Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

Create Article    Create EBook    Right to Left for Persian/Arabic    Historical Figures Rating     .....

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Polish Field Commanders - 17th century
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Poll Question: Which of these is the best commander?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
0 [0.00%]
17 [62.96%]
2 [7.41%]
2 [7.41%]
3 [11.11%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [11.11%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Polish Field Commanders - 17th century
    Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 02:38

Originally posted by TJK

Lubomirski together with Czarniecki were in first place the cavalry commanders, the way they command the combined arms was a little obsolete. Thus they were defeated by Swedish forces during the "Deluge" period..

What failures do you mean? 
Back to Top
Chrzanovia View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Chrzanovia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 15:27
What about Hetman Żłkiewski??? he abled to conquer Moscow... Even Napoleon and Hitler didn't abled to conquer Moscow... :)
My English is bad :(
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2006 at 02:06
Originally posted by Chrzanovia

What about Hetman Żłkiewski??? he abled to conquer Moscow... Even Napoleon and Hitler didn't abled to conquer Moscow... :)
 
Chrzanovia,
 
Żłkiewski was a good commander, but he died (was killed) in 1620. This thread is about late 17th c. commanders, so Żłkiewski doesn't fit here.
 
pozdrawiam
ataman
Back to Top
Chrzanovia View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Chrzanovia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2006 at 03:35
[QUOTE=ataman][QUOTE=Chrzanovia]What about Hetman Żłkiewski??? he abled to conquer Moscow... Even Napoleon and Hitler didn't abled to conquer Moscow... :) [/QUOTE=Chrzanovia]
 
Chrzanovia,
 
Żłkiewski was a good commander, but he died (was killed) in 1620. This thread is about late 17th c. commanders, so Żłkiewski doesn't fit here.
 
pozdrawiam
ataman
[/QUOTE=ataman]

OK. Thanks Smile


Edited by Chrzanovia - 24-Jun-2006 at 03:37
My English is bad :(
Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368 		  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 04:32
Originally posted by ataman

Originally posted by TJK

Lubomirski together with Czarniecki were in first place the cavalry commanders, the way they command the combined arms was a little obsolete. Thus they were defeated by Swedish forces during the "Deluge" period..

What failures do you mean? 

 
failures ? You mean probably defeats -  Gołąb, Kłecko and Kcynia 1656


Edited by TJK - 27-Jun-2006 at 04:34
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 13:19
Originally posted by TJK

Originally posted by ataman

Originally posted by TJK

Lubomirski together with Czarniecki were in first place the cavalry commanders, the way they command the combined arms was a little obsolete. Thus they were defeated by Swedish forces during the "Deluge" period..

What failures do you mean? 

 
failures ? You mean probably defeats -  Gołąb, Kłecko and Kcynia 1656
 
TJK, I agree that the Poles lost these battles, but I don't agree that they lost them because 'the way they command the combined arms was a little obsolete'. In fact Polish army in these battles consisted almost only cavalry. There were no Polish infantry and artillery in these battes. There were only cavalry and very few dragoons.


Edited by ataman - 27-Jun-2006 at 13:21
Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368 		  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jun-2006 at 17:09
TJK, I agree that the Poles lost these battles, but I don't agree that they lost them because 'the way they command the combined arms was a little obsolete'. In fact Polish army in these battles consisted almost only cavalry. There were no Polish infantry and artillery in these battes. There were only cavalry and very few dragoons.
 
..and Swedes have field the hughe numbers of infantry and artillery in this battles ;) ? Only polish wins in open filed battles during Deluge were battles of Warka and Prostki where (in both cases)  Poles have outnumbered Swedes more then 2 times. During battles of Voynich Poles have slightly bigger army and the numbers of dragoons was equal, at  Warsaw Poles outnumbered Swedes more then 2 times and the number of infantry was nearly equal...
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 02:40
TJK, you said that 'Lubomirski together with Czarniecki were in first place the cavalry commanders, the way they command the combined arms was a little obsolete.'
Neither Lubomirski nor Czarniecki commanded in the battle of Wojnicz and Warszawa. Neither Lubomirski nor Czarniecki had combined arms at Gołąb, Klecko and Kcynia. Therefore I don't agree that these 5 battles prove that 'the way they command the combined arms was a little obsolete.' 
 
