Originally posted by TJK
Oh really? I see that if some historian writes something against your opinion, he is not credible. |
Well, this is just obvoius that books from the Historical battles series are just popular works |
They are not just popular works. They are popularized-scientific works.
Originally posted by TJK
and with few exeptions (works of Nadolski, Nagielski, Wagner, Długołęcki Plewczyński and some few more) authors base not on their own examintaion of primary and secondary sources but on the other elaborations. |
TJK, you shouldn't blame Skworoda for lack of his own examinations / researches. You can read the last sentence of the introduction to his book to convince oneself that Skoroda has done his own resarches. Moreover Skworoda is the only one historian who has claimed that there were 3 companies of dragoons (and called them). It shows that he has not copied old elaborations but he has said something new.
Originally posted by TJK
I like Skworoda books but as well "Warka-Gniezno" as "Hammerstein" could not be desribed as newest scientific elaboration. |
'Hammerstein' and 'Warka-Gniezno' are different stories. AFAIK the book 'Warka-Gniezno' (meaning this book with the description of the battle of Kłeck) is a popularized version of Skworoda's thesis.
Originally posted by TJK
Historians didnt write primary sources. |
and therefore I can't find any reason to believe more Wimmer or Nowak who didn't write which primary sources prove their statements than Skworoda (who also didn't write it, but at least his elaboration is newer than Nowak's one)
Originally posted by TJK
...and look to the Polish Warfare Traditions vol. 1 under redaction of Janusz Sikorski page 340 Czarniecki and Lubomirski have 15 thousand soldiers including 1000 dragons, rest cavalry including 5 thousandn general noble levy. |
Originally posted by TJK
...and I belive much more in elaboration of prof. Wiesław Majewski (in above mentioned Polish Warfare Traditions) |
TJK, forgive me, but I have to say this - you have a very strange criterions of credibility. Sikorski's (Majewski's) book is a 100% popular book and (opposite to Skworoda's book) there isn't even 1 footnote which explains what are sources of particular statements. And this book is more reliable for you than Skworoda's book?
Originally posted by TJK
Do you know what does a distance mean? Do you know what was a distance between Royal or Witkowski pulks and for example Balaban's pulk? Do you know how long time Royal pulk and Douglas soldiers fought? I'm sure you don't know, because nodoby knows this. But you can see that it was important to which pulk dragoons belonged. It is important if they cooperated with other pulk, because they could support other pulk (and therefore didn't support Royal pulk) or they could be too far from Royal/Witkowski pulks to be in time to help Royal/Witkowski pulks. |
This is not the case if the dragons were to far to support Czarniecki regiments. The questions is why he (Czarniecki) havent get with him the dragons to support the cavalry attack. My answer is he belived much more in impectic cavalry attack (probably form the time of battle of Kumeyki) and he didnt appreciate in this time the fire support which can be given to the cavalry attack by dragons. |
My answer is different than you.
-
If there were Polish dragoons in the battle (which might be not true, because neither me nor you know any primary source which confirms their presence)
-
and if they could support Royal pulk (which might be not true, because in the same time they could support other Polish cavalry we simply don't know what they did, because any source writes about them),
-
and if dragoons indeed didn't support Royal pulk (again, we don't know what they did, because any source writes about it)
Czarniecki's decision to attack the Swedes without a support of dragoons (if he really ordered this :)) might be explained much simpler than your explanation. Czarniecki didn't know that there was a ditch which prevented Polish cavalry to destroy Swedish dragoons. He could believe that there is no obstacle and therefore Polish charges should be enough to destroy enemy.
When Czarniecki recognized that hussars couldn't defeat Swedish dragoons protected by the trench (or rather - if Czarniecki recognized this at all, because we don't know this), maybe he wanted to use dragoons, but if dragoons were too far, Czarniecki couldn't do it.
And therefore it is important where in reality dragoons were during this battle (if they were in this battle :)).
Originally posted by TJK
Absolutly improbable? Well, it is just your opinion. If this phase of the battle is described so well, why only 1 source writes about the ditch? It was written only by a hussar who participated in charges on Swedes. The Swedes didn't write about the ditch. Other Poles (who didn't participate in this fighting) also didn't write about it. So, if authors weren't Polish dragoons, why you are so absolutly certain that these sources should write about them?
Even if this phase of fighting is described most detailed, it doesn't mean that we know all details of this fighting. In fact these descriptions are very short and far from perfection. |
According this logic we dont know if any light banners have take part in the battle.. |
According to this logic, we know that there were light banners in the battle, because (for example) Jemiołowski wrote about them (BTW, Jemiołowski was a comrade of a light cavalry and participated in the battle).
