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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Polish Field Commanders - 17th century

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
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
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 367
  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Polish Field Commanders - 17th century
    Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 08:05

 

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 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. I like Skworoda books but as well "Warka-Gniezno" as "Hammerstein" could not be desribed as newest  scientific elaboration.

 

 

Ok, so give me a primary source which confirms the presence of Jacob Weyher dragoons in the battle.

Ok, give me any primary source which confirm dragons units given by Skworoda.

 

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

Historians didnt write primary sources. Give me the names of historians, title of works and page where modern scholars give the statement that presence of polish dragons is doubfull.

..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.

 

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

Yes, if he made his own examintaion of sources (not only relation from battlefield but also reports, Juristic books etc.), however he didnt at least he didnt mentioned any own examintaion just putted the units which seems to him probable.

 

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.

 

..and I belive much more in elaboration of prof. Wiesław Majewski  (in above mentioned Polish Warfare Traditions)

 

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.

 

 

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.. Lack of information about ditch can expalined easy  - just other participants of battle havent see this as the important factor. Presence nad fire support of dragons would be noted with sure (even if it would be only 300 dragons).

 

 

 

It was funny :).

Whole this discussion is funny you call the popular work  as newest scientific elaboration  then you write modern historian are less reliable than primary (narrative ) sources and claim that every primary source give the same reason of defeat as Kochowski  (ditch) and then in next sentce you admit that dich is only in Kochowski memories..really 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

 

 

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

4.        

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!'

 

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.

 

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.

 

Nonsense.

 

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.

 

1)      Kochowski didnt write clearly about dragons. Regarding dragons is sentce before this prove you dont know this source.

2)      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.

 

 

 

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. Kochowski indictae this as the main reason Poles couldnt break through right swedish wing.

 

  

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 ?

 

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.

 
PS. I have to suspend this "nice" discussion as I go for holiday this night. So I could answer after 10th July.
 


Edited by TJK - 30-Jun-2006 at 09:14
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 11:54
Originally posted by TJK

 

PS. I have to suspend this "nice" discussion as I go for holiday this night. So I could answer after 10th July. 

 
TJK, I will write a reply later. By now, I'd like to wish you a good time (and a good weather). Belive me or not, but I really don't want to lead this discussion into a flame war.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2006 at 15:31
but please return TJk, we missed you here and your input is very welcome! :)
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 02:18

Where did you go you might tell us that too?

 
In the mean time, Ataman, could you provide me with clearer understanding of the basics of "arguement". I can get it that you must use different sources and then you are backing them with modern sources?
 
And I must clearly add, that if modern sources base on the evidence found in the west about dragoons and their use then in Poland, (where at that time, cavalry was much more effective) may have been different...
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jul-2006 at 23:28
 

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

It was funny :).


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


  1. And we don't know any primary source which confirms this

  2. there are too many other posibilites (I have written about them above) to say that they indeed could do it

  3. 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?

  1. what was elder model of cooperation between dragoons / infantry and cavalry?

  2. 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
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 00:13
Originally posted by rider

In the mean time, Ataman, could you provide me with clearer understanding of the basics of "arguement". I can get it that you must use different sources and then you are backing them with modern sources?

 
And I must clearly add, that if modern sources base on the evidence found in the west about dragoons and their use then in Poland, (where at that time, cavalry was much more effective) may have been different...
 
Rider, I am confused. What's the matter? I don't understand what exactly you ask about Unhappy.
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 02:05
The important question is that if a modern scholar has found out if there was a difference in the West or in Poland in using dragons.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2006 at 12:15
Originally posted by rider

The important question is that if a modern scholar has found out if there was a difference in the West or in Poland in using dragons.
 
I think that for modern historians (these ones who know Polish and 'Western' military history) these facts are known.


