Round 1: Hannibal vs. Gustavus Adolphus

[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...