, attacking supply lines etc. Excellent for Cossacks. But i have to agree, they were not meant for field battles.

[cegorach]

Attacking deep in russia is never wise.

Nonsense.

Of course you need some skills to win, but for that you need:

- fast, mobile force to launch deep raids into enemy territory to paralyse their ability to resist adn gather valuable information,

- use a powerful core force able to break the resistence of the Rusian army,

- ability to counter the enemy from doing the same,

Historical examples:

- Mongols,

- Poles and Lithuanians in 1579-82, 1609-18, 1632-34, 1660,

- Poles in 1920,


Basically the Swedes needed something to counter the Cossacks and raid enemy territory to distract Russian forces.

How could they get those is a dfferent question though - maybe by an alliance with the Ottomans ( Tartars from Crimea) and Cossacks from Ukraine, but they failed to attract the first and the Cossacks were far too little for this task.

The only sensible decision would be to occupy Novgorod, Pskov and later launch an offensive vs. Moscow if that fails.

Instead they had something which almost happened to Karl X Gustav in Poland in autum-winter 1655-56 - amazing they never learnt.

[HansDuet]

How deep did these Poles and Liethuanians go? And agains what kind of resistace? I like to see some sources also, im not too familiar in Polish history.

[Nissedruva]

How deep did these Poles and Liethuanians go? And agains what kind of resistace? I like to see some sources also, im not too familiar in Polish history.

You have to remember that the russian state was much weaker (and splitterd) back in those day comparing to the GNW and later periods.

[HansDuet]

You have to remember that the russian state was much weaker (and splitterd) back in those day comparing to the GNW and later periods.

Tought so much. If it would been a major invasion (poles taking over Russia)
I should have heard of it..

[cegorach]

Nissedruva

Quote:
Originally Posted by HansDuet
How deep did these Poles and Liethuanians go? And agains what kind of resistace? I like to see some sources also, im not too familiar in Polish history.

You have to remember that the russian state was much weaker (and splitterd) back in those day comparing to the GNW and later periods.

Clearly you do not know what are you talking about.

You need to take into your consideration that it was a century earlier or more and Russia reformed its army as early as Ivan the Terrible with pre-Peter phase dedicated solely to fight the Commonwealth (from 1620s) in all cases it ended in a failure.



IN 1579-82 - Russian army of some 75 000 was paralysed by attacks in Ukraine, Smolenks area and the major attacks were further screened by massive cavalry raids, primary the Radziwill's attack in 1582 which devastated area of the size of France and that it happened DURING a very harsh winter.

Major Pol-Lit targeted Polock and Vielkiye Luki with the stalemate in Pskov still the war was a massive defeat and is one of the largest disasters in Russian history - possible Russian losses could reach over 300 000 but that includes militia and other ad hoc assembled forces to less than 30 000 on the Pol-Lit side. In both cases it includes non-combatant losses (like due to the harsh winter of 1581-82).


1609-18 in the Time of Troubles - pretty chaotic situation, but the same tactic was used with similar results - deep cavalry raids and major attacks targeting primary objectives e.g. Smolensk.
The attack in 1610 is almost a perfect example and ends in Moscow. Polish forces were 5-6 times smaller than Russian-Swedish during the entire offensive.
In addition in 1615 we see most likely the largest cavalry raid in Russian history - Lisowski's force wreak havoc in huge areas and defeat enemy forces engaging the Russian army stopping its counteroffensive in its initial phase.

1632-34 Defensive war of Pol-Lit Commonweath. Pretty confined area of fighting, though.

Still attacks in Ukraine attract some attention which is used elsewhere when the major force cuts of Russian army ad destroys it to the east of Smolensk.
Not the best example overall because the main fighting was a trench war.

1660 - possibly the best offensive launched against Russia in history (after the Mongols).

Two massive armies (adding all the battles fought at that time it could be over 100 000) are destroyed at similar time in Ukraine and Belorus and to the end of the war Russian army only defends and rebuilds its army.

1920 - later phase. Destruction of 3rd Soviet army in Nemel offensive and desintegration of the Soviet forces in Belorus + more mobile, but less important actions in Ukraine.

How deep did these Poles and Liethuanians go? And agains what kind of resistace? I like to see some sources also, im not too familiar in Polish history.

Lisowski's cavalry seen 'the sea of ice' and white bears so pushed very far away.