Originally posted by TJK

 
..and Swedes have field the hughe numbers of infantry and artillery in this battles ;) ?
 
Have I ever written about that? You're trying to discuss with something that I have never writtenConfused.
 

BTW. 

TJK, I'd like to explain that I agree with your opinion that Sobieski was the best Polish commander in the second half of 17th c. I've also voted for him.
I was only wonder what do you mean by the statement that the way Czarniecki and Lubomirski commanded combined arms was a little obsolete (and 'Thus they were defeated by Swedish forces during the "Deluge" period').


Edited by ataman - 28-Jun-2006 at 04:04
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
AE Editor & Pet Platypus

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4705 		  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 08:41
Wait, no need for a post war...
 
I ask now, what is the point of dragons in battles. They are supposed to be mounted infantry, correct? But do they dismount too? I have heard of dragon charges and that means they attack on mounts. So it is the way commander says or specific dragon units train for mounted and others for dismounted combat being still possible to do both...
 
And I know the correct spelling is Dragoons, dragons is so much... cooler for me..
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 10:24
Originally posted by rider

Wait, no need for a post war...
 
War? I have no intention to begin any war. If my posts are too sharp, I'd llike to apologise. I hope nobody is offended.
 
 
Originally posted by rider

I ask now, what is the point of dragons in battles. They are supposed to be mounted infantry, correct? But do they dismount too? I have heard of dragon charges and that means they attack on mounts. So it is the way commander says or specific dragon units train for mounted and others for dismounted combat being still possible to do both...
 
And I know the correct spelling is Dragoons, dragons is so much... cooler for me..
 
Well, Polish dragoons (dragoni in Polish) were usually used as a infantry (I'm talking about 17th c.).
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
AE Editor & Pet Platypus

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4705 		  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 14:03
Hmm, in Deluge (the book) Sienkiewicz described them charging... I believe it was in the Deluge.. in one of Sienkiewicz's novels it was. Did he make a mistake?
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 15:49
Originally posted by rider

Hmm, in Deluge (the book) Sienkiewicz described them charging... I believe it was in the Deluge.. in one of Sienkiewicz's novels it was. Did he make a mistake?
 
Sienkiewicz was a good writer and had a great knowledge about 17th c., but he didn't know everything. IMHO his vision of dragoons was an effect of an influence of 18th c., when dragoons were most of all a cavalry.
Opposite to 18th c., Polish dragoons in 17th c. were most of all an infantry. I know many examples that they fought dismounted but only 1 evidence that they fought mounted in 17th c.
Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368 		  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2006 at 16:00
Neither Lubomirski nor Czarniecki commanded in the battle of Wojnicz and Warszawa. Neither Lubomirski nor Czarniecki had combined arms at Gołąb, Klecko and Kcynia. Therefore I don't agree that these 5 battles prove that 'the way they command the combined arms was a little obsolete.' 
 
During battle of Klecko polish army (commanded by Czarniecki and Lubomirski) inlude few dragons companies. What was the way of using this units ? Have they use dragons (as Swedes) to support cavalry charges ? Lack of fire support led to the failure of Czarniecki's cavalry charges on Douglas units (on right Swedish wing).
On the other hand examples of Gołąb, Wojnicz, Klecko and Filipowo shows how Swedish army could win having small amount of infantry (or even only dragons) by coordination with cavalry.  
 
Hmm, in Deluge (the book) Sienkiewicz described them charging... I believe it was in the Deluge.. in one of Sienkiewicz's novels it was. Did he make a mistake? 
Yes, in the end of XIX century polish XVII century warfare was not well known and what Sienkiewicz described as dragons was rather light banner.


Edited by TJK - 28-Jun-2006 at 16:19
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 01:19
Originally posted by TJK

 
During battle of Klecko polish army (commanded by Czarniecki and Lubomirski) inlude few dragons companies.
 
Yes, its true. I have already written about it.
But look at this - there were probably only 3 companies of dragoons, which might be about 300 dragoons. Polish cavalry at Kleck counted about 12 000. So Polish army at Kleck was composed of about 2.5% dragoons and 97,5% cavalry. It is difficult to say that it was combined army.
 