Edited by ataman - 02-Jul-2006 at 12:16
Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 367
  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 07:29

 

TJK, I will write a reply later. By now, I'd like to wish you a good time (and a good weather). Belive me or not, but I really don't want to lead this discussion into a flame war

Thanks, I think we could continue the discussion without this kind of emotions. Smile
 
but please return TJk, we missed you here and your input is very welcome! :)
 
Thanks Temujin, my son is now 1 year old so I belive I will have a little more time than in last several months Big smile 
 

They are not just popular works. They are popularized-scientific works.

I agree.

 

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.

Some reaseraches have been done - this book is just extension of Skworoda article in Studia i Materiały do Historii Wojskowości vol.  XLI 2004. Regarding 3 companies of dragons Skworoda just copied it from the Zdzisiław Spieralski book Stefan Czarniecki who indicate the 3 dragons companies during battle of Warka, and in this field I dont see any analyze of sources also regarding the possiblity of presence the pomorian  dragon units as well regarding the Czarniecki own dragon regiment under col. Wąsowicz  ( thanks to the analyze of Adam Kersten we know that during battle of Warka this regiment -or its bigger part- have stationed in Pogrze but we dont know when it have join the Czarniecki forces Spieralski indicate the presence of this regiment at Uniejw about 20th of May (...and Kochowski indicte presence of this unit during battle of Warka look page 156).

 

'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.

Still I have doubt about calling the Warka-Gniezno as the newest scientific elaboration and comparing it with Wimmer& Nowak&Teodorczyk&Herbst&Podhorodecki common work.

 

 

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)

Because if there is no direct confirmation it more safety to not define exact quantitiy of tne units. This is also the diifiference between real scientific works and popularscientic book where in latter case the authors could more easily made their own assumption without justification. 

 

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?

You are right, but for me Wiesław Majewski is much more credibile historian that Paweł Skworoda. I see him (W. Majewski) as the best polish warfare historian of XVII century to whom only Jan Wimmer could be compared.

 

My answer is different than you.

o        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)

o        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),

o        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 :)).

 

I can just agree ..that we disagree Smile 

First I (follow the all modern historians) assume there were present some polish dragon units (not sure how many), second there were the possiblity to using this units by Czarniecki independently to which regiment they belongst (as at Warka) and third the trench was not the decisive factor at least in the 1st pahase of Czarniecki attack it were swedish dragons in the forest what stopped the first attack.

 

 

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.

 

But Im talking about polish authors and I would like to underline again that even in Kochowki realtion the ditch is indicated as the reason of failure the charges in the end phase (earlier the dragons in the forest have stopped the charges)

 

 

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'.

 

Not only mine..also Skworoda  :) ( page 174) .. in addition polish cavalry have charged without own fire support 

 

 

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.

 

Look the descrption of whole battle by Kochowski... didnt you see many mistakes ? Where are the ambush group ? His descrption regards only very small sector of battlefield and in fact the ditch could be also seen as obstacle which prevent the charge of one or two banners.

 

1.      And we don't know any primary source which confirms this

2.      there are too many other posibilites (I have written about them above) to say that they indeed could do it

3.      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.

 

I should expalin this a little more... when I have (several months ago) wrote about Lubomirski and Czarnicki  as a mainly cavalry commanders and their style of command of combined arms as obsolete, I havent in the mind any particular battle..just it was indictaions that this polish commanders never used infantry&dragons&artillery in the way of their swedish opponents. Next when you ask the question about defeats of Lubomirski and Czarniecki I simply gave you the list of defeats sufferd by them from swedish army and not as the examples of obsolete style of command of combined arms...

 

Ok, so now, can you answer my other questions?

1.      what was elder model of cooperation between dragoons / infantry and cavalry?

2.      When this new model of cooperation was introduced to Polish and Swedish army?

 

1. Way of using dragons&infantry in the battlefield by polish commanders in the Ist half of XVII century was more static. They have been used mostly to protect the wings or rear of cavalry and not with manouvre with mixed squadrons with cavalry.

