History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedVienna 1683 - 325 anniversary of saving Europe

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Bartoha View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2008
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bartoha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 21:31
1. I mentioned that the role of Poles what not a question of quantity but quality. Couple thousnad of hussars were used in the most difficult moment of the battle against stronger (by quantity, enemy).

2. "Polish contribution was not fundamental" - here I would like to give a voice to German and Austrian officers after battle - there are some memmories, I recommend to read them.

And I recommend to read some memmories from the visit of the delegates of Holy Pope and Habsburgs to the king Sobieski before the battle, when they were asking Sobieski for help on their knees, for saving Christianity and Vienna. If Polish contribution was not fundamental why they did it? They were comedians or smth?
______________________________________
Bartosz, Poland
Group of Historical Fencing Milites Alraunae
http://www.milites-alraunae.prv.pl
Back to Top
Husaria View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jul-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Husaria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 05:41
I might be a little biased but it always seems like poland is minimized in any westren history books. Good example is how in my highschool history course nothing is mentioned about the German/Russian pact for Poland you know because Germany by its self completly steam rolled Poland.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1941
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 02:02
East Europe in general has been of little priority, it's only lately that general works on European history tend to include significant chapters on the east as well. Even so, few people are aware of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its golden age.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 06:08
Originally posted by Bartoha Bartoha wrote:


Well, you asked about my own opinion. My own opinion is that this operation was huge Polish mistake, and Polish king Sobieski, who was excellent warrior and commander, but I think poor politician.

Poland didn't have any interest in helping Habsburgs of Austria. Our main, rising opponent, was Russia at that time. As well it was main opponent for Turkey. Instead of fighting each other we should try to sign an alliance together against Russia. For someone it could be irrational - catholic state (Poland) in alliance with muslim (Turkey), but even at that time it was possible - see the French- Turkish alliance at Mediterranean.

The results of that mistake we see very soon, not even 100 years later, in 1772, Austria participates in first partition of Poland. This process ends in 1795 when Poland dissapears for 123 years from map of Europe. That is "gratefulness" of saving Vienna in 1683 Wink
 
I think it's a pure speculation. First of all, Turkish forces were already too overstretched even with the capturing Vienna, the final result would be the same. Compare for example with  Napoleon taking Moscow in 1812. Ok, he captured Moscow, great achievement. But the whole campaing ended in the great disaster. It would be the same with the Turkish advance in central Europe. Capturing of Vienna actually could potentially lead to even greater disaster for the Turkish empire which at that time was already in decline.
 
Secondly, Polish state was in decline as well. The reasons for the collapse of Poland are actually not so much the external threats but an internal weakness.
 
Moreover, Poland in fact was at different times in alliance with Prussia, Austria, Russia, Sweden and Turkey. However, the nature of those alliance constantly changed and new alliances were formed.
 
For example, it also could be said that strong Poland united with Sweden could block the rise of the Russian empire (actually at the time of the Great War Northern War Poland was in alliance with Russia against Sweden not vice versa) and so on.
 
Personally, I hardly believe Polish-Turkish alliance would be able to survive for a long time...
 
P.S.
 
Russian emperor Nicholas I once asked one of his officers "who do you think were the two most stupid monarchs in European history?" "No, your majesty" he replied.
"Yan Sobieski of Poland and me"- said the emperor.
"How come?"- the question followed.
"Yan Sobieski saved them from Turks for which they repaid the Poles with the partition and I saved them from the Hungarian rebels for which they stabbed me in the back by threatening to ally against Russia with England and France in the current (Crimean) war. Both of us acted extremely stupid."  Big%20smile


Edited by Sarmat12 - 14-Sep-2008 at 06:09
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Aussiedude View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 16-Mar-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aussiedude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 11:10
Your right, it is pur speculation. So, let us speculate.
 
I think a victory at Vienna WOULD benefit the Ottomans, no diubt of that. They were overextended, yes, which is why they wouldn't keep the city and DID NOT PLAN TO. Rather, they would pass the Archduchy of Austria to their vassal, Imre the King of Upper Hungary(after plundering Vienna of wealth). They might have also had a shot at siezing Bohemia for Imre.
 
In any case, this would have allowed them to avoid a loss in the holy war. They could have focused on beating the **** out of the Polish and Russian offensives, and secured a large and united Ukranian hetmanate as a vassal. They als ocould have focused on annihiliating the Venetian threat by defeating it in the Morea and also capturing Dalmatia.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2008 at 18:09
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 21:22
Very important date in European history this. I'll leave it to the moralists to decide whether its a 'good' thing or not, but few can deny that it was eventually a positive effect for Europe, considering the restrictive practises of the Ottomons when the rest of Europe was entering the Enlightenment.
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 21:47
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Very important date in European history this. I'll leave it to the moralists to decide whether its a 'good' thing or not, but few can deny that it was eventually a positive effect for Europe, considering the restrictive practises of the Ottomons when the rest of Europe was entering the Enlightenment.
 
Isn't it a moralist assumption to say that an Ottoman conquest would indefinitely dumb down or impede intellectual developments in that part of Europe?  If it is not moralist it is at least Orientalist.  We must examine the interaction of the Sultan and those behind his authority at the time to make a claim on the outcome of such a conquest.  The sultan was Mehmet IV, who was not a particular brutal or anti-intellectual ruler as opposed to his predecessor Ibrahim I. 
 
