Poland Glorious Golden age

[Darsh]

"800 Poles would equal 8000 enemy soldiers."
- Napoleon

"In 1569 the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania united and formed the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania. Poland became an European power: the economy was strong, the army was excellent and the territory was huge (815,000 sq. km) Grain exports to Germany, England and other countries and the resulting trade surplus ensured Poland prosperity and a large natural increase. The XVI Century was the Golden Age in Poland's history.

The Polish army was never large but it was of excellent quality. The infantry and artillery were fine, while the cavalry was arguably the best in Europe. During the Golden Age the Polish troops enjoyed several spectacular victories. Majority of them were due to the husaria or "winged knights", (ext.link) as they are called in English-speaking world, or "Flügelhusaren" in German. It should be remembered that one of the greatest commanders in history, Gustav Adolf (ext.link) admired by Napoleon and many commanders, developed his skills in almost continuous warfare with the Poles. His success in the Thirty Years War was preceded by many years of effort against inferior numbers of Poles who had humiliated the Swedish army at the Battle of Kircholm.

In 1514 at the Battle of Orsha (ext.link) approx. 25.000-30.000-men strong Polish-Lithuanian army under Hetman Prince Ostrogski defeated Russian army of 40.000-80.000 men. In the fighting participated the winged knights. The victors took many prisoners including the Russian commander-in-chief Ivan Cheladin. The Battle of Orsha was one of the biggest battles of XVI Century Europe.

On picture: charge of the winged husaria by Keith Rocco (USA)

In 1605 at the Battle of Kircholm (ext.link) 3.500 men (incl. 2.000 winged-knights) under Hetman Chodkiewicz defeated 14.000 well trained Swedes (incl. 5.000 veteran cavalry) deployed in an advantageous position. In Swedish army also served Fins, Germans and Scots. The charge of Winged Knights at Kircholm was one of the most famous displays of heavy cavalry. Map of Battle. (ext.link)
In 1610 at the Battle of Kluszyn (ext.link) the Polish army defeated much stronger Russian army. According to wikipedia.org the Polish forces numbering 5,000-7.000 men (inc. at least 4.000 winged knights) under Hetman Zolkiewski defeated a force of 35,000-40.000 Russians (incl. 5,000-10,000 Swedish, French, German and British mercenaries). Soon after the battle the Russian fortress of Smolensk surrendered, the tsar was ousted by the boyars and the small Polish army entered Moscow with little opposition. The Polish commander Zolkiewski wrote: "They ... unable to resist, began escaping back into their camp. But there too our men rode after, and hitting and hacking drove them through their own camp."

In 1672 a powerful army of Ottoman Empire invaded Poland and imposed the treaty of Buczacz on the Poles. The next year Hetman Jan Sobieski gathered his corps and virtually annihilated the Turkish army at Chocim (Khotin). The Turkish army at Chocim consisted of 35.000 men (incl. elite cavalry) and 120 guns. The Turks took positions in a well entreched camp. The Polish forces consisted of 30.000 men (incl. winged knights). The Turks fought well until the winged knights charged and broke the elite Turkish cavalry. The Turkish infantry and gunners panicked and fled, their camp was captured. From then on the Turks called Hetman Sobieski "The Lion of the North." Unable to break into Europe through Poland, the massive Turkish army invaded Austria and Hungary. Approx. 120,000 Turks besieged the city of Vienna and threatened to conquer the western Europe.

In 1683 at Vienna (ext.link) Polish king Sobieski headed the Christian coalition of Polish, German, French and Austrian troops against Ottomans. Approx. 20.000 of winged-knights and light cavalry charged down hill, echelon after echelon, and defeated vastly superior Turkish infantry, cavalry and artillery. Kara_Mustafa, the Turkish commander seeing thousands of the winged knights charging straight at him fled in panic. The Turkish invasion of western Europe was halted. The pope and European dignitaries hailed Sobieski as the "Savior of Vienna and Western European civilization." Sobieski triumphantly entered Vienna (ext.link). In a letter to his wife Sobieski wrote about the freed Austrians "All the common people kissed my hands, my feet, my clothes; others only touched me ..." Pursuing the fleeing Turks Sobieski won also at Parkany (ext. link) "

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/web2.a...lish_army.html

[KaerMorhen]

Indeed it was our Golden Age but I myself prefer 'way to Golden Age' period begun on August 14, 1385 in the town of Krewo(The Union of Krewo) lasted until The Prussian Homage on April 10, 1525.
For me those 140 years from 1385 to 1525 are most fascinating in Poland's history.