Originally posted by TJK
Lack of information about ditch can expalined easy - just other participants of battle havent see this as the important factor. |
Or they didn't see this trench (authors of these sources could be too far from this place), or they didn't want to write (I'm thinking about Swedes) that it wasn't their bravery but a banal trench which stopped Polish hussars. We can find many reasons.
Originally posted by TJK
Presence and fire support of dragons would be noted with sure (even if it would be only 300 dragons). |
Again - this is just your opinion. There are many posibilites including this one, that the presence of dragoons wasn't enough important for soldiers to write about them, or that they (I mean authors of known primary sources) simply forget about dragoons. Therefore I wonder why you are so certain and why you use as qualifications as 'absolutly improbable'.
Originally posted by TJK
Whole this discussion is funny you call the popular work as newest scientific elaboration |
Read my reply above.
Originally posted by TJK
then you write modern historian are less reliable than primary (narrative ) sources |
I have to protest again. I have written:
'If they (modern historians) are against opinion of the hussar who fought in this place, yes they are not reliable. Kochowski knew the best why his unit couldn't reach swedish dragoons'
So, I have not claim that 'modern historian are less reliable than primary (narrative ) sources'. I've pointed out that in this particular case, Kochowski is the most credible source of information. Why? Because he participated in this fighting which he described.
Originally posted by TJK
and claim that every primary source give the same reason of defeat as Kochowski (ditch) |
I have to protest again. I haven't claim that 'every primary source give the same reason of defeat as Kochowski'. You (again :() got me wrong. I have written:
'What is not true?
We were talking about reasons of the failure of Polish cavalry which attacked Swedish dragoons. It is not true that Czarniecki's or Jamiołowski's opinion about this failure is other than Kochowski's one.'
I haven't write Czarniecki and Jamiołowski wrote the same reason than Kochowski. I have written that it is not true that they wrote other reasons than Kochowski. It is a big difference.
IMO, neither Jemiołowski nor Czarniecki wrote reasons of a failure of this hussars who charged Swedish dragoons. Check sources. Czarniecki's letter to the king is having more than one meaning. I am not certain (and I believe nodoby can be certain) if Czarniecki thought about this phase of the battle when he wrote 'Byśmy byli armaty co a piechoty mieli, albo też żeby był Pan Bg według planu mego umyśloną poszczęścił imprezę, uczyniłby się był nieprzyjacielowi koniec'. As you can see, Czarniecki wrote about the battle in general he didn't write about any particular event / phase. We can only speculate what he meant.
Moreover, look at this sentence 'Byśmy byli armaty co a piechoty mieli'. It might indicate that there weren't dragoons in the battle at all. In the other case, Czarniecki could write 'byśmy byli armaty co a piechoty WIĘCEJ mieli'. I know, it is just speculation, but I'd like to point out that this source might be interpret in many diferent ways.
As far as Jemiołowski's relation is concerned. Jemiołowski describes a sequence of events, but he doesn't writes why charges of Polish hussars failed. Literally he writes:
'Ale kiedy zaś insze pułki od piechoty i armaty szwedzkiej ustępować musiały [...]'
which might be translated in this way:
'But when other pułks had to withdraw [why they had to withdraw? Jemiołowski doesn't explain] from Swedish infantry and cannons [...]'
Therefore, IMHO, it is not true that Jemiołowski writes other reasons than Kochowski. Jemiołowski simply doesn't write reasons of failure of hussars charges. Only Kochowski writes about it.
Originally posted by TJK
and then in next sentce you admit that dich is only in Kochowski memories..really funny. |
Read my explanation above.
Originally posted by TJK
I've shown you mistakes in your argumentation and I've asked you about an explanation. And what is your reply? You want proofs from me of something which I have never written.
I have to ask again. You claimed that this battle is the example that 'the way they [Czarniecki and Lubomirski] command the combined arms was a little obsolete'. If so, you have to prove that:
1. there were Polish dragoons in that battle
2. they could support Royal or Witkowski's pulk
3. they didn't do it
|
1. Wimmer few companies, Skworoda - 3 companies, Majewski - 1000 dragons
2. They could if Czarniceki would include them in the attacking group
3. No source gives note about fire support
|
-
And we don't know any primary source which confirms this
-
there are too many other posibilites (I have written about them above) to say that they indeed could do it
-
again there are too many other posibilites to be certain that they did or didn't do anything in the battle.
Everything what we have are our speculations. But if we have only speculations, you can't say that 'the way they [Czarniecki and Lubomirski] command the combined arms [in the battle of Kłeck] was a little obsolete'. We don't know if it was obsolete or modern, because we don't know even basic facts.
Originally posted by TJK
Your reply answers only one my question. Can you answer also this question
'and this was the newest model of cooperation between dragoons / infantry and cavalry in the time of Lubomirski and Czarniecki? |
Yes!' |
Ok, so now, can you answer my other questions?