Originally posted by TJK

What was the way of using this units ? Have they use dragons (as Swedes) to support cavalry charges?
 
First of all - did the Swedes during 'the deluge' really use dragoons or infantry to support charging cavalry? AFAIK they used them only to support defending cavalry. Why? Because dismounted dragoons or an infantry isn't as fast as cavalry to can support a cavalry during a charge.
Second of all - this idea of a special detachments of musketeers which cooperated with cavalry isn't the best way of a cooperation between cavalry and dragoons / infantry. It could be easy copied by other armies, but AFAIK nodoby did it. And even the Swedes abandoned this kind of cooperation soon after GA (you can read more about advantages and disadventages of this tactic in Richard Brzezinski's Osprey about the Swedish army (nr 2 p.34).
So, IMHO the fact that in the battle of Kleck Polish dragoons didn't support charging Polish cavalry is rather natural. Czarniecki and Lubomirski planed to destroy Swedish army by suprise attacks of cavalry groups. In this case dismounted dragoons were too slow to can cooperate with Polish cavalry.
Why did the Poles lost this battle? IMHO because the synchornization between Polish cavalry groups failed.
 
Originally posted by TJK

Lack of fire support led to the failure of Czarniecki's cavalry charges on Douglas units (on right Swedish wing).
 
In the opinion of a hussar who participated in the fighting in this place, it wasn't a lack of fire support but it was a ditch which prevented Polish hussars to destroy Swedish musketeers.
 
Originally posted by TJK

On the other hand examples of Gołąb, Wojnicz, Klecko and Filipowo shows how Swedish army could win having small amount of infantry (or even only dragons) by coordination with cavalry.  
 
IMO these are not good examples. Look for example at the battle of Gołąb. Although Swedish dragoons cooperated with own cavalry, the charge of Polish hussars defeated both of them - dragoons and cavalry.
The Poles finally withdrew, but not because the Swedes used dragoons or infantry.


Edited by ataman - 29-Jun-2006 at 01:23
Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368 		  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 08:42
Yes, its true. I have already written about it.
But look at this - there were probably only 3 companies of dragoons, which might be about 300 dragoons. Polish cavalry at Kleck counted about 12 000. So Polish army at Kleck was composed of about 2.5% dragoons and 97,5% cavalry. It is difficult to say that it was combined army.
 
There is no source which could confirm your claim about 3 dragon companies, Nowak and Wimmer write about few dragon companies and int could be 3 as well as 7. Coordination between cavalry and infantry (dragons) could be achieved independently of proportion between cavalry and infantry. additionally in operation against Doulgas wing took part not whole 12 000 cavalry but only two regiments (Royal and Wiktowski's). 
 
First of all - did the Swedes during 'the deluge' really use dragoons or infantry to support charging cavalry? AFAIK they used them only to support defending cavalry.Why? Because dismounted dragoons or an infantry isn't as fast as cavalry to can support a cavalry during a charge.
It always the same model - cavalry charged, if unseccesfully - retreated  and giving the field for supporting fire of infantry (dragons) 
 
Second of all - this idea of a special detachments of musketeers which cooperated with cavalry isn't the best way of a cooperation between cavalry and dragoons / infantry. It could be easy copied by other armies, but AFAIK nodoby did it. And even the Swedes abandoned this kind of cooperation soon after GA (you can read more about advantages and disadventages of this tactic in Richard Brzezinski's Osprey about the Swedish army (nr 2 p.34).
I'm not talking about detachments of special muskeeter units - this were avoided in Swedish Army in the end of 30-year war. The role of this unts during Deluge were taken by dragons or smaller infantry brigades. Look articles of Lars Tresmeden in "Studia i Materiały do Historii Wojskowości" volume XIX -2 and XXI.
 
So, IMHO the fact that in the battle of Kleck Polish dragoons didn't support charging Polish cavalry is rather natural. Czarniecki and Lubomirski planed to destroy Swedish army by suprise attacks of cavalry groups. In this case dismounted dragoons were too slow to can cooperate with Polish cavalry.
Why did the Poles lost this battle? IMHO because the synchornization between Polish cavalry groups failed.
I'm not talking about participation of dragons in "amboush group". I'm talking about attack of 2 regiments under Czarniecki on right swedish wing (Douglas).  As for the reasons of polish defeat it could be listed many items: lack of coordination, lack of infantry and artillery, lack of discipline of ambush group, lack of support of Lubomirski etc..... Point I have raised is why this small amount of dragons were not used against units of Wittenberg and Berens. 
 