2.  In the swedish army it was introduced by Gustaw Adolf and the first exaple is AFAIR battle of Gniew. In the polish army this kind of using infantry and cavalry you can find in the center of polish army at Beresteczko.

 

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.

Yeah, exatcly Im glad we can discuss without turning this into flame war :)

 

 

In this particular case yes, they are more reliable. Why? Because AFAIK, Kochowski didn't participate in this battle.

Kochowski have take part in that battle - look page 361 and 362 (comments of Adam Kersten)

 

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.

 

Sorry, but I tend to disagree. It is obvious that it could be listed many factors of swedish victory (but not the rapiers of course Wink): discipline, tactic, grerat comander etc. however the fire of dragons/musketeers have stopped sucessfull hussars in the center withou the time wined by this unit, poles could attack one of swedish wing which was (both) in still in fight with polish cavalry. i see this as one of the decisive factors.  

 



 

 



Edited by TJK - 10-Jul-2006 at 08:45
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 10:44
 

TJK, I hope you had a great holidays. Good to see you again in the group.

Originally posted by TJK

I should expalin this a little more... when I have (several months ago) wrote about Lubomirski and Czarnicki  as a mainly cavalry commanders and their style of command of combined arms as obsolete, I havent in the mind any particular battle..just it was indictaions that this polish commanders never used infantry&dragons&artillery in the way of their swedish opponents. Next when you ask the question about defeats of Lubomirski and Czarniecki I simply gave you the list of defeats sufferd by them from swedish army and not as the examples of obsolete style of command of combined arms...


So I got you wrong :(. If I had known it earlier, this discussion about Kłeck wouldn't have taken place. And I think that there is no reason to talk about this battle any more. Instead of this I suggest talking more about a cooperation between dragoons/infantry and cavalry. Do you agree? If so, look below.


Originally posted by TJK

Way of using dragons&infantry in the battlefield by polish commanders in the Ist half of XVII century was more static. They have been used mostly to protect the wings or rear of cavalry and not with manouvre with mixed squadrons with cavalry.

In the swedish army it was introduced by Gustaw Adolf and the first exaple is AFAIR battle of Gniew. In the polish army this kind of using infantry and cavalry you can find in the center of polish army at Beresteczko.

Konstanty Grski in his 'Historia kawalerii polskiej' criticizes this Swedish manner of cooperation between cavalry and infantry (TJK, I am certain that you know Grski, but other members of this forum might not. So I'd like to explain that Grski was a cavalry officer and a historian). So, here is my question was this manner of cooperation really better than the Polish one, or was it only better for the Swedes, who having worse cavalry than the Poles (I'm writing about the time of GA), tried to protect their poor cavalry in this way. Look that in the 18th c. Swedish army of Karol XII used other manner of cooperation between cavalry and infantry. But in that time Swedish cavalry was as good as the Polish one (or better).

Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 367
  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 05:41

Konstanty Grski in his 'Historia kawalerii polskiej' criticizes this Swedish manner of cooperation between cavalry and infantry (TJK, I am certain that you know Grski, but other members of this forum might not. So I'd like to explain that Grski was a cavalry officer and a historian). So, here is my question was this manner of cooperation really better than the Polish one, or was it only better for the Swedes, who having worse cavalry than the Poles (I'm writing about the time of GA), tried to protect their poor cavalry in this way. Look that in the 18th c. Swedish army of Karol XII used other manner of cooperation between cavalry and infantry. But in that time Swedish cavalry was as good as the Polish one (or better).

I think Grskis claim is a little simplification of the problem. In fact using the mixed squadrons of infantry and cavalry could result in the somehow limitation of cavalry mobility but we should keep in the mind that usually not all cavalry was used in that manner - but only some part. Mixed suqadrons was just best in the defensive fight when attacking group were composed of pure cavalry units. This kind of formation you can find also in polish army at Beresteczko the center is composed by mixed squadrons when the wings just by pure cavalry. Even better example is the second battle of Parkany where Sobieski have composed his left defensive wing (under Jabłonowski) by mixed squadrons of cavalry&infantry&dragons and  right wing (under Hieronim Lubomirski) mostly by cavalry banners.



