Stanislaw Koniecpolski vs Gustav II

Originally posted by rider Yes, Hussars are magnificent but what's your point?

So the whole purpose of the thread is to search for every little skirmish the Poles happened to defeat Swedes? Kinda what I suspected.

Riga was not so much a battle as a siege was it not?

There were frequently sorties and other skirmishes surrounding a besieged place, but the practical result of Riga was that the town fell, and was then an integral part of Swedish presence on the east Baltic for like 90 years. The Poles were not able to relieve it.

ataman:

What is the matter with the Swedish army of Gustav? It was as methodical, and for that time, as professional as the Poles were gallant. The Swedes were putting into practice west European military practices that were found to be useful against the strength of the Poles. That is what successful commanders do; they don't necessarily have to win every battle.

Although Gustav was not averse to winning battles, the main goal of his Livonian/Prussian campaigns was to (1) secure the revenues of as many Baltic towns as possible, and (2) to keep Poland from recovering them. Engineering and fire discipline are not romantic like cavalry charges, but they served Gustav well enough.


    
    

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 08-Jan-2007 at 13:21

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Riga was not so much a battle as a siege was it not?

Edited by ataman - 08-Jan-2007 at 14:51

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Engineering and fire discipline are not romantic like cavalry charges, but they served Gustav well enough.

Edited by ataman - 09-Jan-2007 at 02:25

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Fire discipline = repetitive drill that increased the rate of fire of musketry, and the use of heavier muskets than were common in the East. As the 1620s went on, the arquebus was virtually eliminated among Swedish infantry and replaced by Dutch pattern muskets of from 18 to 22mm bore.

 

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Well, Mewe is generally acknowledged as the main example, although Koniecpolski was not in command. I have read a couple of accounts that indicate that either two? or three? charges by husaria were broken up on 29 Sept. by the firepower of the musketeers. The Scot John Hepburn, a Swedish officer who was there, wrote a description of the effectiveness of the salvo.

 

It's very interesting. Can you quote Hepburn's description of this event?

 

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Robert Frost makes use of more recent Polish sources (J. Teodorczyk, J. Seredyka) in regard to Polish reaction to the tactics.

 

Well, Teodorczyk isn't credible source of information. His description of the battle was written about 40 years ago and is biased very much (it's a good example of Communist propaganda). I can recommend you new Radoslaw Sikora's book "Fenomen husarii" (publised few years ago), where Sikora point by point shows Teodorczyk's 'mistakes' ('mistakes' is a very gentle word in this case). If you want, I can write more about it.

Seredyka's contribution to this subject is insignificent. AFAIK he wrote only one article, where discussed some minor aspects of the begining of the war and this battle.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 On 1 Oct., the Swedes were swept from high ground, that threatened the Polish entrenchments besieging Mewe, by Zamoyski, while trying to dig entrenchments themselves. They had discharged their muskets in salvo against Polish infantry to take the position, and had not had time to reload.

 

AFAIK this idea comes from Teodorczyk's description of the battle. But even Teodorczyk quoted primary source which states that Swedish infantry shot to charging hussars. And that hussars charged 'like in fire'. So?

My notice - according to Teodorczyk's description, Polish cavalry was deployed many hundreds meters from the place, where the Swedes took position of Polish infantry. Even if there were only 400m, hussars needed at least 2 minutes to approach to the Swedes (look at this

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm )

Don't you think that it is enough for well drilled infantry to reload muskets? I've seen on this page http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/PolishHorseArtillery.htm a movie which shows that musketeer needs only 12 sec. to load and to shoot.

 

 

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Frost cites primary sources, both Radziwill and Koniecpolski, that indicate that Polish tactics were impacted by those of the Swedes.

 

Do you mean 'The Northern Wars'? I have this book.

It's true that 'Polish tactics were impacted by those of the Swedes'. But Radziwill and Koniecpolski wrote about using obstacles and about avoiding battles by the Swedes. They didn't write about fire discipline of Swedish infantry.

BTW, Frost made mistake in his translation of Radziwill's letter ('The Northern Wars' p.107). Radziwill used the word 'fortele', while Frost translated it as 'stratagems'. In fact 'fortel' in old Polish language meant every kind of obstacle; only in modern Polish language it means 'stratagem'.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 The number of infantry in the Polish army was increased, and many more heavy muskets were employed.

 

The number of infantry in Polish army increased to fight with Swedes, who usually didn't want to leave their fortified positions and didn't want to fight in the open field with Polish cavalry.

Heavy muskets - well, the Poles suffered a shortage of their own infantry, so they were forced to hire foreign infantry. These foreign infantry (Germans for example) used heavier muskets than Polish 'hajduks'. It doesn't mean that fighting Swedes demanded heavy muskets.

 

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Koniecpolski began to avoid confrontation with the Swedes on any ground where Gustav would have the advantage.

 

It means that he avoided to attack fortified Swedish positions, while he tried to fight with Swedish army in the open field. Sombody should remember that Swedish army outnumbered Polish army in Prussia about 2 (sometimes even 3) to 1. The Swedes always had more infantry than the Poles. They had more infantry and they usually didn't want to leave they fortified postitions. Koniecpolski, having less infantry than the Swedes, was wise enough to avoid attack Swedish fortifications. But in the open field, he attacked the Swedes, even if the Swedes outnumbered him (like at Trzciana 1629)

 

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 The use of fire discipline had a major effect on both sides, and changed the way the war was fought.

