Round 1: Hannibal vs. Gustavus Adolphus

[Marshal Murat]

Which of these two generals will continue?

Please vote now.

[CountArach]

Hannibal. One of the few men to give Rome a run for their moeny. As a general tactically he was brilliant, however strategically he left much to be desired.

[Tran]

Again, I agreed with CountArach. Had his brother not lost the last battle at Italy, Hannibal will be like Caesar...just 200 years faster

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Both were excellent commanders.

I opt for Adlophus because he not only excelled as a warrior and commander in his era (which Hannibal certainly did) -- he changed the way warfare was fought and put all of Europe on a path that led it to virtual domination of the world for more than a century.

[Lord Winter]

I'm a fan of old gustav but hannibal deserves a good spot to. I think thou I have to agree with Seamus here. Hanibal was good but he didn't really change warfare as we know it now. While on the other hand Adolfus was also good, you can argue that unlike hannibal who lost the emprire, Adolfus forged sweden into one. An empire that controled almost all of northern erurope.

Then their is also Gutvauses refroms. At a point were most commanders were focusing on the lumbering Phalanx like, Tercio, he instead opted for the modern tactics of Manuouver, displine and firepower. He forged the first truly perfessional standing army, and defeated one of the greatest europen powers (haspburg). For who had the bigger impact and overall better Gutavus Adolfus closely beats Hannibal.

[KrooK]

Gustav was bad general. He was winning in Poland because Poles very weakened by previous wars with Russia and Turkey. Later he lost some battles with Poland and finally Sweden gave back every port they took.

[Gurkhal]

Did however Sweden give back all of the territories under Gustav's reign? If not, then I do not belive he can be held responsible for what happened. Not to mention that he also came to the throne at a time when Sweden was locked in a three seperate wars at the same time, against Denmark, Russia and Poland. And still manage to get out on-top of both Poland and Russia, even if the peace with Denmark was hard bouught. But without, to my knowledge, landlosses. Also, Gustav change the entire course of the Thirty Year's war and broke almost teen years (if I've got the infomation right) of unbroken Hapsburg (sp?) victories. Not that bad in my eyes.

Anyway, I can't say that I think any of them were really better than the other. There were to much time between them and they fought with to different circumstances to be able to say if anyone of them would've been better than the other.

[Kagemusha]

Gustav Adolphus. I dont understand why Poles see him always as an bad general.Wasnt he facing the best cavalry in the world of the time in Poland and still could take land from them. While the Hussars were mostly undefeatable in the 17th century.
I think his deeds in Germany show much better how good General he was. He also chanced the army composition and military laws of Sweden the way that rest of Europe adapted later.
By turning armies into armies and not just pillaging and plundering war parties.
Hannibal was the best tactician of his time. But im afraid that he was not the best strategist at all. I think it would have been intresting poll to put Hannibal and Rommel against eachother on one of these polls.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Gustav Adolphus was quite decent in most fields, but not outstanding in any single field. In both diplomacy, strategy, tactics, and politics he made some impressive moves, plenty of decent moves, but also some quite bad moves.

Hannibal is in a way the exact opposite - an overly eager and not very good strategist, a rather poor diplomat and politician, but an excellent an absolutely unmatched sense of tactics.

I voted Hannibal, just because his tale is so extremely fascinating - possibly because time has allowed it to change more drastically than the tale of modern generals.

[ShadesWolf]

For me Hannibal

He was one of the few greats.....

[Innocentius]

Gustav was bad general. He was winning in Poland because Poles very weakened by previous wars with Russia and Turkey. Later he lost some battles with Poland and finally Sweden gave back every port they took.

A bit biased? The Swedish gave back all the ports taken in Poland as it was part of the deal. Sweden would own town/city X and extract taxes and - more importantly - duties therefrom for Y amount of years.

Gustavus has my vote at least. Although Mauritz of Oranien was the one who really developed the tactics used by Gustav.

[KrooK]

Not exactly. You told correctly conditions of casefire. But conditions of peace were different.
After casefire and finishing wars with Tatars/Turkey new polish king
Vladislav IV Wasa decided to finish with that taxes once for ever. Good prepared and really big polish army (30.000 highly skilled veterans) was so dangerous for Sweden (fighting into 30years war) that they canceled taking taxes.