Edited by TJK - 11-Jul-2006 at 05:50
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 14:09
Originally posted by TJK

I think Grskis claim is a little simplification of the problem. In fact using the mixed squadrons of infantry and cavalry could result in the somehow limitation of cavalry mobility but we should keep in the mind that usually not all cavalry was used in that manner - but only some part. Mixed suqadrons was just best in the defensive fight when attacking group were composed of pure cavalry units. This kind of formation you can find also in polish army at Beresteczko the center is composed by mixed squadrons when the wings just by pure cavalry. Even better example is the second battle of Parkany where Sobieski have composed his left defensive wing (under Jabłonowski) by mixed squadrons of cavalry&infantry&dragons and  right wing (under Hieronim Lubomirski) mostly by cavalry banners.

 
 

What do you think about this:

  • if mixed battle array was better for a defence (I agree that it was better)

  • if mixed battle array designed to use against pure cavalry formation

it means that this one who used mixed battle array didn't believe that his cavalry could alone (without a support of infantry) stand against enemy cavalry. It might indicate that:

  1. this someone had inferior cavalry to cavalry of his enemy

  2. or he didn't have enough cavalry to stand against enemy cavalry.


When the Poles had superior cavalry to their enemies, it was better to use pure cavalry formation (therefore usually the Poles didn't mix infantry and cavalry). When the Poles had inferior cavalry, it was better to use mixed formation. Polish battle array in the battle of Beresteczko fits to this theory. The centre of Polish army was composed of mercenary German cavalry, which was inferior to Tartars. Therefore it was better to use them in mixed formation. The wings were composed of Polish cavalry therefore wern't mixed with infantry.

Polish battle array in the second battle of Parkany also fits to this theory. The Poles after the first battle of Parkany could affraid Ottoman cavalry and therefore Sobieski prefered to create more defencive battle array.


This theory also fits to other armies. Look at the Swedes during the reign of Gustav Adolf. Swedish cavalry was inferior to Polish one and to Emperial one. Swedish mixed battle array reflected this inferiority.


What do you think about it? I hope that also other membres of this forum will join to this discussion.

Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 367
  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 10:48
  • if mixed battle array was better for a defence (I agree that it was better)

  • if mixed battle array designed to use against pure cavalry formation

Mixed formation was used also against infantry and for offensive puropse -look St Gotthard battle. But in general I agree with that assumptions.

When the Poles had superior cavalry to their enemies, it was better to use pure cavalry formation (therefore usually the Poles didn't mix infantry and cavalry). When the Poles had inferior cavalry, it was better to use mixed formation.

I think in some cases using of mixed formation for some part of the army (center or one of the wing) was better even in case of possessing better cavalry then enemy, just to tie-in much bigger enemy forces and to achieve the superiority on the other attacking wing.  
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 11:21
What do you think, why this mixed formation was later abandoned?
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 16:20
Originally posted by TJK

 
Thanks Temujin, my son is now 1 year old so I belive I will have a little more time than in last several months Big smile 
 
 
it is nice to hear your family is doing well adn that you know even have time for the forum!
 
 
BTW, is Ludwik Badenski the famous Ludwig von Baden, called "Trkenlouis"?
Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 367
  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 04:20

What do you think, why this mixed formation was later abandoned?

 

Probably because of flintlock which became the main weapon of infantry in the end of XVII century. This weapon gave much bigger firepower and also has influence on changing the formation of the infantry it became one continuous line instead the separate squadrons. It should be noted however that in Swedish army mixed formation was sometimes used also in the beginning of XVIII century for example on left wing during battle of Kliszw.

 

BTW, is Ludwik Badenski the famous Ludwig von Baden, called "Trkenlouis"?