In the opinion of a hussar who participated in the fighting in this place, it wasn't a lack of fire support but it was a ditch which prevented Polish hussars to destroy Swedish musketeers.
 
Yep, this is opinion of Kochowski, Czarniecki have another opinion, Jemiołowski have another and modern warfare historians have antother one....
 
IMO these are not good examples. Look for example at the battle of Gołąb. Although Swedish dragoons cooperated with own cavalry, the charge of Polish hussars defeated both of them - dragoons and cavalry.
The Poles finally withdrew, but not because the Swedes used dragoons or infantry.

 
Aha..what about Wojnicz ?


Edited by TJK - 29-Jun-2006 at 10:17
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
AE Editor & Pet Platypus

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4705 		  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 10:15
Actually in  modern English few means 2 to 3.
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.
Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368 		  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 10:33

Actually in  modern English few means 2 to 3.

 
Polish word "kilka" (and this was used by polish historians) could means 3 as well as 7. The whole regiment of Czarniecki dragons have more than 500 soldiers and in Wielkopolska were also present in that time  some dragon units of Jacob Weyher. We simply don't know the exact copmosition of Czarniecki and Lubomirski group.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 13:54
Originally posted by TJK

There is no source which could confirm your claim about 3 dragon companies,
 
Do you mean primary or secondary source? If you think about primary source, I agree. Historians even aren't certain that there were dragoons in the Polish army in this battle (therefore I wonder why you claim that the battle of Kleck is an example that 'the way they [Czarniecki and Lubomirski] command the combined arms was a little obsolete'). All what we have is a speculation.
And now, if you claim that there is no secondary source, you are not right. The author of the newest elaboration of this battle (published in 2003) claims that there were probably 3 comapanies of Polish dragoons in this battle (Paweł Skoroda 'Warka-Gniezno 1656' p. 221. )
 
Originally posted by TJK

Nowak and Wimmer write about few dragon companies and int could be 3 as well as 7.
 
First of all. As I have already written historians even aren't certain that there were dragoons in the Polish army at Kleck.
Second of all - Nowak and Wimmer have written their elaborations years ago. I use the newest elaboration of this battle.
Third of all - they write about 'kilka' comapanies which fits to Skoroda's statement that there were probably 3 companies.
 
Originally posted by TJK

Coordination between cavalry and infantry (dragons) could be achieved independently of proportion between cavalry and infantry. additionally in operation against Doulgas wing took part not whole 12 000 cavalry but only two regiments (Royal and Wiktowski's). 
 
I agree with your first sentence. Coordination between cavalry and infantry (or dragoons) could be achieved independently of proportion between cavalry and infantry.
But:
1. We don't know if there were Polish dragoons in the Polish army at Kleck.
2. If they were in the Polish army at Kleck, we don't know to which pulk they belonged. If they didn't belong to the Royal or Witkowski's pulk, they could cooperate with other Polish cavalry and therefore they didn't support Royal and Witkowski's pulks
3. We don't know if they didn't support Royal and Witkowski's pulk. You claim that they didn't, but I'll give you another posibility.
If Polish dragoons participated in the battle. If they belonged to Royal or Witkowski's pulk. And if they cooperated with the cavalry of these pulks BUT any known source didn't write about this detail of the battle, you might think that they did nothing, while (in reality) they supported Polish cavalry.
 
Go back to begining of this discussion. 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
 
Originally posted by TJK

It always the same model - cavalry charged, if unseccesfully - retreated  and giving the field for supporting fire of infantry (dragons) 
 
And this is the newest model of cooperation between dragoons / infantry and cavalry  in the time of Luomirski and Czarniecki? And do you think that they didn't know and didn't use this kind of cooperation?
 
Originally posted by TJK

I'm not talking about detachments of special muskeeter units
 
Ok, I got you wrong.
 
Originally posted by TJK

Yep, this is opinion of Kochowski, Czarniecki have another opinion, Jemiołowski have another.
 
It's not true.
 
Originally posted by TJK

 
and modern warfare historians have antother one....
 