In fact, Mehmet IV was on the cusp of a time labeled by scholars as the "Tulip Period" of Ottoman history, in which certain enterprising sultans were able to shake somewhat free of the cage of the harem and the ulema, as well as examine the wider world around them and the new ideas being produced.  Whose to say that some sort of intellectual revival or synthesis would not result from Ottoman contact with Enlightenment ideals at this time?
 
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2008 at 22:53
I have a certain 'blank period' in the 100 years up to the European Enlightenment so there is a good chance that what I said was simply factually incorrect. However, I do feel that since the epicentre of the Enlightenment was west, and not east, that an Ottomon dominance over central Europe would have been detrimental to the spread of Enlightenment ideals (Considering the tendency of large Empires to look inwards in times of international change, it would have left some of the great cultural hearts of Europe - such as Austria - at the whims of an Empire trying to maintain control of a vastly different populace. You could almost say that this nationalist struggle would have dampened creative voices in the region, as energies would have been better devoted to military rather than intellectual struggle.)

Of course, this is only guesswork, and there is no way of ever knowing.
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
Warhero View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 21-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Warhero Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 22:41
vienna route is the first great-losing in Europe. this losings went on to 20th century like a chain.
Back to Top
Domen View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 13-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 86
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Domen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 22:34
Quote
Well, that is right. But all that situation was exactly the result of let's use this word - quality of husaria: after all night march, they faced about 8 times stronger enemy. Although tired after marching they immediatelly go to battle against that enemy, they are charging 10 times Russian and Swedish lines, crushing all lances and then using sabres. That is why Swedish started to flee from battlefield, and then Russians.


Husaria would not have been able to win that battle without significant participation of the Polish infantry - which defeated the superior in numbers Swedish infantry in fire combat and then pushed it aside from its defensive lines along the stone fence.

Only then Husaria was able to start its action and overcome the stone fence - which would have been an almost impassable obstacle even for husaria with thousands of pikes and muskets behind it.

Similar thing was during the battle of Vienna - it was Polish and German infantry which cleaned the way for cavalry (for example - covered Turkish trenches and holes) to charge down the hill.


Edited by Domen - 10-Feb-2009 at 22:40
Back to Top
Bartoha View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2008
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bartoha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 22:44
Originally posted by Domen Domen wrote:



Husaria would not have been able to win that battle without significant participation of the Polish infantry - which defeated the superior in numbers Swedish infantry in fire combat and then pushed it aside from its defensive lines along the stone fence.

Only then Husaria was able to start its action and overcome the stone fence - which would have been an almost impassable obstacle even for husaria with thousands of pikes and muskets behind it.


Well, some numbers:
Poland: 6800 (6550 cavalry, including 5550 hussars) and 200 infantry. On Russian-Swedish forces fought about 35 000 - 40 000 guys. In the battle of Klushino there was almost no Polish infantry and artilerry, because Polish cavalry troops (mainly hussars) entered the battle directly after the all night marching, infantry was not able to move so fast. Fences were not made by stone but wood, and were destroyed by hussars, who in the beginning of the battle on their feet using guns prepared the battlefield.
______________________________________
Bartosz, Poland
Group of Historical Fencing Milites Alraunae
http://www.milites-alraunae.prv.pl
Back to Top
Domen View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 13-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 86
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Domen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 22:46
But it was Polish infantry and artillery, not cavalry, who captured the stone fence defended by the Swedish infantry and made the way for further cavalry charge clear & safe.

Quote
and were destroyed by hussars, who in the beginning of the battle on their feet using guns prepared the battlefield.


Well..., maybe - but dismounted hussars are also infantry, not cavalry.

Quote
Fences were not made by stone but wood


Insignificant difference.


Edited by Domen - 10-Feb-2009 at 22:51
Back to Top
Bartoha View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2008
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bartoha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 22:50
Well. It only gives a prove about that hussars were universal formation, able to confront any opponent of that time, in any kind of fight Smile
______________________________________
Bartosz, Poland
Group of Historical Fencing Milites Alraunae
http://www.milites-alraunae.prv.pl
Back to Top
Domen View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 13-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 86
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Domen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 22:51

And by the way - during the battle of Warsaw in 1656, Husaria and infantry were the only Polish formations which did well during that battle, but it was infantry not Husaria who saved ass of the Polish army because was successfully covering its withdrawal against pushing forward Swedish forces.

Polish infantry with support of artillery held on bridges on the Vistula and did not allow the Swedes to capture them - and thanks to that Polish army could withdraw and was not completely defeated.

Husaria charge during that battle was also succesful, but it did not receive any support of light and medium cavalry + dragoons, so finally heavily outnumberred and almost encircled Hussars had to withdraw to avoid destruction (and - by the way - Husaria casualties during this charge were relatively very low - especcialy considering how many thousands of Swedish muskets and guns were firing to 750 charging Polish hussars).

Quote
Well. It only gives a prove about that hussars were universal formation, able to confront any opponent of that time, in any kind of fight.


But not alone.

They needed support of other formations - as every cavalry, even Husaria.

They could win battles alone, but to confront any opponent they needed support of other formations.

Especcialy Cossacs + Tatars were dangerous enemies for Husaria. Cossacs alone and Tatars alone were easy to beat, but fighting together they were very dangerous.

Unfortunately during the later period Polish army was not always able to provide this support - especcialy after Civil war of 1648 and later war with Russia - when Polish army (especcialy infantry and husaria) suffered huge casualties due to fatal decisions of Polish authorities and due to some poor commanders who lost some battles which should have been easilly won.


Edited by Domen - 10-Feb-2009 at 23:05
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.