And remember that into some battles Gustavus behave quite bad, I would tell quite cowardless. During one of the battles (I think Battle of Trzcianna) he ran and was very close to being captured. Poles captured his ... belt. Lucky king ran.

I must tell that Gustavus was very good commander but Hannibal was simply better.

[Stig]

Gustavus Adolphus? (ie. Hannibal wins with ease)


And why isn't he jsut called Gustav Adolf. What is he? Some wannabe Roman?

[Innocentius]

Not exactly. You told correctly conditions of casefire. But conditions of peace were different.
After casefire and finishing wars with Tatars/Turkey new polish king
Vladislav IV Wasa decided to finish with that taxes once for ever. Good prepared and really big polish army (30.000 highly skilled veterans) was so dangerous for Sweden (fighting into 30years war) that they canceled taking taxes.

If you suggest that the entire Polish army at the time consisited of 30.000 men then OK, but I find it hard to believe that a country - robbed of its most profitable ports and after years and years of fighting - could muster 30.000 men solely for the purpose of scaring the Swedish off.
The Swedish were already severly weakened by the defeat at Nördlingen and were eager not to get involved in a second war.

And remember that into some battles Gustavus behave quite bad, I would tell quite cowardless. During one of the battles (I think Battle of Trzcianna) he ran and was very close to being captured. Poles captured his ... belt. Lucky king ran.

I don't know what propagand-istic history is being taught in Poland, but that sure is biased. Gustavos Adolphus was a hero and nothing less!
No but seriously, I would be careful to use any records of the "opposite" king doing this and that, most of that is historic propaganda. For what I know about Trzciana, Gustav attempted a counter-attack but was beaten back.

[Incongruous]

Not exactly. You told correctly conditions of casefire. But conditions of peace were different.
After casefire and finishing wars with Tatars/Turkey new polish king
Vladislav IV Wasa decided to finish with that taxes once for ever. Good prepared and really big polish army (30.000 highly skilled veterans) was so dangerous for Sweden (fighting into 30years war) that they canceled taking taxes.

And remember that into some battles Gustavus behave quite bad, I would tell quite cowardless. During one of the battles (I think Battle of Trzcianna) he ran and was very close to being captured. Poles captured his ... belt. Lucky king ran.

I must tell that Gustavus was very good commander but Hannibal was simply better.

Umm, Gistavus was probably one of the bravest leaders in History. However, it is usually wiser for a King to withdraw than be captured, such an event would be disastrous for his nation.

[KrooK]

As I told before between casefire and peace Poland finished war with Turkey and made heavy preparations to war. And these 30.000 wasn't all army. It was biggest part of army who was trained to fight with Sweden.
FInally they weren't used against Sweden because of peace. Soon after peace with Sweden that army marched on Russia and forced that country to peace.

Same time Poles had big units on Turkish border to fight with Tatars.

You can't compare Poland from 1620-1640 with Poland from 1648-1665. Wars 1620-1640 didn't weakened country. They were all on borders and despite engaging big military units, they weren't dangerous for country itself.
Wars from 1648-1665 were disaster for who country. For first time from 300 years our independence was endangered.

But 1620-1640 were simply ..... wars. I think we could count them to 30years war. Poland and Turkey oficially didn't take part but Poland was ally of catholics and Turkey was for protestans. Turkish and Swedish attacks were prepared not to allow Poland on taking part into 30 years war.

Anyway Gustav was brave man. But that day at Trzcianna he simply ran.
As i told before Poles had proof - kings belt taken from king by one of cavarlymen. Hannibal was simply better commander for me. I have read roman relations about Hannibal. They agreed that Hannibal was really good opponent.

[Innocentius]

As i told before Poles had proof - kings belt taken from king by one of cavarlymen.

Proof? The precense of about a thousand shards of the "true" Cross spread across all Europe and some bones supposedly belonging to Jesus prooves their existance I guess?
It's pretty easy to find a fancy belt and then claim it was taken from the king. I'd like to see some more believable proof that doesn't sound like a myth.

[The_Doctor]

And why isn't he jsut called Gustav Adolf. What is he? Some wannabe Roman?

I believe it was the catholics who added the "us"es to the end of his names.

[Marquis of Roland]

Hannibal. One of the few men to give Rome a run for their moeny. As a general tactically he was brilliant, however strategically he left much to be desired.