Modern historians...?
So, what do they claim? And why do you think that they are more reliable source than the member of this fighting?
 
Originally posted by TJK

 
Aha..what about Wojnicz ?
 
To remind - you've stated:
 
'On the other hand examples of Gołąb, Wojnicz, Klecko and Filipowo shows how Swedish army could win having small amount of infantry (or even only dragons) by coordination with cavalry.'
 
And what about Wojnicz? Do you know what was disproportion of forces between Wiśniowiecki's hussars and these Swedish dragoons and infantry and cavalry which attacked them? Even withouth dragoons and infantry these Swedes should defeat hussars.
And I have to remind again - neither Lubomirski nor Czarniecki commanded in this battle.
 


Edited by ataman - 29-Jun-2006 at 14:09
Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368 		  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2006 at 18:23

Do you mean primary or secondary source? If you think about primary source, I agree. Historians even aren't certain that there were dragoons in the Polish army in this battle (therefore I wonder why you claim that the battle of Kleck is an example that 'the way they [Czarniecki and Lubomirski] command the combined arms was a little obsolete'). All what we have is a speculation.

And now, if you claim that there is no secondary source, you are not right. The author of the newest elaboration of this battle (published in 2003) claims that there were probably 3 comapanies of Polish dragoons in this battle (Paweł Skoroda 'Warka-Gniezno 1656' p. 221. )

 

Skworodas book is not the source nor scientific elaboration. This is just popular book which however base on scientic works (as Wimmers Polish-Swedish war, aricles of Tresmeden and works of Nagielski). Composition of polish army at Kłecko given in the Appendix is however just vision of author without any scientific base. He probably correctly assume

the presence of Lubomirski 2 dragon freicompanies and newly founded unit of Zamoyski but he not consider the units ofJjacob Weyher which have operate in this period in Wielkopolska.  

 

First of all. As I have already written historians even aren't certain that there were dragoons in the Polish army at Kleck.

Which historians doubt about this ?

Second of all - Nowak and Wimmer have written their elaborations years ago. I use the newest elaboration of this battle.

Skworda book could not be even compared to the foundamental work about Deluge of Jan Wimmer redaction.

 

Third of all - they write about 'kilka' comapanies which fits to Skoroda's statement that there were probably 3 companies.

..and which fit also to my statement 3 to 7 companies.

 

 

 

 

I agree with your first sentence. Coordination between cavalry and infantry (or dragoons) could be achieved independently of proportion between cavalry and infantry.

But:

1. We don't know if there were Polish dragoons in the Polish army at Kleck.

2. If they were in the Polish army at Kleck, we don't know to which pulk they belonged. If they didn't belong to the Royal or Witkowski's pulk, they could cooperate with other Polish cavalry and therefore they didn't support Royal and Witkowski's pulks

3. We don't know if they didn't support Royal and Witkowski's pulk. You claim that they didn't, but I'll give you another posibility.

If Polish dragoons participated in the battle. If they belonged to Royal or Witkowski's pulk. And if they cooperated with the cavalry of these pulks BUT any known source didn't write about this detail of the battle, you might think that they did nothing, while (in reality) they supported Polish cavalry.

1.       Again which historian claim there werent ?

2.       This not the main factor polish regiments have not fixed copmositon and the units were often detached to antother regiment depending from the task. You have such example at Warka.

3.       This is absolutely improbable the phase of Czarniecki attack is described most detaily by at least 3 memories of polish soldiers (Kochowski, Łoś, Jemiołowski) and by 2 swedish soldiers (Dahlberg and Pufendorf), no one even mentioned about polish dragons

 

Go back to begining of this discussion. 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

Go back to the root of this discussion. I claim the Czarniecki and Lubomirski were mostly cavalry commanders and the way they command combined arms was a little obsolete. You deny this. You have to prove:

1.       They command combined arms in the battle

2.       They coordinte the different arms in the way used by western commanders

 

 

And this is the newest model of cooperation between dragoons / infantry and cavalry  in the time of Luomirski and Czarniecki? And do you think that they didn't know and didn't use this kind of cooperation?

Czarniecki used dragons during Warka battle. This was however one single volley, nothing more. Never used mixed formation of cavalry and infantry/dragons.