[Odovacar]

Hehe Cegorah will like this topic
Anyway, cheers for the brave poles!

[gambit]

Makes me feel happy to be about 4/5's polish. Good read Darsh

[Darsh]

a charge of 20000 winged knights should be very impressive.

[Markas]

a charge of 20000 winged knights should be very impressive.

Even more so if they take off.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Even more so if they take off.

20000 Belerophons!

[gambit]

a charge of 20000 winged knights should be very impressive.

Oh yea. If I saw them charging at me, I'd probably die before they even got close.

[cegorach]

Interesting thread.

I will add a word or two because some opinions are at least lacking basic information, but since most of the sources available are pretty outdated it is hard to avoid.

+ 1 rep for Darsh


BTW Great work Domen you are becoming useful in the TWC for sure.

a charge of 20000 winged knights should be very impressive.

Certainly not 'knights', even if the term was widely used it refered to noble birth, elite reputation and similar.

In the 1200, 1300, and 1400's Poland's strengtth went up and down, but it managed to survive quite well and was never conquered during that time, and neither was Lithuania.

Before the Golden Age there was also the Silver Age.

Chris

Actually it is the late XVIIth century which is called this way.

To bad that Poland had a crappy internal constellation. Even the famous Sobieski couldn't do a thing as king, that's what you get of course if every noble in your 'reichstag' (or how you call it in Polish) has a veto.

Incorrect. Everyone 'had' it, but it only counted if someone could support the protest which became an issue only after 1652 with the reign of Sobieski as the most difficult time.

The importance of the veto is overrated- Sejm's records show its true importance which is the case of faction conflict, mainly between kings and their opposition.
For that the Vasa's can be called responsible if anyone can.

The Polish "democracy" (of the landlords of course) was indeed very perculiar. Had they heard of 'majority' voting rather than veto, who knows its history might have been different. In any case it was selfdestructive and contraproductive, a sad feat given its pretty "democratic" nature. On the other hand it was a political system bound to bear little fruit in the times it existed in.

There was majority voting regardress of the veto - under the 'confederacy' majority decided.

Besides again it was not the veto which was the real problem, but other factors which gave the veto its strenght - the 'veto' itself existed from the XVth century and didn't cause any problems to late XVIIth.

Yeah. Well after 3 partitions they learned their lesson.

'Confederacy' voting was applied much earlier.

Actually many experts agree that the veto could stay in the system - it was its use which really counted, if the reasons were removed it had no teeth to bite anymore.

The Golden Age of Poland happened as long as grain was a valuable commodity and muskets were slow enough to reload to allow cavalry to trounce infantry in a single overwhelming charge. Unfortunately for them by the XVIII century neither of these were facts, anymore.

NOnsense.

Polish cavalry wasn't using 'a single overwhelming charge' in any given part of the period.

Cases of a single charge winning a battle were generally rare.

If you are interested in learning more, visit the ETW historical research threads.

Once Poland-Lithuania was reunited it was less of a democracy than an open feudalistic regime, which was the cause of its certain doom.

A fedualistic regime ?

Hardly.

The tolerance was fine, but the system in itself could not adapt to changing tides in European politics and was repeatedly manipulated by foreign powers after Jan Sobieski, resulting in weaklings who could not hold the borders against the inevitable Russian wave.

Well, it did, the problem was it did so against the foreign pressure and other internal problems.
The one, most important factor which allowed the change was the education which brought fruits in a time of a generation, but given the difficulty to change anything after the failure of August II Wettin and the end of the Great Northern War it is easy to understand.

Let's not forget Poland became a Russian protectorate in 1717 after Peter's 'mediation' between Agust II and the confederated opposition.

So the wave was actually here when the decline defined by you was supposed to start.

In the XVIII century Poland was just an anachronism that was inevitably killed once new disturbances arrived.