-
what was elder model of cooperation between dragoons / infantry and cavalry?
-
When this new model of cooperation was introduced to Polish and Swedish army?
Originally posted by TJK
What is not true?
We were talking about reasons of the failure of Polish cavalry which attacked Swedish dragoons. It is not true that Czarniecki's or Jamiołowski's opinion about this failure is other than Kochowski's one. |
You obiusly didnt know this sources. Kochowski have indicated the ditch, Czarniecki write about lack of artillery and infantry, Jemiołowski about lack of artillery and quarrel between Lubomirski and Czarniecki. |
Well, I have already explained it above. As you can see, I know these sources :). BTW, Jemiołowski writes about lack of artillery and about a quarrel between Czarniecki and Lubomirski to explain the outcome of the battle. As you remember, we were talking not about the outcome of the battle, but about the reason of the failure of Polish cavalry who charged Swedish dragoons. These are 2 different things.
Originally posted by TJK
Realibilyty of narrative source and its critical analyse this is matter which you can learn on the first year of historical eductation, it is clear for me you know nothing about it. |
Don't worry - I am not offended :). As I have written twice I really don't want to lead this discussion into a flame war. I'd like to discuss, not fight. I hope, you want this too.
Originally posted by TJK
And this is next your statement which I can't agree. The Poles weren't defeated by the trench. The Poles were stopped by the trench. It might be called a failure (niepowodzenie). |
I was sure it is your statement. |
So you got me wrong. But it is not important. It is important that I don't think that every failure (meaning a lack of success in doing something) might be called 'a defeat' (meaning a victory over someone in a fight). And this was my point in this sentence above. Charges of Polish hussars were a failure, because they were stopped by the trench. Hussars weren't defeated they withdraw in a good order.
Originally posted by TJK
It's great that you use Wimmer and Nowak works. My opinion is based on Nowak's 'Działania gen. Douglasa i bitwa pod Wojniczem (28 IX - 5 X 1655)' p.231-236 (in 'Wojna polsko-szwedzka 1655-1660'). |
Great. Are they more reliable in this case then Kochowski? |
In this particular case yes, they are more reliable. Why? Because AFAIK, Kochowski didn't participate in this battle.
Originally posted by TJK
I have reminded it, because we talk about Lubomirski and Czarniecki skill of command. They didn't command in the battle of Wojnicz and AFAIK nobody claims that Lanckoroński was as good commander as Lubomirski or Czarniecki. If you claim that 'Gołąb, Wojnicz, Klecko and Filipowo shows how Swedish army could win having small amount of infantry (or even only dragons) by coordination with cavalry.' you should remember that the outcome of the battle depends on many factors - including skill of command of commanders. |
Sure, I never claim the tactic was only reason. |
Great. So you should understand very well, that something might happen thanks to some factor or although some factor is present. I will explain it.
Usually there are many factors which decide about the outcom of a battle. For example the skill of command of commanders, morale of armies, their tactics, their weapon, the terrain of the battle, a disproportion of forces etc. etc. If sombody writes that some battle shows 'how Swedish army could win having small amount of infantry (or even only dragons) by coordination with cavalry', he should point out how this coordination led to victory. And if dragoons/infantry hadn't cooperated with cavalry in this battle, the outcome would have been other than was.
IMHO, the presence of Swedish infantry in the battle of Wojnicz wasn't necessary to win. If there had been Swedish cavalry insteed of infantry, the Swedes would have won this battle too.
I don't know if I write clear, so I will give you more extreme example.
Sombody can write:
'the battle of Wojnicz shows how Swedish cavalry ecquiped of rapiers could win with Polish hussars ecquiped of lances'
This sentence indicates that they were rapiers which decided about Swedish victory and that lances were worse than rapiers. But although the statement (that the Swedish cavalry had rapiers and won with Polish hussars ecquiped of lances) is true, it is not true that using of rapiers decided about Swedish victory and that lances were worse weapon than rapiers (for cavalry of course). Why?
Look that sombody else can write other true sentence:
'the battle of Wojnicz shows that although Swedish cavalry was ecquiped of rapiers, the Swedes won with Polish hussars ecquiped of lances.'
The statement (that the Swedish cavalry had rapiers and won with Polish hussars ecquiped of lances) is true, but this sentence above indicates other inferences than the previous sentence.
If sombody wants to know which weapon was better for cavalry and what decided about the outcome of the battle of Wojnicz, he must know also other factors than only an ecquipment of cavalry involved in the battle. Therefore I have reminded you who commanded in the battle and what was disproportion between hussars and these Swedes (including Swedish infantry) who defeated them.
Edited by ataman - 01-Jul-2006 at 23:53