Really worth watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoDaRkPUH5E
Regards
Greatest Polish Victories
-
Benoit Douville
- Member
- Posts: 3184
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 02:13
- Location: Montréal
-
Musashi
- Member
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 13 Dec 2002, 16:07
- Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]
- Contact:
Vallenrod's comment hits the nail. Nice video and music, but many inappropriate numbers and false statements (when I've "learned" that the Ottoman Empire fell in 1683 and then I've "learned" about Pilsudski's "genius" I came to the conclusion the author is either a kid or must be mentally challenged :roll: ) Besides his English is pitiful.
But nothing surpasses the battle of Fuengirola in 1810, where 350 Polish and 30 French soldiers defeated 10+ bigger British-Spanish forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fuengirola
BTW,
I am afraid this topic can start a pissing contest.
There were some much bigger victories in Polish history, like the battle of Klushino in 1610, or Berestechko in 1651 (I mean the battles where our opponents' numerical superiority was so significant).Vallenrod wrote:Nicely done video - the song greatly recaptures its spirit and makes it perfect altogether. Make more such videos, but before you release them, check the numbers, facts and your grammarAs far as I'm concerned it was not Pilsudski, but Rozwadowski, who was the author of the battle of Warsaw. At Kircholm there were many more Swedish forces then shown on this video; according to wikipedia there were 11 000 infantry, 3 000 cavalry and 11 cannons on Swedish side.
But nothing surpasses the battle of Fuengirola in 1810, where 350 Polish and 30 French soldiers defeated 10+ bigger British-Spanish forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fuengirola
BTW,
I am afraid this topic can start a pissing contest.
-
Benoit Douville
- Member
- Posts: 3184
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 02:13
- Location: Montréal
I found that today and my intend was just to share it with the members of this forum, not to start a contoversy but since we are engage in the discussion, I will say that Poland probably won the most important Battles in European history to saved Europe. In 1683 with Sobieski in the Battle of Vienna against the Turks and in 1920 against the Red Army with Pilsudski.
Here is a site about the history of Poland:
http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/HistoryPolska.html
Regards
Here is a site about the history of Poland:
http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/HistoryPolska.html
Regards
The most incredible one was the battle of Klushino (1610) in which Polish army of about 6500 (of which about half came too late to join the battle) massacred Russian-Swedish army of 40000. Time and time again people think that history books make typos and miss one zero in the number of Polish-Lithuanian soldiers.
P.S. Welcome back
P.S. Welcome back
-
Musashi
- Member
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 13 Dec 2002, 16:07
- Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]
- Contact:
At Klushino we were outnumbered 1:5+ while at Fuengirola it was almost 1:12 and we won. In the addition our opponents had also a strong artillery and fleet. So it was a much more incredible victory.lukeo wrote:The most incredible one was the battle of Klushino (1610)[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fuengirola
The most frequent number I've seen was 6800 Poles, Lithuanians and Ruthenians (I mean just part of them were ethnic Poles, however all of them were trained according to Polish standards, used Polish weapon and tactics).lukeo wrote:[...]in which Polish army of about 6500[...]
Never heard anything about it. Do you have any sources, that a part of our army came too late?lukeo wrote:[...](of which about half came too late to join the battle)[...]
I would not call it "massacred" as most of Russian and their mercenary soldiers fled from the battlefield seeing they have no chance to stop our heavy cavalry. Our troops did not pursuit them, because they preferred looting an enemy camp to chasing the retreating enemy. Therefore most of the Russian-mercenary army fled and survived the battle.lukeo wrote:[...]massacred[...]
Actually not "Swedish". The mercenaries hired by the Russians were Scotts, Frenchmen, Germans, Flemings, etc. They were commanded by a Swedish General, Jacob Pontus de la Gardie.lukeo wrote:[...]Russian-Swedish army[...]
I have never seen the number "40,000". According to most of sources the Russian army numbered 35,000 (30,000 Russians and 5000 foreign mercenaries). It's a huge number anyway as we were outnumbered 1:5+ (6800 : 35,000).lukeo wrote:[...]of 40000.[...]