 

 

Originally posted by TJK

Yep, this is opinion of Kochowski, Czarniecki have another opinion, Jemiołowski have another.

 

It's not true.

 

What is not true ??? Read carefully your newest elaboration (pages 178-179).

 

 

Modern historians...?

So, what do they claim? And why do you think that they are more reliable source than the member of this fighting?

I see, they are just unreliable..so Poles have been defeated because of trench.

 

 

 

Originally posted by TJK

 

Aha..what about Wojnicz ?

 

To remind - you've stated:

 

'On the other hand examples of Gołąb, Wojnicz, Klecko and Filipowo shows how Swedish army could win having small amount of infantry (or even only dragons) by coordination with cavalry.'

And I confirm this once again.

 

And what about Wojnicz? Do you know what was disproportion of forces between Wiśniowiecki's hussars and these Swedish dragoons and infantry and cavalry which attacked them? Even withouth dragoons and infantry these Swedes should defeat hussars.

Please tell me, as I base on such unreliable polish scholars like Wimmer nad Nowak I could be misinformed.

 

And I have to remind again - neither Lubomirski nor Czarniecki commanded in this battle.

Hmm..maybe I havent noticed - somene here claim they have comanded ?
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 00:13
Originally posted by TJK

Skworodas book is not the source nor scientific elaboration.

 

 
Oh really? I see that if some historian writes something against your opinion, he is not credible.
 
Originally posted by TJK

He probably correctly assume the presence of Lubomirski 2 dragon freicompanies and newly founded unit of Zamoyski but he not consider the units ofJjacob Weyher which have operate in this period in Wielkopolska.  
 
 
Ok, so give me a primary source which confirms the presence of Jacob Weyher dragoons in the battle.

Originally posted by TJK

Which historians doubt about this ?

 

 
Every historian. If you don't believe, give me a primary source which confirms the participation of Polish dragoons in the battle.

Originally posted by TJK

Skworda book could not be even compared to the foundamental work about Deluge of Jan Wimmer redaction.

 

 
Skowroda knows Wimmer's works and if he writes something different than elder elaboration, he should have a good reason.

Originally posted by TJK

..and which fit also to my statement 3 to 7 companies.

 
Remember, that it was my reply to your statement that there is no source which confirms that there were probably 3 companies of Polish dragoons in the battle. I have pointed out this source (Skworoda's book).
And why only 3 not 7? Because I believe the historian, who has written the book about this battle, not you.

 

Originally posted by TJK

This not the main factor polish regiments have not fixed copmositon and the units were often detached to antother regiment depending from the task. You have such example at Warka.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by TJK

This is absolutely improbable the phase of Czarniecki attack is described most detaily by at least 3 memories of polish soldiers (Kochowski, Łoś, Jemiołowski) and by 2 swedish soldiers (Dahlberg and Pufendorf), no one even mentioned about polish dragons

 
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.
 
 
Originally posted by TJK

Go back to the root of this discussion. I claim the Czarniecki and Lubomirski were mostly cavalry commanders and the way they command combined arms was a little obsolete. You deny this. You have to prove:

1.       They command combined arms in the battle

2.       They coordinte the different arms in the way used by western commanders

 
It was funny :).
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
 
Originally posted by TJK

Czarniecki used dragons during Warka battle. This was however one single volley, nothing more. Never used mixed formation of cavalry and infantry/dragons.
 
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?'

 

 

Originally posted by TJK

What is not true???
 
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.
 
Originally posted by TJK

Read carefully your newest elaboration (pages 178-179). .
 
I know this elaboration very well. And I know these primary sources. Therefore I can write again - your statement ('Czarniecki have another opinion, Jemiołowski have another') is false.

 

Originally posted by TJK

I see, they are just unreliable...

 
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.
 
Originally posted by TJK

so Poles have been defeated because of trench
 
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).
 
 
Originally posted by TJK

Please tell me, as I base on such unreliable polish scholars like Wimmer nad Nowak I could be misinformed.
 
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').
 
Originally posted by TJK

 
Hmm..maybe I havent noticed - somene here claim they have comanded
 
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.


Edited by ataman - 30-Jun-2006 at 01:02
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a
Powered by Web Wiz Forums Free Express Edition
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.227 seconds.