Not true, because of the reforms we see.

If it would be destroyed in the 1730s your statement would held much truth, but certainly not after 1766, perhaps earlier.

One of the main issues that prevented Absolutism in Poland was a medieval civil war

It is a bit overstretched - it would indicate that the failure of the absolutism was caused by factors which came to the existence at least two centuries before any form of absolutism, which is just tooo much.

I doubt that the absolutism was actually doable and that it would bring anything good except a series of civil wars and quicker destruction, but it might be implemented, even in the XVIIth century.

, IIRC, and the way kings would gradually give up their power and cede more priviledges to the nobility, exactly the opposite of what was in vogue in Western Europe. Indeed, during the XVI to XVIII century Serfdom only became stronger in these regions, resulting in an economical backwardness that had negative effects, particularly in Russia.

Serfdom became popular again in all countries to the east of the Elbe - none of them had anything similar politically and fr example Austria is known as a model absolutist state (close to a police state in times...).

It is entirely wrong to compare the Commonwealth to Russia - it was a different state, a different model of economy altogether - Russia was a paternalistic state which entered absolutism with no periods between, so to speak.

Which is a clear statement that the Polish economy relied greatly on agriculture, specifically feudal agriculture.

So did in other states, of course more in Poland, but it is ahrdly a suprise.

Nevertheless the model of the economy was quickly changing in the XVIIIth century - especially from 1740s.

Exactly due to the fact that Zygmunt Waza'a faulty diplomacy made two old enemies, the Swedes and the Russians, unite against them.

Despite my dislike of the man I cannot blame him for that.
The inrevention in the Russian affarirs was in reponse to the Russian-Swedish pacts and alliances - yes, I am talking about 1609.

Previous 'interventions' were only marginally because someone ordered them, happened because of the certain Russian factions were looking for help e.g. Bolotnikov.

This time they won, but Zygmunt was never able to threaten Sweden and Poland was later swept in the Deluge, where your statement about the "superiority" of Polish arms holds no ground.

Poland had no fleet and plans to invade Sweden proper were never considered in any way.

The Deluge was an international event - let's not forget about that and clearly at that time Poland was rebuilding its army after the losses it suffered (primary Batoh 1652).

Gustavus Adolphus' new tactics, together with the drilling manual by the dutch Nassau shaped new warfare far better than any polish tacticians I've heard of. Indeed, Gustavus Adolphus' campaign in Poland was undoubtely a success, with sounding victories finally forcing his Waza relatives to abandon their dreams, much of this due to his tactical genius and superiority which paved the way for a better professional force, something the Poles clearly couldn't equal. Poland lost the war.

Search the archives for the Spartacus thread - he is far better informed person than you.
You can ask Adar too.
You can find them in the ECW research threads - Polish and Swedish.
PM them for details if you need them.

Later on, even with that tactical brilliance you speak of, the Russians defeated the Poles after a long war.

When ?

You surely know how the war 1654-1667 was fought ?

Even the great Cossack rebellion that started shortly after the Deluge was not quelled and ultimately Poland lost a great deal of her Eastern territories. Speaks volumes about the "most modern" army in Europe;

See how the war was fought too. Cossacks were not an enemy to be ignored, certainly not with their Tartar allies - they were not the marauder cavalry from the XIXth century.

Besides if you look into the battles you will see the factors which caused the defeats - the critical battles were lost in ambush which is hardly a good reason to underrate any army.

truly, they couldn't even control their nobles much less be called like this. Their political system was faulty and paralised after the first Liberum Veto in 1652 and this had a large influence on how faulty foreign policy would be conducted, including how during the Deluge many nobles such as Radzwill went against their own king merely for their little political purpose.

'Speaks volums' about your sources, I am afraid.

If you need a short description of the general situation after 1652 take the Glorious Revolution (Karl X Gustav as William the Orange - really !) with the addition of the Russians.

There were active plans to remove Jan Kazimierz from the throne, much earlier - blamed for incompetence and I must agree it was fair judgement of his limited political skills.

Our Jacob II or even Charles I (before execution) in the end was chosen over Karl X, but it was a hard choice for the most of the political nation.

In the field of infantry tactics, there's little question on who held the edge: the Swedes, who managed to create a solid corps of infantry capable of beating Polish cavalry.

