Great Northern War scenario, Played as Poland.

[unmerged(13)]

Dragon,


As an example I never knew that the Poles and Turks had a long history of slugging it out prior to Vienna. Thanks for the good information.

The Poles and the Turks were fighting it out even before 1550. Infact Polish / Turkish wars began around 1444 with the Polish / Hungarian 'Crusade', or expedition to Varna.

DarKnight,

1700 then shouldn't Spain have to deal with the War of the Spanish Succession and thus be in no position to intervene in a distant war.

You still don't understand. Spain broke of its current alliances (for whatever reason) in 1700. I broke off my alliance with Russia. Russia decided to ask Spain and the Knights to join them in an alliance against Sweden. It's just blind luck that this happened.

Sweden, as Greven pointed out, should be allied to England and the Netherlands at the start of the 1700 campaign.

Sapura

[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 15-06-2000).]

 

[Doomdark]

instead of agrueing here which actually is pointless

How do you mean?

Seriously, discussion is what these forums are for. Perhaps another thread though...

And the consequence IF they are right is that the Polish campaign was neither pointless nore ineffective, but the only fruitful way to end the war.

Interesting. It is certainly the first time I've heard that opinion. Personally I don't think it was very fruitful to march around in Poland for six years trying to get August to realize he was beaten (although Charles could perhaps not have predicted this).

For now, I believe I will stick with Napoleon's analysis, though if I can get my hands on the book you suggested, rest assure I will read it.

/Doomie

 

[unmerged(184)]

Brilliant timetable, Sapura!

By the way, does the CG have partial campaigns like the board version of the game (i.e., the 1492-1516 campaign, and so on). If that is the case, does the 1700 Campaign start with the War of Spanish Succession AND the Great Northern War tearing Europe apart at the same time?

One wonders what would have happened if both wars combined into one gigantic struggle. World War One in 1700!!! What about this for a 'what-if' scenario?

Martin

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Doomdark on 06-15-2000 08:47 AM

First, I just want to say that the reason for not wanting to argue with you was that our opinions was very far from eachother. As A matter of fact more or less contraopinions. I though it a risk that we would 'clash' over it. I prefered suggesting this book instead.

Interesting. It is certainly the first time I've heard that opinion. Personally I don't think it was very fruitful to march around in Poland for six years trying to get August to realize he was beaten (although Charles could perhaps not have predicted this).

Then I tell you why. If you read the diaries of Rehnsköld, Wellingk, Wachtmeister and the letters from the King to the Governor of Riga. It is very clear that the first priority after the battle of Narva was to get the Field Army south. The possibility to supply more than a token force in Ingermanland during any season but summer was nonexistant. Therefore the route was south. The Swedish Generalcy also knew that Poland was busy even more south as the Swedes had good conections with the Hetman of Transylvania. Now, Sweden hadn't resources enough to maintain a large army by its own. So the King fell back to a proven strategy namely letting the war feed itself. The only part that was rich enough was Poland...
When Swedish forces 'ran around half of Poland and Saxony' it was NOT in an effort to subdue August. They barely noticed the fellow. What they did was laying all the Northern part under harsh taxation. This was made by General Quartemaster Magnus Stenbock. Swedes sometimes say that when the Russians took the baltics Sweden lost its capability to wage war effectively. That's wrong. The economic loss was large part of the _normal_ statebudget, but only in Saxony 1706-1707 Sweden extracted more than ten yearly swedish incomes in taxes... Without attacking Poland and Saxony Sweden would never ever have had the chance to even raise and send a large army to Russia... This is the first of my points.