 

Yes, this is the same person.

Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 02:36
Originally posted by TJK

What do you think, why this mixed formation was later abandoned?

 

Probably because of flintlock which became the main weapon of infantry in the end of XVII century. This weapon gave much bigger firepower and also has influence on changing the formation of the infantry it became one continuous line instead the separate squadrons. It should be noted however that in Swedish army mixed formation was sometimes used also in the beginning of XVIII century for example on left wing during battle of Kliszw.

 
TJK, to be honest, I don't understand what your point is. I agree that using of flintlocks was an important innovation. I agree that infantry changed its tactic/formation. But we agreed that mixed formation of cavalry and infantry was used because it gave better defence for cavalry (when cavalry couldn't alone stand against enemy cavalry), right? If so, I don't understand what new weapon and new array of infantry changed. After all, these innovations gave better defence for cavalry. So mixed formations should be used also in 18-19th c. The question is - why commanders in 18-19th recognized that it was better to use pure formations instead mixed ones?
Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 367
  Quote TJK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 07:23

TJK, to be honest, I don't understand what your point is. I agree that using of flintlocks was an important innovation. I agree that infantry changed its tactic/formation. But we agreed that mixed formation of cavalry and infantry was used because it gave better defence for cavalry (when cavalry couldn't alone stand against enemy cavalry), right? If so, I don't understand what new weapon and new array of infantry changed. After all, these innovations gave better defence for cavalry. So mixed formations should be used also in 18-19th c. The question is - why commanders in 18-19th recognized that it was better to use pure formations instead mixed ones?

My point is that probably the much bigger firepower given infantry by using the flintlock was enough to stop (in most cases) the frontal attack of cavalry =>thus usinig mixed formation was not needed. Additionally the cavalry in XVIII century became minor part of the armies ( 20-25%) and its importance on the battlefield was much lower than in XVII century

Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2006 at 23:30
Originally posted by TJK

My point is that probably the much bigger firepower given infantry by using the flintlock was enough to stop (in most cases) the frontal attack of cavalry =>thus usinig mixed formation was not needed.

 
Ok, but mixed formation was (probably Smile) created to help cavalry. I see no reason why infantry armed of flintlocks couldn't help cavalry also in 18th c. (in fact, you have already pointed out the battle where infantry armed of flintlocks was mixed with cavalry - Kliszow 1702). If sombody in 18-19th c. had worse cavalry than his enemy, it was good to mix his cavalry with infantry - exactly like in 17th c. 
 
There is also other possibility - we have made mistake. I mean, our previous specultion was wrong. Mixed formation had other task than protect worse cavalry.
 
Anyway, I think that something doesn't fit here.
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2006 at 03:08
Usually formations are going to ATTACK the enemy with minimal losses. So your idea of mixed formation should be right.
 
However, I think that if you have 200 cavalrymen with 300 infantrymen, the riders (let's say carabiners or dragoons) can't attack a superior force, so you take defensive positions. If there are about 2000 enemy soldiers then they would cut down your cavalry in a few seconds. But if you are on defensive and you order your infantry's first lines to lie down (50 men in a line perhaps). The enemy comes to get you, marches straight on, some men are performing flanking. You concentrate fire on the forwardmost and position your men with one infantryman besides a cavalryman so the line goes:
 
I - Infantryman
C - Cavalryman
 
              I C I C I C I C I C I C I C I C I C
              C I C I C I C I C I C I C I C I C I
              IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
CCCCC  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII               IIIIIII
CCCCC                                                                   IIIIIII
                                                                              IIIIIII
                 CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
 
Then you can instantly mow down four times more enemies then you could with anything else. I have not noted the first two lines, but eve nif the enemy fires at you with his still superior force, his center should be well devastated, the C in the Reserve are for helping others out when the time is right and the other battalion is defending the flank. The I battalion is aswell defending a flank.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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

This page was generated in 0.656 seconds.