I wouldn't say Hannibal was so bad strategically. The Romans didn't expect him to march through the Alps and he did, surprising them. Surprised Romans yet again by crossing the Arnus Marsh to place his army strategically between Rome and the Roman armies sent to block him, forcing the Romans into an ambush at lake Trasimene.

Politically he couldn't get enough Italian city-states to side with him against Rome, and he couldn't get reinforcments from back home (all politics), so I think its safe to say that rather than strategically poor, this man was moreso deficient in the political area.

Though Hannibal wasn't the first to emphasize the importance of the cavalry arm, he was using these tactics in a region primarily dominated by heavy infantry, so while he didn't invent a new style of warfare as Adolphus did, the result of the enemy being beaten by tactics unfamiliar to them remain the same.

[Watchman]

IMHO in terms of pure generalship Hannibal pwns totally. Gustavus was more of an organizer, reformer and statesman than a manifestly brilliant warlord - which is really rather desirable in a head of state when you think about it - but Hannibal was repeatedly able to produce stellar victories against as-such superior forces through sheer generalship.

Put this way: Hannibal could afford to go pick fights with numerical inferiority and still expect to win. Gustavus couldn't, even if the Swedes did end up winning Breitenfeld against numerical superiority after the... whowasitnow... Saxon army pretty much routed on first contact with the Imperials.

As for ole Gustav's reforms, they're regularly exaggerated and/or misunderstood. Just for one example he very much did not establish "the first professional army" or somesuch - the TYW was primarily fought with mercenaries, who are per definition professional soldiers to begin with. What he did was put the ball rolling towards national armies drafted from the populace of the state, who while rarely of the fighting calibre of mercenaries (whom the Swedish themselves were to long prefer for actual field armies) were by far cheaper and thus a cost-effective alternative for garrison and occupation duty. I've read the first state to get a true national army on a decent footing was Brandenburg (later better known as Prussia), whose regiments apparently caused a fair bit of envy in Carolus X when he saw them.

[CBR]

Although the comparison of two generals from two very different eras makes it difficult I would say Hannibal. I admit I dont know enough of Gustav Adolf but from the battles I do know a bit of, I dont see him in the same league as Hannibal.

He was an agressive and courageous general and a good reformer and organiser though.

To claim that Hannibal wasnt a good strategist is a pretty dubious claim. Afterall we are talking about the man who surprised the Romans by crossing the Alps, and managed to outwit Roman armies for more than a decade even though he was outnumbered. Just because he couldnt make the Roman allies rebel and win the war doesnt make him a bad general or leader in any way. He just didnt have resources to win it.


CBR

[AntiochusIII]

How do you think Hannibal stayed alive in Italy for more than a whole freaking decade? Obviously he didn't just win battles after battles after battles -- even that would eventually come to an end as the tactical genius had been pushed into a strategic blackhole. He must've been quite a fine strategist to be able to maneuver his armies so boldly around the many Roman legions in Italy for so long.

He also sort of proved that he had at least reasonable, if not in fact quite good (or perhaps even superb, though we'd never know) grasp on matters of government during his relatively short leadership in Carthage.

But anyway, Gustavus Adolphus was a very significant figure nonetheless, as his Swedish army single-handedly turned a string of Imperial victories in the Thirty Years' War into a massive rout. Had he lived longer the war might have been shorter. His death allowed the Swedish to be contained and even driven back until the French intervention. His organization of the state also helped in laying the foundation of Swedish domination in its locale/importance in European affairs.

The Gustavian tactics were essentially the adapted products of the great Dutch general Maurice of Nassau earlier, but it was he who really made it felt all across Europe.

[Slug For A Butt]

Hannibal kept the Romans on their toes for about 15 years. His only weakness that I can see was his failure to seize the advantage that he could create on the battlefield. He spent most of his time wandering around Italy while the Romans either reorganised or avoided him. Maybe he should have sacked Rome and ended the war there and then. I always think of Hannibal as a guy that can make it happen on the field but can't make an off the battlefield decision to save his life. Like has already been mentioned, he could so easily have been Caesar 200yrs before his time.
And the worst thing is that he got beaten politically. I'm thinking thats the only way he could be beaten, which is the way the Romans saw it too I guess...

[Watchman]

To be fair, once the Romans realized they weren't going to be able to whup the Big H they took to containing him in Italy while piling the pressure against the Carthies elsewhere, so they wouldn't be able to spare much reinforcements and support for him.