Secondly, the 'Russia first' attitude was created by swedish 19th century historians heavily influenced by the romanticism of its days. Now these chaps notably didn't look of the actually geografically limitations of early 18th century Russia. There was a reason that Charles XII attacked the Ukraine and not the Moscow region. 'It wasn't the 18th century people that were stupid, but the 19th century historians.' In Ukraine Charles could supply his army, in northern Russia he couldn't. Living off the land there is a big joke if you try to do it more than briefly. Look at the campaigns of Peter the Great. Did he have armies in his northern regions constantly over time? No, he based them in suppliable areas and then made strike into areas as the baltics and eastern Poland. Geography was like seas with navalbases. Some parts could supply a field army others couldn't. Now these 19th century historians belonged to the General Staff, one of the most influential was Gen. Bennedich, they were all infantry or cavalry officers. Supply ? that was a topic they left for NCO's. Now reality tells us differently though...

/Greven

 

[unmerged(13)]

Without attacking Poland and Saxony Sweden would never ever have had the chance to even raise and send a large army to Russia... This is the first of my points.


I'm curious ..

Why is that ? Do you mean the Swedes became 'veterans' in the Polish campaign and this gave them an 'edge' in the campaign against Russia?

Sapura

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Sapura on 06-16-2000 04:59 AM
Without attacking Poland and Saxony Sweden would never ever have had the chance to even raise and send a large army to Russia... This is the first of my points.


I'm curious ..

Why is that ? Do you mean the Swedes became 'veterans' in the Polish campaign and this gave them an 'edge' in the campaign against Russia?

Sapura
-----------------------------

No, I mean that the Swedes couldn't raise any large armies without external financing. That would be, Hrrm..., stealing...

Before going to Poland Sweden could raise an keep financed a military force at say 15000-22000 men. That is all. She needed money to raise it to 40k or 60k, which was needed to wage war with Russia.

/Greven

 

[Doomdark]

Well Greven, how can I argue with a pro?

Still, there are some points I'd like to raise...

They barely noticed the fellow. What they did was laying all the Northern part under harsh taxation.

So you're saying that a major reason for the Polish campaign was to raise money for the Russian campaign?

Interesting. I was under the impression that Charles tried to convince the Sejm to depose August and recognize the Swedish puppet king instead. He wanted to do this quickly, since he actually did recognize the Russian threat and wanted to beat Russia ASAP.

From what I gather, plans to continue into Russia were actually discussed immediately after Narva, but were dismissed in favor of the Polish campaign.

The only part that was rich enough was Poland...

Yet the Swedish army was only about 10000 men strong at that point (and still beat a fortified Russian army three times larger). It should have been possible to maintain such a small force in a quick march on Moscow, like Napoleon suggested in his critique. Of course, actually taking that city would have been another matter...

Secondly, the 'Russia first' attitude was created by swedish 19th century historians heavily influenced by the romanticism of its days.

That depends on what you mean by 'attitude'. Attacking Russia first was the correct strategic choice, since Russia was the most dangerous aggressor and also had time on its side. The King wanted to do it as well, and Napoleon thought he should have. Thus, I hardly think the idea can be dismissed a romantic fancy.

In Ukraine Charles could supply his army, in northern Russia he couldn't.

Actually he could have, but he made two crucial mistakes:

1) Lewenhaupt's relief force with its enormous supply train was badly timed and came in too late after the main army. If they could have met up earlier they would have had the necessary supplies to march on Moscow.

2) For some reason, the main army hesitated for several days in some village west of Smolensk (I can't recall the name, but it was sometime after the battle of Holowszyn). Meanwhile Peter scorched the land in between, so that further progress in that direction became difficult. Thus the turn south towards the Ukraine.

Look at the campaigns of Peter the Great. Did he have armies in his northern regions constantly over time?

This is true enough, but I maintain that it should have been possible, with the proper planning, to build up supplies in Estonia and march on Moscow through either Pskov-Smolensk or Novgorod with a force of 15000-25000 men. After all, Peter managed to march 60000 (30000 were non-combatants, but still had to eat ) the other way up to Narva.

/Doomie

 

[unmerged(28)]

Still, there are some points I'd like to raise...
And I would like to comment them some…

Greven:
They barely noticed the fellow. What they did was laying all the Northern part under harsh taxation.