Our commander, Zolkiewski used a very clever tactics during the battle. First he attacked the Russians and disrupted their ranks. It was aimed at discouraging the foreign mercenaries to fight (many of them had not been paid before the battle) and it partially succeeded. Some mercenaries left the battlefield, some other joined Poles and the rest (a vast minority) offered a very hard resistance standing behind a fence and repulsing attacks of Polish cavalry, that was unable to force the fence. According to Polish sources a few hundreds of those foreign mercenaries caused much more troubles, than entire Russian Army (30,000) before. Fortunately a few light guns, that had bogged down in a mood and a slowly moving infantry detachment arrived and helped the cavalry to break the resistance. After the fence collapsed the mercenaries lost a protection and were massacred by cavalry (at least that part of our opponent army was massacred for true).
-
D. von Staberg
- Member
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 09 Sep 2003, 22:39
- Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Wien 1683
Europe was hardly saved by this battle since it wasn't threatend at all. What was under threat was the city of Wien and the adjacent parts of the Hapsburg Empire but Ottomans were no longer in any postions to threaten the whole of Europe. Tah the threat was precived as much greater than it was is another matter.
Calling the battle a "Polish" victory is laying it on a bit thick since roughly 60% of the troops at the battle were Germans draw from the armies of Saxony, Bavarian and Austria as well from Franconia & the Rhineland. It was very much an allied victory in the truest sense of the word. None of the separate parts of the army coudl have lifted the siege on their own.
Klushino 1610
The army at Klushino was indeed Russo-Swedish, while a few mercenary units may have been servign independently with the Russian army the majority of non-Russian troops were nominaly Swedish as the units had be recruited and paid for by the goverment of Sweden almsot a year before they entered Russia. The mercenaries had orignaly been raised for the war in Livonia but were diverted to Russia in order to reinforced the Swedish intervention.
There were no more than 4000 men under De la Gardie's command at Klushino, the Russo-Swedish agrement called for the Swedes to provide 5000 troops but detachments were serving elsewere at the time. After the muntiny of the Swedish and Finnish troops after the victory at Tver in 1609 De la Gardie prefered to use mercenaries who had been discharged from the Dutch and Spanish armies following the truce in the Netherlands in 1609. While experienced and harded these mercenaries were to prove unreliable and all but a few defected from the Swedish army in the final phase of the battle of Klushino. (This happend in the Swedish camp after the battle was effectively over, not during the battle)
The Russian troops may been strong in numbers but all but a few were poorly equipped and trained. Both the Swedish and mercenary soldiers considered most of them to be fit only for using the plow rather than using the pike and musket. In most previous battles De la Gardie had deployed the Russian troops behind his Swedish & mercenary units. Holding the rear they were out of the way and would not cause any trouble.
While the Poles were outnumbered by 5-1 in actual numbers they had a huge advantage in combat efficiency. None of the Russo-Swedish troops were equal to the hussars who by themsleves outnumberd the entire Swedish army. Which is why Russo-Swedish troops took a defensive stance throughout the battle.
Europe was hardly saved by this battle since it wasn't threatend at all. What was under threat was the city of Wien and the adjacent parts of the Hapsburg Empire but Ottomans were no longer in any postions to threaten the whole of Europe. Tah the threat was precived as much greater than it was is another matter.
Calling the battle a "Polish" victory is laying it on a bit thick since roughly 60% of the troops at the battle were Germans draw from the armies of Saxony, Bavarian and Austria as well from Franconia & the Rhineland. It was very much an allied victory in the truest sense of the word. None of the separate parts of the army coudl have lifted the siege on their own.
Klushino 1610
The army at Klushino was indeed Russo-Swedish, while a few mercenary units may have been servign independently with the Russian army the majority of non-Russian troops were nominaly Swedish as the units had be recruited and paid for by the goverment of Sweden almsot a year before they entered Russia. The mercenaries had orignaly been raised for the war in Livonia but were diverted to Russia in order to reinforced the Swedish intervention.
There were no more than 4000 men under De la Gardie's command at Klushino, the Russo-Swedish agrement called for the Swedes to provide 5000 troops but detachments were serving elsewere at the time. After the muntiny of the Swedish and Finnish troops after the victory at Tver in 1609 De la Gardie prefered to use mercenaries who had been discharged from the Dutch and Spanish armies following the truce in the Netherlands in 1609. While experienced and harded these mercenaries were to prove unreliable and all but a few defected from the Swedish army in the final phase of the battle of Klushino. (This happend in the Swedish camp after the battle was effectively over, not during the battle)
The Russian troops may been strong in numbers but all but a few were poorly equipped and trained. Both the Swedish and mercenary soldiers considered most of them to be fit only for using the plow rather than using the pike and musket. In most previous battles De la Gardie had deployed the Russian troops behind his Swedish & mercenary units. Holding the rear they were out of the way and would not cause any trouble.