[cegorach]

Hannibal for sure. He was an excellent commander.


Gustavus was good, sometimes very good, but as a general not comparable with Hannibal.

Gustavus as a general was cautious and able to use the element of suprise when necessary.
He was much better ruler, reformer and so on than pure military commander.

The fact that he won at Breitenfield and Lech river later shows the effect of NEW tactics he employed which were effective for a time, but not without certain flaws.

Overall the man is credited with FAR TOO many achievements, perhaps because people forget other great generals of that time.

His tactic were more than enough to deal with conservative Tilly, but not enough at Lutzen where he died.



@Kagemusha

Gustav Adolphus. I dont understand why Poles see him always as an bad general.Wasnt he facing the best cavalry in the world of the time in Poland and still could take land from them. While the Hussars were mostly undefeatable in the 17th century.

Only some misinformed do, but on the other hand he was not so good some like to claim - based solely on the battles he fought during the TYW.

The war in Royal Prussia is complicated topic and if you research it in details you will see that Gustavus avoided battles where cavalry could be used well, entrenched when he could and attacked in Tartar-like manner i.e. using suprise if possible and retreating when it failed ( Trzciana).

Overall he won the war because Poland found it hard to recruit enough infantry to break the deadlock because of problems with taxation at that time.
However the victory was paid dearly and never managed to take the main target of the invasion i.e. Danzig.


@Innocentius

If you suggest that the entire Polish army at the time consisited of 30.000 men then OK, but I find it hard to believe that a country - robbed of its most profitable ports and after years and years of fighting - could muster 30.000 men solely for the purpose of scaring the Swedish off.
The Swedish were already severly weakened by the defeat at Nördlingen and were eager not to get involved in a second war.

Actually not 30 000, but 80 000, though 'only' 30 000 were prepared for this war.
The 80 000 includes a number of Zaporozhian Cossacks too and forces which will have to be left in Ukraine (against Tatar raids), but the number indeed was THAT high.

Besides.

1. Poland wasn't 'robbed' of its ports - only ONE which was Elbig. Danzig paid ta part from its custom taxation, but it wasn't affecting the whole state you probably think you do.
2. The war with Sweden ( 1626-29) was lost due to problems with internal politics ( the cursed Sigismund III and his bloody ideas...) and taxation which were well dealt with during the reforms of Wladyslaw IV and Stanislaw Koniecpolski.
3. Poland was at that time at the peak of its power winning TWO wars at the SAME time against Russia and the Ottomans in 1633 and the quality of its army was clearly the best in the years between 1633 and 1648.
4. You are right with the last part, though - Sweden wasn't interested, but earlier Gustavus WAS PLANNING united attack against the Commonwealth from Silesia ( Swedes and protestant allies), Russia and the Ottoman Empire (if possible) or Transylvania mainly to occupy the full attention of the Republic which was rightly or wrongly seen as Habsburg ally.
5. In fact the war was seen more like a embarrassing defeat from the hands of 'a vietnam' i.e. enemy inferior in almost all areas and it was more a problem of damaged pride than real, material losses.

I don't know what propagand-istic history is being taught in Poland, but that sure is biased. Gustavos Adolphus was a hero and nothing less!
No but seriously, I would be careful to use any records of the "opposite" king doing this and that, most of that is historic propaganda. For what I know about Trzciana, Gustav attempted a counter-attack but was beaten back.

It is biased to an extent as everywhere ( I recall learning that in Sweden it is said Poles were 'massacred' at Warsaw in 1656 which is not true at all), but the fact that GA is often overrated remains. Jeez some believe he invented everything and before that people were clubbing each other with stone maces to death in a disorderly manner.

As i told before Poles had proof - kings belt taken from king by one of cavarlymen.

Proof? The precense of about a thousand shards of the "true" Cross spread across all Europe and some bones supposedly belonging to Jesus prooves their existance I guess?
It's pretty easy to find a fancy belt and then claim it was taken from the king. I'd like to see some more believable proof that doesn't sound like a myth.

It is confirmed by several records from that time.
During the war in Prussia he was almost captured or died several times.
At Trzciana most likely twice - once was in a hussar's hands, but his plain (for a king certainly) clothes and relief action of his cavalry saved him.

Nonethelss there is little to deny here, though Krook's gung-ho attitude doesn't help here.

If you want to read (still debatable), but excellent description of the conflict check this

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=75044

Spartan has the knowledge you might want to acquire.