Doomie:
So you're saying that a major reason for the Polish campaign was to raise money for the Russian campaign?
Interesting. I was under the impression that Charles tried to convince the Sejm to depose August and recognize the Swedish puppet king instead. He wanted to do this quickly, since he actually did recognize the Russian threat and wanted to beat Russia ASAP.
From what I gather, plans to continue into Russia were actually discussed immediately after Narva, but were dismissed in favor of the Polish campaign.

Greven:
Yes, it still were as there was no possibility to maintain a standing army larger than say 10000 men without taxing Poland. However, when Charles XII had beaten the Polish-Saxon forces there it is obvious tat he would want to stabilise his position by introducing a pro-swedish rule. But that fact doesn’t make my suggestion any less plausible. And I also wonder why he left Poland, noot for Russia but for Saxony and stayed there for a year, sucking that country out of every penny it had. The peace negotiation wasn’t the important thing here. If you read the diplomatic correspondence between the Fältkansliet and Statskontoret you find that Charles did not believe a peace with August would stop him from coming back like a yoyo. But that wasn’t the important thing for Charles. Massing an army for a straight out attack on Russia was.

The plans you discuss were no plans but a brief staff meeting where it was found that it was not an option as there were no chance to supply an army on route Moscow without superb supply. This could only be done in the summer and only if the right level of supply was attained, but Sweden had not those resources. She couldn’t attain that amounth of supplies and send it all the way to the army marching from Narva to Moscow. Not a chance.

That he recognise Russia as his maintarget and chief threat I have never doubted or denied. Only that a direct march on to Moscow wasn’t plausible.

Greven:
The only part that was rich enough was Poland...

Doomie:
Yet the Swedish army was only about 10000 men strong at that point (and still beat a fortified Russian army three times larger). It should have been possible to maintain such a small force in a quick march on Moscow, like Napoleon suggested in his critique. Of course, actually taking that city would have been another matter...

Greven:
No Sweden could not. There were no supplies. It would have taken the Swedes at least a year to raise supply for 10000men for 3 months. (according to Dahlberghs calculations). So they could have marched to Moscow with 10000men during summer 1701. Appart from attrition, more than half that number would have been detached to escorting the supplywagons that ran from and to the moving army. There is a very long way to Moscow. The Swedes would be lucky if they had 5000men in Moscow at september. And they would be desperate. No supply in the autumn. The Russians were not stupid and the swedes knew this. The Russian army would deny the swedes a battle, instead watching the feeble force melt away… That operation would be chanceless. A quick march to Moscow would hardly have produced a victory if the Russians denied battle would it ? I say Napoleon was wrong. He also proved it himself in Russia. It wasn’t doable.

Greven:
Secondly, the 'Russia first' attitude was created by swedish 19th century historians heavily influenced by the romanticism of its days.

Doomie:
That depends on what you mean by 'attitude'. Attacking Russia first was the correct strategic choice, since Russia was the most dangerous aggressor and also had time on its side. The King wanted to do it as well, and Napoleon thought he should have. Thus, I hardly think the idea can be dismissed a romantic fancy.

Greven:
No why ? Denmark was far more dangeous to Sweden in 1700. She went for Denmark first and it was a smart move. When talked about ”Russia first” I meant counquer all/most of Russia first force her to peace and then face Poland. But this wasn’t doable and Charles XII knew it. Thats why he took Poland first. And because these historians neglected to look at the circumstances and realities of war during the 18th century, they wrongly held romantic ideas of fast victories.

Greven:
In Ukraine Charles could supply his army, in northern Russia he couldn't.

Doomie:
Actually he could have, but he made two crucial mistakes:
1) Lewenhaupt's relief force with its enormous supply train was badly timed and came in too late after the main army. If they could have met up earlier they would have had the necessary supplies to march on Moscow.