The bulk of the army in all cases fought in the areas which Swedes reached in 1709 before Poltava - in case of 1660 the offensive launched in the 'suburbs of Warsaw' and Lvov reached to the end of Belorus and Ukraine.

Basically war in the mainland happened EVERY single time and what Karl XII did once happened every time when Pol-Lit state was at wr with Russia i.e. very often.

HansDuet Quote:
Originally Posted by Nissedruva
You have to remember that the russian state was much weaker (and splitterd) back in those day comparing to the GNW and later periods.

Tought so much. If it would been a major invasion (poles taking over Russia)
I should have heard of it..

Please do not jump ito such conclusion so easily. The topic of those wars is very poorly researched by non-Polish historians ( due to political factors in case of Russia, Belorus, Ukraine, Lithuania) - especially its military part.

So it is very much possible you do not know much or even never heared about some of most massive operations and battles seen in pre-modern era.

No offence, but Karl's XII 'voyage' was one of the smaller ones actually...


Besides - we are a not talking about taking over Russia, but defeating it far away from the coastline and in some more extreme circumstances.

[HansDuet]

Nissedruva

Please do not jump ito such conclusion so easily. The topic of those wars is very poorly researched by non-Polish historians ( due to political factors in case of Russia, Belorus, Ukraine, Lithuania) - especially its military part.

So it is very much possible you do not know much or even never heared about some of most massive operations and battles seen in pre-modern era.

No offence, but Karl's XII 'voyage' was one of the smaller ones actually...


Besides - we are a not talking about taking over Russia, but defeating it far away from the coastline and in some more extreme circumstances.

Perhaps i was hasty but these conflicts (apart the Mongols) are completely unknown to me.
But what i have learned is that Karl XII brought Poland pretty much down.

[Nissedruva]

Well at Poltava (as ihave already writen) the swedish army was at a lousy shape...weaken by desease,hunger etc and with a ammunition supply for only one big battle the attack on Poltava was not as "arrogant" as you can assume. Karl XII and his generals knew that the campaign in russia was a failure and that the only real possibility was to gamble and meet the russians in a field battle.

Due to delays in the grouping of the swedish army during the night the initial upmarch came much later and under daylight. The russians could see the oncoming swedish army and prepare the defence.

If this delay had not occur the outcome off the battle could have been similar to Narva.

[Panzerbear]

the 10 century long history between Poles and Russians is one big battle. they constantly invaded each other, burned each other cities, defeated one another, and so on and so forth.

while obviously Polish people would go on and glorify their own victories (and blowing the numbers of all proportions), it is quite clear that Poles/Germans were just as annoying to Russian state as the Swedes and the Mongols were. in general, to make short story short, all three were beaten and driven off under the rock they came from, even though Russians also lost quite a few battles (what war is without losses?) and many Russian border cities went from one side to another, which is also natural.

also, may I please remind you that throught most of its history, Russia was a bunch of independent city-states, with Kiev and Novgorod always competing for regional power? Mosow emerged as Russian capital and began conquering neighboring territories only many centuries later - in the 1500s...

Major Pol-Lit targeted Polock and Vielkiye Luki with the stalemate in Pskov still the war was a massive defeat and is one of the largest disasters in Russian history - possible Russian losses could reach over 300 000 but that includes militia and other ad hoc assembled forces to less than 30 000 on the Pol-Lit side. In both cases it includes non-combatant losses (like due to the harsh winter of 1581-82).

riiiight. 1563 - Czar Ivan the Terrible goes to Polotsk to fight off the Poles. three weeks was the siege and the city was captured with no considerable effort. in august of 1580 the Velikiye Luki was approached by Polish army, under command of Stephan Batoriy. in the first batlle, Poles were crushed by Russians, to the point that 10,000 Poles were killed and Russians captured the royal Polish banner. Stefan himself avoided capture by pure luck. The Polish king was so enraged, that he ordered to capture the damn Vilikie Luki at all costs. as the reinforcements came in, the city was besieged. after few days of fierce fighting, the burning city was finally captured and looted/massacred, along with its starved and numerically inferior defenders.

Velikie Luki was returned to Russia by a peace treaty that followed immediately after, in 1583 (poles knew they will never be able to hold the city), along with many other Russian cities.

and I can go on and on about all further inconsistencies in your post... I am sure that Polish historians might have their own butchered version of history of these events, but oh well, it was such a long time ago - anybody can claim anything the hell they want. the bottom line is that all Polish invasions (sometimes ivited by Lzhedmitry's) were repelled.