@Krook

Please don't...

[Watchman]

His tactic were more than enough to deal with conservative Tilly, but not enough at Lutzen where he died.

Well, he died mainly out of sheer bad luck (ie. stumbling into a squadron of Imperial cuirassieurs in the dust and smoke with just his small personal entourage) and the fact Kings and senior officers were still expected to hang around the frontline where they were naturally exposed to a fair amount of risk.

As for his tactical reforms, there was a wee bit of a problem with them - they basically consisted of using existing, tried-and-true forces in an innovative and more efficient fashion. An advantage of technique in other words, and since the Imperials used the selfsame types of troops it didn not take them long to simply copy-paste the ideas and restore baseline tactical parity. Breitenfeld was still a battle between "old" and "new" tactical techniques; by Lützen it was two "new" style armies duking it out.

Overall he won the war because Poland found it hard to recruit enough infantry to break the deadlock because of problems with taxation at that time.

What, you mean the state of Poland was at some point actually able to fix those problems given the ability of the feudal landholders to flatly torpedo any and all laws they didn't like - and their intense dislike of any and all measures that even looked like they'd strenghten the King in relation to themselves nevermind now at their expense...?

I recall learning that in Sweden it is said Poles were 'massacred' at Warsaw in 1656 which is not true at all

If you mean the famous three-day battle, well, it was pretty much a total rout wasn't it ? And the fact they had to flee over bridges meant the Swedes were somewhat unusually able to actually catch a fair few of the Poles, which would certainly have made it a rather bloodier defeat than the usual dispersals of Polish armies in the field...

'Course, I've also heard people who really should know better to honestly think the main tactic of Polish cavalry in WW2 against German panzers was a lance charge (), so you may be on to something here.

[cegorach]

What, you mean the state of Poland was at some point actually able to fix those problems given the ability of the feudal landholders to flatly torpedo any and all laws they didn't like - and their intense dislike of any and all measures that even looked like they'd strenghten the King in relation to themselves nevermind now at their expense...?

More than a couple of times. The main thing was to get support of the public opinion and hey presto big armies appear - it was the case in 1579-82, 1621, 1633-35, 1651, 1656-60, 1673-76, 1683~~~1699 (to some extend here).


Besides they were NOT feudal landholders - the full rights were a matter of noble birth which DID include numerous landless nobles - overall 10-15 % of the population.

It was always the question of an AGREEMENT - Sigismund III was extremely 'talented' in undermining trust he could earn or by got deafault with the office (kings were highly respected and trusted before him). Wladyslaw IV was much better and even if he had his bad habits (extravagant) he was more able to LISTEN and TALK and those were the essential elements to achieve anything in the democratic Commonwealth.
Sigismund III managed to start 2-3 unnecessary wars, a civil war and almost got himself killed in the first ever assassination attempt in the entire history of Polish monarchs. As Jan Zamoyski said 'our little, numb devil from Sweden' - but it was him who tried to use the man as a puppet, which sadly was not possible.

If you mean the famous three-day battle, well, it was pretty much a total rout wasn't it ? And the fact they had to flee over bridges meant the Swedes were somewhat unusually able to actually catch a fair few of the Poles, which would certainly have made it a rather bloodier defeat than the usual dispersals of Polish armies in the field...

If it happened... It might be a rout in the end, but please - the Swedish-Brandenburg army wasn't able to exploit the limited victory.
The assembled militia force was able to run faster than anyone could get them.
Also the Allied force wasn't able to pursue them at that time or not much later anyway.


The losses on Polish-Lithuanian side cannot be higher than 4000, but usually are counted around 1500-2000.

Some people just have rather 'colourful' imagination and as I know the battle is obscured with some weird myths in Sweden, but well... it is hard to build a reliable picture of a clash without reading the opposite sources which as we know are in Polish - the language so 'many' Swedes fluently speak.