Greven:
The unit lost in Lesjna was not ”a enormous supply train”. It was the artillery and ammunition that it contained. All supply Charles XII:s army got was the supply it could forrage in Russia. It wasn’t much… In the Ukraine it was better though. But supplying a field army of 30000men deep in Russia? No my friend, THAT wasn’t an option. Sweden hadn’t the money. Not even after draining Polands and Saxonys coffers.

Doomie:
2) For some reason, the main army hesitated for several days in some village west of Smolensk (I can't recall the name, but it was sometime after the battle of Holowszyn). Meanwhile Peter scorched the land in between, so that further progress in that direction became difficult. Thus the turn south towards the Ukraine.

Greven:
I find this notion very strange. Actually Charles XII had decided to make for the Ukraine far earlier than that. We still have the correspondens between him and the Ukraine Hetman Mazepa which shows it.

Greven:
Look at the campaigns of Peter the Great. Did he have armies in his northern regions constantly over time?

Doomie.
This is true enough, but I maintain that it should have been possible, with the proper planning, to build up supplies in Estonia and march on Moscow through either Pskov-Smolensk or Novgorod with a force of 15000-25000 men. After all, Peter managed to march 60000 (30000 were non-combatants, but still had to eat ) the other way up to Narva.

Greven:
Yes, perhaps theoretically, but what would you do there ? Starve to death ? You couldn’t send those amounth of supply needed in a constant stream, as the cost would be extreme. Sweden didn’t have those kind of money. What you would wanna do is occupy every Russian piece of territory with a suiting force (one tat could live off the land and deny the russians of any supply) but first you have to take the rich areas by force. The only route was the southern one…

Secondly, when you talk of Piotr's army it was moved there in the summer, and as I have said at several occasions. Summers where the only suppliable periods, where the an army could live off the lands.

Doomie, if you still believe that it would be possible to take the northern route. I would be very interested in getting to know what you actually mean by 'proper planning'.

/Greven



[This message has been edited by Greven (edited 20-06-2000).]

 

[Doomdark]

Good show Greven!

I must concede to your analyis, since it appears that my own sources are actually in error: Peter Englund talked about the need to wait for Lewenhaupts force in order to sustain a march east and also mentioned that Charles hesitated for too long while the Russians scorched the earth west of Smolensk. Napoleon was apparently no logistician either, and was probably unjustified in dismissing Charles as not being a true general. David Kirby also found Charles' decision to march on Poland pretty incomprehensible.

This just goes to show that people are a bit too eager to embrace the idea of 'Blitzkrieg' for an era when it wasn't possible to transport enormous amounts of supply to the front by train and lorry.

She went for Denmark first and it was a smart move.

Indeed. But the very ease with which Denmark was defeated proves that she was not such a dangerous foe after all. Russia was much more dangerous; Denmark was just the most bitter enemy... and Poland the most regrettable.

After all, Russia could have swallowed Sweden completely if it had been hell bent on doing so. Denmark could not.

Doomie, if you still believe that it would be possible to take the northern route. I would be very interested in getting to know what you actually mean by 'proper planning'.

Unfortunately, you have convinced me that it was not an option, but the thought I had was that Charles should have planned ahead as soon as the Russians declared war and started gathering supplies that he could have used in a Russian summer campaign in 1701.

So, Greven, do you believe that Charles had any hope of defeating Peter at all? Even if he had won at Poltava I very much doubt that Peter would have agreed to peace terms. He would just have allowed the Swedish force to keep fading away on the steppes.

In my mind, other possibilities present themselves... Peter was the aggressor and thus the more likely part to agree to a 'white peace'. With this in mind a new Swedish strategy starts to emerge... Sweden should have forgotten about Moscow and strived instead to hurt Russia. I am thinking expeditions to Archangelsk, Pskov, Novgorod and Smolensk with the sole purpose of destroying and wreaking havoc. Use Russian tactics to defeat Russians.