[cegorach]

the 10 century long history between Poles and Russians is one big battle. they constantly invaded each other, burned each other cities, defeated one another, and so on and so forth.

while obviously Polish people would go on and glorify their own victories (and blowing the numbers of all proportions), it is quite clear that Poles/Germans were just as annoying to Russian state as the Swedes and the Mongols were. in general, to make short story short, all three were beaten and driven off under the rock they came from, even though Russians also lost quite a few battles (what war is without losses?) and many Russian border cities went from one side to another, which is also natural.

WOW - it has beeen a while since I have read such a statement - I must sho it to some people.

riiiight. 1563 - Czar Ivan the Terrible goes to Polotsk to fight off the Poles. three weeks was the siege and the city was captured with no considerable effort.

The 'no-considearable effort' was 32 000 strong army sent to take it (18 050 boyar cavalry, 7219 streltsy infantry, 6 000 Tratar cavalry).
The city was capitulated after Ivan's artillery caused a fire which was impossible to extinguish and the entire 500 men ( there were also 1500 armed citizens, peasants etc) strong garrison negotiated a honourable capitulation.

in august of 1580 the Velikiye Luki was approached by Polish army, under command of Stephan Batoriy. in the first batlle, Poles were crushed by Russians, to the point that 10,000 Poles were killed and Russians captured the royal Polish banner.

That really made my day !

The 'battle' was a Russian attack from the fortress (as many similar which usually are seen during sieges) which indeed captured a banner... of an infantry regiment and it caused as much as 10 deaths on both sides (most likely it includes the wounded wh died after the 'battle').
It happened somewhere between 27th and 30th August 1580, there were 200 Polish soldiers on one side vs. unknown number of Russians.

MY God 10 000 ! I still cannot believe what I have read...

Stefan himself avoided capture by pure luck. The Polish king was so enraged, that he ordered to capture the damn Vilikie Luki at all costs. as the reinforcements came in, the city was besieged. after few days of fierce fighting, the burning city was finally captured and looted/massacred, along with its starved and numerically inferior defenders.

Pure luck ? What the hell, he wasn't even there !

Starved ? The held for 8-9 days ( 27th August - 5th September, the artillery started shooting on the 1st September, though) ? How could they starve in such time ?
After all this easily taken ( by Ivan) Polock defended for 16 days (31st January 1563-15th February 1563) i.e. in the middle of winter and it didn't starve.
You do not really need to tell stories - facts would be enough.

Russian XVIth century chronicles most likely show a different picture - but I think you could use works of modern historians for a change.

Velikie Luki was returned to Russia by a peace treaty that followed immediately after, in 1583 (poles knew they will never be able to hold the city), along with many other Russian cities.

The war is called 'Livonian War' for a reason man... you do realise that the objective was to re-take Livonia and that Russian LOST this war, do you ?

and I can go on and on about all further inconsistencies in your post... I am sure that Polish historians might have their own butchered version of history of these events, but oh well, it was such a long time ago - anybody can claim anything the hell they want.

GO ON ! I will show that to the Russians I discuss those events with .
Since I am widely respected for my knowledge about this topic ( XVI-XVIIth warfare) and rarely I see such incredible 'information' you have posted treated as the truth surely it will be something to read MORE. So I would REALLY love to read more.

the bottom line is that all Polish invasions (sometimes ivited by Lzhedmitry's) were repelled.

Considering that the 'invasions' were actually ONE invasion called 'Sigismund's private war' and that you call Bathory's war a Polish defeat () I am quite sure that you believe in that.

Perhaps i was hasty but these conflicts (apart the Mongols) are completely unknown to me.
But what i have learned is that Karl XII brought Poland pretty much down.

It was 'down' before he entered the country. Sapiehas were waging civil wr in Lithuania and lost it at that time so the entire Grand Duchy was still a big mess just like from some 1690. August II was breaking the law and started this private war of his without support of the parliament so the Crown ( i.e. Poland) was pretty pissed off too - see the battle at Klisov where Lubomirski uses only 10 % of the army and leaves the battlefield without a reason to see what I mean.
If you notice how quickly August II lost the remaining support you will see that he was a very unpopular person.

In general that time in our history sees as fracture in the country - factions fight other factions, no unified front exists which is exploited by the enemies. Karl XII just entered and left accelerating certain processes, but it is quite probable there would be a civil war soon without the entire GNW mess.