While the Poles were outnumbered by 5-1 in actual numbers they had a huge advantage in combat efficiency. None of the Russo-Swedish troops were equal to the hussars who by themsleves outnumberd the entire Swedish army. Which is why Russo-Swedish troops took a defensive stance throughout the battle.
-
Musashi
- Member
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 13 Dec 2002, 16:07
- Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]
- Contact:
I am not the one, who claim it was just a Polish victory.D. von Staberg wrote: Calling the battle a "Polish" victory is laying it on a bit thick since roughly 60% of the troops at the battle were Germans draw from the armies of Saxony, Bavarian and Austria as well from Franconia & the Rhineland. It was very much an allied victory in the truest sense of the word. None of the separate parts of the army coudl have lifted the siege on their own.
I have a few notes:
- the Allied Army was commanded by Jan III Sobieski, the Polish king, who had won numerous battles against Ottoman forces before,
- the Polish troops broke Ottoman lines as the first troops, enabling the rest to exploit their success,
- the Ottoman camp was seized by the Polish troops,
- the Polish king was welcome as a hero by inhabitants of Vienna, while the Austrian emperor was welcome as a coward. It was clearly noticed by the Polish soldiers, that inhabitants of Vienna were closing shutters, when their emperor was passing their houses.
As you wrote those mercenaries defected when the battle was effectively over, what is confirmed by Polish sources, not in the first phrase of the battle as Russian sources claim. It happened due to a very clever Zółkiewski tactics. His purpose was to discourage the mercenaries to fight by defeating the Russians first. When the Russians were defeated, the mercenaries would not have any reason to fight. It could not have happened contrary as Russian sources claim, because defeating the mercenaries first would have been very illogical and simply idiotic.D. von Staberg wrote:Klushino 1610
[...]After the muntiny of the Swedish and Finnish troops after the victory at Tver in 1609 De la Gardie prefered to use mercenaries who had been discharged from the Dutch and Spanish armies following the truce in the Netherlands in 1609. While experienced and harded these mercenaries were to prove unreliable and all but a few defected from the Swedish army in the final phase of the battle of Klushino. (This happend in the Swedish camp after the battle was effectively over, not during the battle)
The Russian troops may been strong in numbers but all but a few were poorly equipped and trained. Both the Swedish and mercenary soldiers considered most of them to be fit only for using the plow rather than using the pike and musket. In most previous battles De la Gardie had deployed the Russian troops behind his Swedish & mercenary units. Holding the rear they were out of the way and would not cause any trouble.
Your claim "Both the Swedish and mercenary soldiers considered most of them to be fit only for using the plow rather than using the pike and musket." is NOT confirmed by Polish sources. The Polish sources claim the very few mercenaries, who did not desert took up a hell of fight and fought very efficiently repelling a few charges of the Polish cavalry. They caused much more troubles, that entire Russian Army (30,000) before. Their resistance was broken thanks to combined artillery and infantry fire. When their ranks were distrupted the Polish cavalry massacred them. Out of about 200-300 Polish casualties during that battle, at least 80% was caused by the tiny mercenary forces, that took up the fight and the Polish cavalrymen, who charged them claimed they had been very hard opponents before the fence that covered them collapsed.
Having so huge numerical advantage it's possible to outflank enemy forces. A clever commander would have done it attacking the Polish cavalry from sides keeping it busy in the front. Winged hussars were a damn effective cavalry, but they were not T1000 terminatorsD. von Staberg wrote: While the Poles were outnumbered by 5-1 in actual numbers they had a huge advantage in combat efficiency. None of the Russo-Swedish troops were equal to the hussars who by themsleves outnumberd the entire Swedish army. Which is why Russo-Swedish troops took a defensive stance throughout the battle.
In the addition they were a very elite and terribly expensive forces recruited from very rich nobility and they were not used to suffering excessive losses. It always happened, when they were suffering comparable losses to their enemies, their morale was drastically dropping.Notice the Polish infantry and artillery arrived to the battlefield in the final stage of the battle, so the Poles have just cavalry in the beginning.
1)Cedynia 972 r.
2)Legnica 1241 r.
3)P³owce 1331 r.
