The Battle of Lubieszow, 1577

 

Axeman, this description on that page is the summary of the Radoslaw Sikora's book 'Lubiesz�w 17 IV 1577'. I have this book, so I can write the answer to your question.

Sikora (basing on primary sources quoted in the book) explains this event in this way:

Hajduks shot to advanced landsknechts, but it didn't stop landsknechts. Then the captain of hajduks (Wadacz Michał) ordered to throw away arquebuses and to attack with sabres and axes. The first impact was suicidal for Hajduks. Almost 5 captains and 36 'dziesietnikow' (dziesietnik - a commander of unit of 10 soldiers - similar to Roman 'decurion'; dziesietniks were deployed in the first rank) were killed, while 1 captain and 3 dzisietniks were wounded. Hajduks in total had 600 soldiers, including 60 dziesietniks deployed in the first rank. As you can see about 66,6% of dziesietniks were killed and wounded! It was a slaughter of commanders. But thanks to dziesietniks (and captains) who absorbed the first impact, the hajduks of 2nd and next ranks could cut landsknechts' pikes. They did it. Hajduks (having sabres and axes) cut piks and 'charged' landsknechts. Finally the landsknechts were broken and defeated.

The total losses of hajduks were:

killed - 5 captains of hajduks, 36 dziesietniks and 0 (!) hajduks

wounded - 1 captain of hajduks, 3 dziesietniks and 74 hajduks.

 

To explain something - these haiduks were Hungarians. In 1577 Poland almost didn't have own infantry. Polish nobility prefered to serve in cavalry. Even the poorest Polish noble prefered to be a servant in cavalry than to be infantrymen.

The only one unit of infantry where Polish nobles served was created by Bathory (in 1580 if I remember), but it existed very short time.

Anyway, apart from nobles infantry Bathory created in Poland 'wybraniecka' infantry and reformed old Polish infantry. All these reforms were very important in Polish military history. Next reform of infantry was made by Wladyslaw IV Waza in early 1630's.

 

Axeman, have you already read this article

Originally posted by axeman 3)The reforms made by Waza - I know that he introduced more western style army formations - pikemen, musket as firearm, reiter cavalry, dragoons (did they fought as cavalry or they dismounted before the battle). Any comments on this would be valuable.

 

In 1629 (I mean in the last year of the war with Sweden; during Zygmunt III Waza's reign) Polish infantry consisted of 11 228 soldiers, including 8128 foreign infantry (72%). 

Wladyslaw IV Waza increased the proportion of foreign infantry to Polish-Hungarian one to about 84-86% (for example in 1633 there were 10 700 'foreign' infantrymen and only 1750 Polish-Hungarian ones). As you can see the change wasn't too significant, but...

Before Wladyslaw's reform these foreign infantry were true foreigners, while after his refom they had only name 'foreign'. In fact they were citizens of Commonwealth who were recruited to infantry modeled on foreign (German) model.

Another difference was, that before Wladyslaw's reform, foreign infantry hired by the Poles, didn't use piks at all (they were only musketeers). Since Wladyslaw's reign, 'foreign' infantry used also piks.

It might be also interesting, why Poland (since 1620's) became use more foreign infantry than old Polish-Hungarian one. For a long time historians claimed that Hungarian infantry was inferior to reformed by Gustaw Adolf Swedish infantry. And therefore Zygmunt III Waza (and later Wladyslaw IV Waza) hired Germans (or later - modeled Polish infantry on German model). But new theory claims something opposite. It wasn't any superiority of German infantry over Hungarian one (well, the battle of Lubiesz�w 1577 might be very good example that well trained Hungarian infantry was superior to German one). It was the shortage of Polish commanders who could train recruits. During Bathory's reign, they were Hungarians (from Transylwania) who trained new Polish infantry. But during the war with Sweden 1626-1629, Transylwania was in the enemy camp. Poland couldn't hire neither haiduks nor commanders from Transylwania. So the problem of the shortage of Polish infantry (and commanders who could train recruits) was resolved by hiring commanders and infantrymen from current ally - means from emparor's / German countries.

 

As far as reiter cavalry is concerned, it is not true that Wladyslaw introduced this kind of cavalry to Poland. Reiters were used in P-L Commonwealth also in Zygmunt's time. For example in the battle of Kircholm 1605, Chodkiewicz's army was supported by 300 Courland reiters.

It is also not true that Wladyslaw introduced dragoons to Polish army. They were used (in significant amount) at least since the war with Sweden 1626-1629. 

In Poland dragoons were only mounted infantry. They didn't need to fight like cavalry, because Poland had enough other (and better) types of cavalry.

But apart from infantry, Wladyslaw reformed Polish artillery. Few people know that thanks to Wladyslaw IV Waza Poland introduced regimental artillery 3 years after Sweden.

 

Here you are Polish infantry in the battle of Orsza 1514

 

 

 and next picture of Polish infantry in the battle of Orsza 1514 (during fighting)

 

 

I'm affraid my opinion is a little different. I agree that a war played important role into the Polish social structure (especially in 17th c., which was almost a permanent war. Opposite to 17th c., 16th c. was much more peaceful). But look at this - Poland in early 16th was involved in war against Teutonic Order, which represented Western art of war. In the period 1577-1620 Polish army also fought with Western armies. But the battles of: Lubiesz�w 1577, Byczyna 1588, Kircholm 1605 or Kłuszyn 1610 shows that Polish army and Polish art of war was superior to Western ones - if only Western armies fought in the open field. Polish army didn't need more infantry and Polish infantry didn't need pikes to win with superior in number Western enemies. The real problem for Poland became in this time, when enemies became avoid open fields battles. In this situation, Polish cavalry couldn't decide about the outcome of a war. Infantry was necessary to siege and to attack fortified enemy.

As you can see, usefulness of infantry and cavalry was depended only on tactic of an enemy. But it wasn't depended on kind of enemy. The same problem Polish army had against Gustaw Adolf's army (who avoided open field battles) and against Cossacks, who prefered to fight behind tabor or behind other obstacle.