It is tragic that the Turks were such useless allies... If the Sultan had actually been intelligent, he would have attacked Russia when he was supposed to, and the situation would have been very different.

/Doomie

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Doomdark on 06-20-2000 09:43 AM

So, Greven, do you believe that Charles had any hope of defeating Peter at all? Even if he had won at Poltava I very much doubt that Peter would have agreed to peace terms. He would just have allowed the Swedish force to keep fading away on the steppes.

In my mind, other possibilities present themselves... Peter was the aggressor and thus the more likely part to agree to a 'white peace'. With this in mind a new Swedish strategy starts to emerge... Sweden should have forgotten about Moscow and strived instead to hurt Russia. I am thinking expeditions to Archangelsk, Pskov, Novgorod and Smolensk with the sole purpose of destroying and wreaking havoc. Use Russian tactics to defeat Russians.

This is exactly my view. Strike at his heart and burn it. The hearts was the grainlands of the Boyars, not cities. I think the burning and pillaging and perhaps occupation of some of the best farming areas should have been directed at boyar interests. Peter might not want peace, but his boyars might be able to force him. I think one of the most important peace demands should have been an independent Ukraine lead by Mazepa or someone pro-swedish, that is to crate a strong enemy to Russia, while at the same time dividing her power and interest. Of Course sweden would get the unimportant (not for us though) areas of Murmansk, Far Karelia and Archangelsk, and perhaps Pskov or Novgorod (Nygård).

It is tragic that the Turks were such useless allies... If the Sultan had actually been intelligent, he would have attacked Russia when he was supposed to, and the situation would have been very different.

Yes, this is true. But then again Sweden should probably never have messed with the Turks. The biggest problem with them was their Sultans idea of being more or less superhuman in comparison to christian. So a successful pact had necissarily to mean a fastspeaking sugarmouthed ambassador in Istanbul and a very modest and shy swedish king. We both know that this would mean trouble. Well in RL it did in Bender after Perevolotschjna.

A note on Denmark. The danish 'weakness' should not be overestimated. Remember that the Swedish army went to Sjaelland protected by a Britto-Dutch Navy. The danes didn't want trouble with the English and the Dutch, and by behaving so 'modest' and 'responisible' in the peace negotiations in Traventhal she managed to get England and the Netherlands into the Neutral camp.

But Denmark was dangerous because her military units was much better than the Russian counterpart. Actually the losses against Russia after 1709 was in the first place because of lack of supply, outnumbered troops. The Government in Stockholm rarely managed to raise enough troops and supply them to support and defend Finland. After 1703 why didn't the swedes raid Estonia, Latvia, Ingermanland etc from Finland ? No money. The only time she managed to raise it was Stenbocks Scanian army but that was on direct orders of his Majesty in Bender.
Charles XII lacked the good advise and help of an Oxenstierna.

/Greven

 

[Doomdark]

After 1703 why didn't the swedes raid Estonia, Latvia, Ingermanland etc from Finland ? No money.

I've always wondered about this... How could Peter be allowed to build a new capital on Swedish soil so close to the Swedish heartlands undisturbed? I believe that the Swedes lacked more than money; they lacked understanding of the importance of raiding tactics. In fact, they held such tactics in great disdain. This was fatally apparent in the GNW (Russian light raiding fleets, raiding parties in Finland and Swedish east coast, etc.)

Like you say, it seems that Charles was more or less alone in the Swedish camp to take initiatives and make proper plans. Axel Oxenstierna will probably never be equalled though... I believe it was Mazarin who said that if all European First Ministers were trying to sail a boat, Oxenstierna should steer.

/Doomie

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 20-06-2000).]