Polish infantry in 1656 was suffereing from the losses suffered from 1652 to 1655, hardly a good example.

Count also artillery tactics, even after Gustavus Adolphus.

Hardly. Artillery corps was reformed in 1630s and only the saizure of the arsenals limited its number during the Deluge.

The later part of the war was ending in a number of sieges after all while artillery had limited use against Russia (transportation was the real pain).

Most of the Polish cavalry at the time of the Deluge was light, irregular cavalry which had little in the way of organization, by the way,

It was changing during the Deluge, before the Deluge and after the Deluge, but in 1656 it was abnormal in many ways - never before and after the structure of the Polish army involved so much light cavalry - half of it mercenaries and irregulars.

Usually Cavalry formed about 50 % - the rest infantry and dragoons.

The only significant factor of Polish superiority would be their cavalry tactics. But they weren't all that "invincible" as people would believe. Ultimately, though, their tactics were greatly emulated.

Because you are refering only to the days of the Deluge ?

Otherwise I am certain the opinon would be different.

Let's not forget that Haiduk infantry used a form of Ga Pa, that infantry and dragoons were well used in coordination with other arms, though suffered higher losses too.

Virtually every battle fought by the armies of the Commonwealth sees extensive use of dragoons and infantry.

Yes, Oligarchy is probably a more accurate term.

Incorrect.

Oligarchy assumes there is a ruling elite which shares power. Nobility in Poland was the ruling part of the society, but divided on its own, with interaction of other parts of the society (clergy, citizens, some ethnic and religious minorities such as Jews who emlpyed lobbyists).

It was a Republic of nobility, but that word has a very wide meaning.

Oligarchy was the old term used to describe the state and its politics - not used by serious scholars anymore.

Thats what I meant. The best military unit also happened to be the stubborn nobility that didn't allow for centralisation in the long run.

Domen described it well - no unit in the army was noble and all where - we had so many and so much divided and different nobles it was pointless to see them as one group.

Its hardly democracy if its just for the ruling elite is it

IN the XVIIth century or in the XVIIIth century (not to mention earlier times) it clearly WAS.

After all more people enjoyed full political rights in the Commonwealth than in Britain in the early XIXth century.

IN an elite is so huge group of people it is no elite anymore.

Don't make a mistake and do not use our forms of government - compare the Commonwealth to its neighbours and other states of the world - it clearly was one of the most democratic if not the most democratic state - probably only less than Switzerland of that times, but that case is hard to check.

Ultimately what it comes down to is failure to centralise, relative to its neighbours. Other factors played a role, of course, but they were more triggers than underlying causes. I think its ironic that Poland's most iconic warriors also embodied one of its most severe weaknesses.

Not really. The centralisation wasn't the factor which couldn't be dealth with without inside the existing system, other factors made it too difficult, but let's not forget the state left rich heritage which for more than a century fuelled independence movements in the entire territory of it, except Pomerelia and Ukraine.

Romano-Dacis vbmenu_register("postmenu_3134240", true);
Today, 04:43 AM / Re: Poland Glorious Golden age #41

Freeman

Posts: 345


I wouldn't describe Poland's system as a democracy, and it certainly was not as unique as you might suggest. Ivan pointed it out correctly by saying that it was simply a lack of centralization. The same thing happened in Wallachia and Moldavia, and the independent Transylvania, where the boiars (in the princely council) or nobles (in the diet) could hold equal or greater sway than the actual rulers! As such, one's ruleship came down to appeasing the majority of the nobles and boiars, and it would take a very competent leader to go against the will of their own nobles.

Incorrect. The political structure of the Commonwealth was more mature and more developed.

You need to look into the way the political life was happening to bring changes to the entire system.

Actually we can say there were - early and primitive - but large and important political factions which based their plans on something more than limited interests.

I am talking about 'Zamoyszczycy' of the late XVIth century or 'the execution movement' in the earlier decades.
Similar with other movements from the later periods.

There is a difference betwen a powerful person and his clients, regional factions or loose collections of people and alliances based on religion, local interests or ad hoc declarations compared to primitive parties of Great Britain (XVIIIth century) or less advanced (but older) factions in Poland.