4)Grunwald 1410 r.
5)Warna 1444 r.
6)Orsza 1514 r.
7)Oberyn 1531 r.
8)Wielkie £uki 1579 r.
9)Kircholm 1605 r.
10)K³uszyn 1610 r.
11)Chocim 1621 r.
12)Beresteczko 1651 r.
13)Wiedeñ (Wiena) 1683 r.
14)Somosierra 1808 r.
15)Raszyn 1809 r.
16)Fuengirola 1810 r.
17)Grochów 1831 r.
2)Legnica 1241 r.
3)P³owce 1331 r.
4)Grunwald 1410 r.
5)Warna 1444 r.
6)Orsza 1514 r.
7)Oberyn 1531 r.
8)Wielkie £uki 1579 r.
9)Kircholm 1605 r.
10)K³uszyn 1610 r.
11)Chocim 1621 r.
12)Beresteczko 1651 r.
13)Wiedeñ (Wiena) 1683 r.
14)Somosierra 1808 r.
15)Raszyn 1809 r.
16)Fuengirola 1810 r.
17)Grochów 1831 r.
Welcome to the Forum, Saturn64.
An excellent list. I enjoyed googling and reading up on the battles with which I was not familiar. There is also Chocim, 1673, which is a battle similar to Chocim, 1621. Some comments on the two Napoleonic War battles in Spain: Somosierra 1808 r. and Fuengirola 1810 r. I do not understand the high regard Poles have for Napoleon. He did little for Poland. Much Polish blood was shed for little value to Poland. The two battles in Spain illustrate this. Somosierra was a suicide charge of the Polish Cavalry, forced by Napoleon, comparable to the Charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War. Fuengirola was a valiant defense of a fortress, of no value to Poland.
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Polis ... l[quote]In November 1808, Emperor Napoleon was advancing on Madrid. Across his road lay the Sierra de Guadarrama, crossed by the Somosierra pass defended by 12,000 Spaniards. Marshal Victor, commanding the advanced guard, set about forcing the pass by conventional means, sending infantry to the high ground on either side. Napoleon was impatient. He ordered light cavalry to storm the pass. When one of the French commanders raised not unreasonable difficulties, the Emperor turned to the Poles who were acting as his escort and told them to charge. One hundred and fifty horsemen charged uphill for a mile and a half, storming four successive batteries, two of them covered by earthworks. As they approached the crest the Spaniards fired their cannons and muskets and fled. Eighty-three of the Poles were casualties, including all seven officers. It was an incredible feat for light cavalry. [/quote]
An excellent list. I enjoyed googling and reading up on the battles with which I was not familiar. There is also Chocim, 1673, which is a battle similar to Chocim, 1621. Some comments on the two Napoleonic War battles in Spain: Somosierra 1808 r. and Fuengirola 1810 r. I do not understand the high regard Poles have for Napoleon. He did little for Poland. Much Polish blood was shed for little value to Poland. The two battles in Spain illustrate this. Somosierra was a suicide charge of the Polish Cavalry, forced by Napoleon, comparable to the Charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War. Fuengirola was a valiant defense of a fortress, of no value to Poland.
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Polis ... l[quote]In November 1808, Emperor Napoleon was advancing on Madrid. Across his road lay the Sierra de Guadarrama, crossed by the Somosierra pass defended by 12,000 Spaniards. Marshal Victor, commanding the advanced guard, set about forcing the pass by conventional means, sending infantry to the high ground on either side. Napoleon was impatient. He ordered light cavalry to storm the pass. When one of the French commanders raised not unreasonable difficulties, the Emperor turned to the Poles who were acting as his escort and told them to charge. One hundred and fifty horsemen charged uphill for a mile and a half, storming four successive batteries, two of them covered by earthworks. As they approached the crest the Spaniards fired their cannons and muskets and fled. Eighty-three of the Poles were casualties, including all seven officers. It was an incredible feat for light cavalry. [/quote]
In the Napoleonic wars, the Poles stayed loyal to Napoleon to the end; a few loyal Polish patriots followed him into exile to Elba. Napoleon is quoted to have said that 800 Poles would equal 8000 enemy soldiers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajB4N7tm ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w58JD_AohNY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0azXdP-tN7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajB4N7tm ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w58JD_AohNY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0azXdP-tN7Q
Last edited by saturn64 on 13 Feb 2008, 19:19, edited 3 times in total.