 

IMHO (which is based on the newest Polish elaborations) it wasn't the use of fire discipline, which had a major effect on both sides, and changed the way the war was fought. It was the use of obstacles, which secured the Swedes from charges of Polish cavalry. Polish and Lithuanian hetmans (commanders) stressed many times that the Swedes avoided open field engagements, and that Gustaw Adolf tried to win this war by 'krecia wojna' (moles' war). Neither Lithuanian nor Polish hetmans wrote about any impact of fire discipline of the Swedes on their tactic.

Edited by ataman - 10-Jan-2007 at 07:43

Pikeshot1600, can you quote Hepburn's description?

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Originally posted by ataman Pikeshot1600, can you quote Hepburn's description?   I'll try to find the exact wording.  It is one of those "you know you read it, but you are not sure where."   Maybe one of the Swedish forumers has it right to hand.

Hello everyone.

ataman, I have been reading everything you have written, and you're are not going to intimidate me, albeit in a 'mild' manner, with your nationalistic conviction. You want to act tough? You've been doing that since our 1st correspondence. Soory, but that's the feeling I'm getting here, even though I should remember where we are.

You say 'Swedish propoganda', as if you are the just voice? I say much Polish propoganda on you part. How's that? Sikora and you mention 'credible' sources - sources not being followed by historians? Credible because you say so? OK, I guess that's etched in stone, huh? Historians like Michael Roberts are inept. Let's start all over! I'm sorry, but I don't care how much you exude all your 'information' and knowledge of what you've been told by your people, you have convinced me of almost nothing with your elaborate breakdowns and self-proclaimed refuttals (via connotation) of my comments. I'm the one who stresses 'point of view', and 'bias' from both sides, not you. I read that your ancestry was involved in the war. Good, that's a source of strong pride, but also the most powerful impetus which induces unilateral subjectivity. Don't even try to deny that. Well, go ahead. You go on of how who was the credible source and who wasn't to too much of a degree of incontrovertible assurety. You do not know for sure; nobody does.

Now, my anger is probably good fodder for one to say, 'Spartan is angry because he is being proven wrong". Nope - I'm just too nice sometimes, and I don't like being condescended. Of course, in such disagreements the one accused of bias and condescension thinks they are simply the correct one.

I was indeed mistaken about the Cossack cavalry - a mistake I edited elsewhere before I saw your rancor here on AE (I am constantly re-edited things here and there in the article on paradox and twc): the name simply was changed to pancerni to distinguish the ethnic Cossack rebellions in 1648 or so. It's difficult to procure accurate information about Polish history at this time, as so much of it is obscure and seemingly not in complete accordance with varying accounts. I am hardly ashamed to admit that mistake.

Zygmunt III never had Sweden, nor were any of his claims for it better than dust in the wind, in my opinion. Being that Sweden was about 1/4 century away from being an 'elective kingdom', there were literally dozens of people that had either a better claim or a better chance to become king if not for the one who actually already was. His beliefs as the legitimate king of Sweden were understandable, and his invading army (look up what 'incursion' means) at the battle of Stangebro may not have so much a Polish army as that of one composed of his loyal followers among the Swedish and Finnish nobility, but his crossing into Sweden was an incursion against his uncle. As far as the rebellious Erik was concerned, protestant Sweden could not have a Catholic king, particularly one who advocated counterreformation. Zygmunt lost much support, then arrived in Kalmer with a fleet from across the Baltic - an incursion.

I have pulled nothing out of the air to purposely offend Poland etc., and you will have to disprove what you vehemently question, not the other way around, such as Hepburn's memoirs, which are supported by Robert Munro.

pikeshot, try googling on 'George A. Henty on Hepburn', or something like that. He wrote about this war, and although he also wrote fiction (Polish posters and Gustavus detractors will certainly jump on that issue to discredit his writings of Gniew etc.), he was also a war correspondent in the 19th century. His accounts make use of memoirs from the Scottish mercenaries. But he's not a primary source.

Gustavus couldn't defeat 2,000 of the enemy when armed with 15,000 of his own? Whatever the 'situation', who do you think you're fooling??

All history is a story, so to speak, and we can never totally disprove anyone else. We are not splicing DNA here! But again, you've convinced me of nothing (nothing personal), and you're assiduous quest seems to be one of patriotism, not out of an avocational interest in history, as is the case with me.

It would be a waste of time to counter all your counters, but it doesn;t matter what you intricately offer, it's all not irrefutable. What is? Call me a coward all you want.

ataman and Majkes and everyone else, please, trust me, I am fully aware the Swedes are hardly innocent when it comes to the coloring of this conflict to favor their cause: there is no doubt that Swedish cavalry companies and/or their reiter allies, if caught out in the open by the husaria, without support from significant musketry fire, they were run roughshed over! That was part of Gustavus' apprenticeship, but my amateurish extrapolations simply concur more with them than the Polish view. I actually wish I didn't care about any of this! But thanks for taking the time.

Thanks, Spartan

Edited by Spartan - 20-Jan-2007 at 17:04