IN the Commonwealth we have the idea which binds the political system together - the responsibility for the state, the awareness that every decision affects the whole system and the patriotism which comes form the knowledge that rights bring also responsibilities.

That was present in the First Republic - the term Rzeczpospolita mark 1 was not given without a reason - later parliaments of the Duchy of Warsaw, Kraków Republic, the Duchy of Posen, the 'Congress' Poland or of the II Republic take more than words from its earlier and the oldest forefather the Sejm of the Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów, similar with the local gatherings which are the ancestors of the present ones and named after them the sejmiki.

[Romano-Dacis]

Incorrect. The political structure of the Commonwealth was more mature and more developed.

You need to look into the way the political life was happening to bring changes to the entire system.

Actually we can say there were - early and primitive - but large and important political factions which based their plans on something more than limited interests.

I am talking about 'Zamoyszczycy' of the late XVIth century or 'the execution movement' in the earlier decades.
Similar with other movements from the later periods.

There is a difference betwen a powerful person and his clients, regional factions or loose collections of people and alliances based on religion, local interests or ad hoc declarations compared to primitive parties of Great Britain (XVIIIth century) or less advanced (but older) factions in Poland.

IN the Commonwealth we have the idea which binds the political system together - the responsibility for the state, the awareness that every decision affects the whole system and the patriotism which comes form the knowledge that rights bring also responsibilities.

That was present in the First Republic - the term Rzeczpospolita mark 1 was not given without a reason - later parliaments of the Duchy of Warsaw, Kraków Republic, the Duchy of Posen, the 'Congress' Poland or of the II Republic take more than words from its earlier and the oldest forefather the Sejm of the Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów, similar with the local gatherings which are the ancestors of the present ones and named after them the sejmiki.

Political movements were hardly unique. I can't see how they were different. In Moldavia there were similar movements, one called the "Nobiliary regime" where the nobles tried to rule the country instead of the prince. Therefore, we can see the development of political movements at the same level of organization as in Poland. The "Execution Movement" in fact seems quite similar to the policies employed by Stephen the Great of Moldavia, where he tried to strengthen the lesser nobility at the expense of the greater nobility.

Maybe these three countries were exceptions, but to me Poland's political system does not seem as unique as you make it out to be. From what I call tell, you're using some form of false dichotomy where it is either absolutism or democracy, which is just not true.

[cegorach]

Political movements were hardly unique. I can't see how they were different. In Moldavia there were similar movements, one called the "Nobiliary regime" where the nobles tried to rule the country instead of the prince. Therefore, we can see the development of political movements at the same level of organization as in Poland. The "Execution Movement" in fact seems quite similar to the policies employed by Stephen the Great of Moldavia, where he tried to strengthen the lesser nobility at the expense of the greater nobility.

I know what you mean, but the problem with such movements is they are difficult to define using earlier terms such as feudal factions or noble interest groups.

The execution movement for example worked for decades, usually against the will of the king (Zygmunt I Stary), it managed to push numerous projects through the parliament and taking all available factors it is the closest thing I see to a political party.

The factions you are talking about are the earlier thing - XIVth-XVth century.

[vecordia]

a charge of 20000 winged knights should be very impressive.

Actually this charge had no more than 7.000 hussars probably about 4.000 - 5000 from Commonwealth of Poland, as sources say - 25 maybe 30 banners (each 100 - 200 men). Rest was germanic, austrian and probably lithuanian light cavalry = over 30.000 which about 26.000 in that famous charge.

[cegorach]

Actually this charge had no more than 7.000 hussars probably about 4.000 - 5000 from Commonwealth of Poland, as sources say - 25 maybe 30 banners (each 100 - 200 men). Rest was germanic, austrian and probably lithuanian light cavalry = over 30.000 which about 26.000 in that famous charge.

Actually no more than 3000 hussars could be present because... there were no more in the Commonwealth (except the Lithuanian army, but that arrived later).

There are some reliable sources about the Commonwealth army easy to find (you should have a look around)- there was no such thing as lithuanian light cavalry at Vienna (since the Lithuanian army was not there at all), besides both armies of the Republic were virtually the same when it comes to weaponry.