In recent decades (since 1989) wars of the 1st Republic are again studied and researched in Poland -before it was 'burguise, imperialistic and definetely anti-Soviet (because Russia was destined to become Soviet Union as all people in the XVIIth century would agree ) anti-revolutionary force, so the studies were made unpopular unless you were really lucky/stubborn/didn't care for material goods in this life.
So in numerous researches the earlier inventions of mainly XIXth century propaganda are revised and some long forgotten battles re-appear ( Shklov 1654, Konotop 1659, Basia 1660 etc) - Warsaw was one of better researched before and now it might be seen as wasted opportunity, but nothing more than very limited tactical victory of Swedish-Brandenburgian force.
War was lost in the winter 1655-56 by Sweden and later nothing could be done with it except losing it earlier. Warsaw would matter if Charles X Gustav was killed - otherwise it is rather a battle of little importance, though interesting because never before or later Polish-Lithuanian force had so much cavalry militia and so little infantry (usually it was 33-40 %, here it was 8 %).

'Course, I've also heard people who really should know better to honestly think the main tactic of Polish cavalry in WW2 against German panzers was a lance charge (), so you may be on to something here.

Which is a myth especially hard to eradicate, though ironically nothing bad can be said about Polish cavalry's performance against German panzers in 1939 - it was rightly seen as formidable opponent of panzer divisions.

I suggest reading the whole thread from the TWC - link is above in my answer to Innocentus, despite its minor flaws ( the author couldn't know about political situation in Poland and proposed reforms by nobility which king stopped) it is about the most balanced view of the entire war in Royal Prussia in 1626-29.

[Watchman]

More than a couple of times. The main thing was to get support of the public opinion and hey presto big armies appear - it was the case in 1579-82, 1621, 1633-35, 1651, 1656-60, 1673-76, 1683~~~1699 (to some extend here).

...as in the nobles turn out with their private armies, you don't mean ?

Besides they were NOT feudal landholders - the full rights were a matter of noble birth which DID include numerous landless nobles - overall 10-15 % of the population.

I don't quite see where that's meaningfully different from the usual pattern of feudal landholding warrior class as also encountered in the rest of Europe (save that it had lost its old military role in most other lands) - the normal pattern of inheritance was pretty much flat primogeniture with the due end result younger sons and such got zilch in the way of land, no ? That always produces a pool of landless warrior aristocrats in such systems, who normally tended to either enroll into the Church, get themselves accepted as the retainer of someone with the means to support them (as in, "able to afford his own private army") - which in the case of Poland would also include the royal army of course - or found some other way to support themselves. Usually involving the warrior skills they'd been raised to have of course.

Seems to me that leaves the major magnates with considerable resources and hence lots of clients, retainers and whatnot with a whole lot of aristocrats with full voting rights loyal to them... How do you mean, "voting block" ?

If it happened... It might be a rout in the end, but please - the Swedish-Brandenburg army wasn't able to exploit the limited victory.
The assembled militia force was able to run faster than anyone could get them.
Also the Allied force wasn't able to pursue them at that time or not much later anyway.

Well, that was their main military problem throughout the whole war - they could rout and disperse Polish armies easily enough, but not pursue for effect so those just eventually reassembled or snuck around the countryside as guerillas... Superior mobility has its perks.

That said, I find it somewhat difficult to imagine the victorious armies would not have been able to reach at least some of the routers trying to get over the badly overtaxed bridges, making the defeat relatively more bloody than the norm.

Some people just have rather 'colourful' imagination and as I know the battle is obscured with some weird myths in Sweden, but well... it is hard to build a reliable picture of a clash without reading the opposite sources which as we know are in Polish - the language so 'many' Swedes fluently speak.

I don't think the skill is terribly common anywhere outside Poland you know. But hey, I know the sentiment. Finnish isn't exactly common abroad either, although I did boggle at a letter written in fluent Finnish in one anime once...

War was lost in the winter 1655-56 by Sweden and later nothing could be done with it except losing it earlier.

Fair enough. Winning all the battles doesn't really mean jack if you can't terminate the war advantageously, no ? Them pesky Danes and Russians didn't help of course.

[cegorach]

...as in the nobles turn out with their private armies, you don't mean ?

NO

Besides you obviously do not understand the status of such armies in the Republic.

In times of war these were added to the national pool, commanded and paid by the state and their size was rather low.

Besides the dates I mentioned have NOTHING to do with any private armies - the Commenwealth was not some sort of warlord confederacy, how can you even think so ?


I mean (of course) state army which was ALWAYS the majority - the quarter troops increased by so called 'supplement force'.

Because let me explain it - the quarter army acted as an elite core for wartime army.
The professional army included : quarter army, supplementary force and royal guard - ALL expanded during a war regardless of the fact if private armies were taken by the state.