At Vienna you would have the hussars, reiters (western style cavalry like everywhere but in the Crown called arquebusiers at that time), the iron-clad (pancerni) and light cavalry. Dragoons and infantry fought on foot obviously.
The Austrians requested the help of as mobile and as cavalry heavy force as possible so it carried relatively small number of light cannons and lesser proportion of infantry and dragoons than generally used in the Crown.

[vecordia]

Actually no more than 3000 hussars could be present because... there were no more in the Commonwealth (except the Lithuanian army, but that arrived later).

Actually there was more then 3000 hussars in whole Commonwealth in second half of XVII, probably about 4000 - 6000 no point arguing.

There are some reliable sources about the Commonwealth army easy to find (you should have a look around)- there was no such thing as lithuanian light cavalry at Vienna

Is there was something like lithuanian heavy cavalry at all in XXVII in Commonwealth? No.

(since the Lithuanian army was not there at all),

That's why I said probably

besides both armies of the Republic were virtually the same when it comes to weaponry.

You mean hussar equipped that same as classic reiter? No way, please don't look for pointless debate. We must be more precisely, Only Pancerni can be called heavy cavalary but true is they were medium and armed worse too than winged hussars.

At Vienna you would have the hussars, reiters (western style cavalry like everywhere but in the Crown called arquebusiers at that time), the iron-clad (pancerni) and light cavalry. Dragoons and infantry fought on foot obviously.
The Austrians requested the help of as mobile and as cavalry heavy force as possible so it carried relatively small number of light cannons and lesser proportion of infantry and dragoons than generally used in the Crown.

That's true.

Thanks for respond

[cegorach]

A bit ridiculous argument, but whatever

Actually there was more then 3000 hussars in whole Commonwealth in second half of XVII, probably about 4000 - 6000 no point arguing.

Not at that time - 1683 after all. Sobieski's reforms increased the number to 3500 (including Lithuanian hussars).

Is there was something like lithuanian heavy cavalry at all in XVII in Commonwealth? No.

There was medium cavalry called Petyhorcy.
Even Lithuanian hussars were a bit different than in the Crown too.

You mean hussar equipped that same as classic reiter?

No way, please don't look for pointless debate. We must be more precisely, Only Pancerni can be called heavy cavalary but true is they were medium and armed worse too than winged hussars.

I don't get it. Clearly a misunderstanding.

I meant there was hardly any difference between the armies of the Dual Republic.

[Exarch]

i confess i'm ignorant about polish medieval might
i was always under the impression that poles were only good for target practice, invasion fodder and victims of german aggression

usually in my campaigns, poland is a favourite victim of rapines, rapes and pillages-little different to history

[Darsh]

i confess i'm ignorant about polish medieval might
i was always under the impression that poles were only good for target practice, invasion fodder and victims of german aggression

That's the reason why I have made this thread, It's good to remember than Poland was one of the most powerful european country during the 16th-17th centuries.

[Exarch]

That's the reason why I have made this thread, It's good to remember than Poland was one of the most powerful european country during the 16th-17th centuries.

yeh quite admirable
maintaining and defending a kingdom which is a fairly flat stretch of land from enemies on all sides.
.....
i wish they'd included wings on the hussars in the game<sigh>

[KaerMorhen]

That's the reason why I have made this thread, It's good to remember than Poland was one of the most powerful european country during the 16th-17th centuries.

Truely PLC was a might, powerfull and infuencial state but I affraid those 'who pull the strings' at that time where fooled and blindfolded by it power and leaded it into downfall in 18th - but of course it is huge generalization and simplification on my side.
I'm not the biggest admirers of this particular period of our history but Cegorach seems to be 'addidcted' to it so he can provide loads of useful informations concerning PLC 'Golden Age'

[Darsh]

Truely PLC was a might, powerfull and infuencial state but I affraid those 'who pull the strings' at that time where fooled and blindfolded by it power and leaded it into downfall in 18th - but of course it is huge generalization and simplification on my side.
I'm not the biggest admirers of this particular period of our history but Cegorach seems to be 'addidcted' to it so he can provide loads of useful informations concerning PLC 'Golden Age'

I hope Cegorach will share with us some interesting informations about the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth "Golden Age".