So if it is said that there were 80 000 soldiers ready in 1635 (as I said including Cossacks) it will be mainly the professional force paid by the state.

Thank you.

I don't quite see where that's meaningfully different from the usual pattern of feudal landholding warrior class as also encountered in the rest of Europe (save that it had lost its old military role in most other lands) - the normal pattern of inheritance was pretty much flat primogeniture with the due end result younger sons and such got zilch in the way of land, no ?

Except the fact that in some regions such nobility was very numerous - e.g. Masovia where they were almost 30 % of the population.

Seems to me that leaves the major magnates with considerable resources and hence lots of clients, retainers and whatnot with a whole lot of aristocrats with full voting rights loyal to them... How do you mean, "voting block" ?

That is true for some regions where the relation between patron and client (much like in Rome) was very important - case of Lithuanian GD, Ukraine and Masovia, Podlasia. That is why the deluge by causing such destruction in 'core' Poland affected later political situation too.

However for a very long time the magnates couldn't dream of fighting against 'noble nation' which consisting of middle nobility performed the part of merchant class in other states - especially those from 'execution of laws' movement, which never disappeared.

That said, I find it somewhat difficult to imagine the victorious armies would not have been able to reach at least some of the routers trying to get over the badly overtaxed bridges, making the defeat relatively more bloody than the norm.

Cavalry crossed the river directly, wagons and infantry moved through a bridge, but that retreat was covered by the infantry and started earlier already.

I don't think the skill is terribly common anywhere outside Poland you know. But hey, I know the sentiment. Finnish isn't exactly common abroad either, although I did boggle at a letter written in fluent Finnish in one anime once...

It is in Israel, Belorus, Ukraine, Lithuania... Ireland and London. Actually I wasn't really serious - it is understandable, but doesn't help to conduct reliable research.
Besides for a historian of that period in this region it is quite important language to know - it was almost lingua franca in the entire region after all.
Besides reliable research demands checking the sources of the opposite side.

Fair enough. Winning all the battles doesn't really mean jack if you can't terminate the war advantageously, no ? Them pesky Danes and Russians didn't help of course.

Swedes could win 90 % of the battles, but they didn't win those which mattered so much.

The winter campaign of 1655-56 was the ONLY moment they were close to victory, but it was lost (including the battles which mattered e.g. Przemysl) - from that moment it was only the question when do they lose, not if.

It was far too early for the Danes to matter, exactly the same with the Russians, though if you meant that they stopped their offensive in 1656 you are right, but during the campaign it ddn't even matter.

I don't understand some arguments sometimes used by Swedes - basically that the war was lost because of multinational effort to defeat Sweden, as if Poland itself wasn't fighting several Swedish allies too ( Brandenburg, Cossacks, Transylvania) or wasn't involved for the majority of the entire conflict (and before and after) in the exhausting war against Russia.

Simple - Swedes had this unusual chance in 1655 because Jan Kazimierz was so much 'popular' as Charles I of England before his execution (various reasons - included his performance during the war against Russia) and instead of taking Royal Prussia tried to get everything... only Charles XII was more careless.

Charles X Gustav was doomed to fail after he tried to go too far, though the winter campaign accelerated his fall - from that moment his army bacame a band of knights errant who were facing potential doom at increasing rate.
He tried to find allies, but his troubles attracted more and more attention so he was searching for even more allies which earned even more interest.
The war engulfed entire Northern Europe with Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Tartars, Brandenburg, Transylvania, Habsburgs, the Netherlands, Cossacks (divided in factions), Moldavia, the Ottomans, even France engaged in the whole mess.
It's only real lasting effect was the Lubomirski's rebellion which allowed Russia to take a part of Ukraine and thanks to later events to remove Poland from hegemony in the eastern Europe.

If there was a critical moment of that war - it was between the battle at Golab and the moment when he was trapped between Vistula and San.
After that Charles only success was that he stayed alive.

[KrooK]

Thank you for your deep historical knowledge cegorach. Sadly I don't speak so perfect language like you.
But what meant "krook don't..."



Anyway guys have you heard about battle of Mokra. Great proof that Poles used cavarly to fight against german tanks. Yes cegorach - we have to admit that. Our ancestors used cavarly vs tanks.
But for everyone who don't know battle of Mokra......
It was september 1939 and polish cav brigade supported by armoured train and inf regiment destroyed half of german tank division into 2 days (about 150 tanks).