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Doomdark on 06-20-2000 04:20 PM
I've always wondered about this... How could Peter be allowed to build a new capital on Swedish soil so close to the Swedish heartlands undisturbed? I believe that the Swedes lacked more than money; they lacked understanding of the importance of raiding tactics. In fact, they held such tactics in great disdain. This was fatally apparent in the GNW (Russian light raiding fleets, raiding parties in Finland and Swedish east coast, etc.)
------------------------------

True, and another thing I find interesting when talking about the political lethargy among the government in Stockholm. Most of these guy would later on (1719-1726) become the major opposition to Ulrika Eleonoras aim of retaining the Absolutism. I read a small work on the post-Poltavan opposition in Sweden agianst Charles XII. It were very silent, but it were there. Sometimes I think that perhaps the lethargy was some kind of obstruction. But then again this area is rather unknown to historians, few have checked it out.

Like you say, it seems that Charles was more or less alone in the Swedish camp to take initiatives and make proper plans. Axel Oxenstierna will probably never be equalled though... I believe it was Mazarin who said that if all European First Ministers were trying to sail a boat, Oxenstierna should steer.
----------------------------

Cool !!!

 

[unmerged(210)]

Here's some an updated list of Sapura's Polish military campaigns now extended to cover 1492-1699.

1492-1484 Lithuanian-Muscovite War
1497 Jan Olbracht expedition against the Ottomans. After unsuccesful siege of Suczawa, the army sustained heavy losses in the forests of Bukovina.
1499 Union of Wilno (Vilnius). One of many Polish-Lithuanian unions before the final Union of Lublin in 1596.
1500 Pokucie province occupied by Moldavian hospodar Stephan. Another Lithuanian-Muscovite war. Succeses of Muscovite forces.
1503. Muscovite-Lithuanian armistice. Muscovy takes 1/3 of Lithuanian lands.
1506. Battle of Kleck against the Tatars. Forces of Grand Duchy of Lithuania under hetman Glinski account major victory.
1508. Lithuanian-Muscovite war renewed. Polish forces sent to support Lithuania. Later the same year the 'forever peace' concluded with Moscow.
1509. Moldavian invade Poland and reach vicinity of Lwow. Hetman Kamieniecki wons against them at Dniestr river.
1510. Peace with Moldavia, Pokucie returned to Poland.
1512. Tatars invasion. Polish forces under Polish Hetman Kamieniecki and Lithuanian Hetman Ostrogski stop Tatars at Wisniowiec. Breakout of Lithuanian-Muscovite war.
1514. Muscovite forces take Smolensk. Same year major victory of Commonwealth forces under Ostrogski at Orsza. Failure at taking Smolensk back.
1515. Treat of Vienna with Habsburgs. In case of extinguishing Hungarian Jagiellons line the throne of Czech and Hungary would pass to Habsburgs, who in return withdrew from their alliance with Moscow.
1517. Albrecht Hohenzollern - Grand Master of Teutonic Order allies with Moscow in his anticipation of war with Poland.
1519. Hohenzollern supported by the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor starts the war with Poland. Lithuania annouces neutrality.
1521. Armistice with the Teutonic Knigths for 4 years.
1525. Teutonic Order renounced. Duchy of Prussia created as a fief of Poland.
1528. Failure at taking Ottoman held Ochakov at Black Sea coast. Same in 1529.
1531. Another Moldavian invasion of Pokucie. Hetman Tarnowski wins at Gwozdziec and Obertyn (major victory against enemy 4 times superior in numbers. Tarnowski's excellent use tactics of mobile fortified camp)
1534. Third Lithuanian-Muscovite war. Tarnowski shifted to that theater. Homel taken by Polish forces.
1537. Unsuccesfull attempt at the expedition to Moldavia. Gentry rebellion stops King from invading the dangerous neighbour. Armisitice with Muscowy.
1538. The Diet agrees for increase of funds for the Moldavian war. Not surprisingly Moldavia sides with the Ottomans and leaves Polish sphere of influence.

1558-82 Livonian War, against Ivan the Terrible.

1560. First Polish corsairs units formed.

1569 Poland / Lithuania joined as one state. Ukraine transferred to Poland.

1576-78. Rebellion of Danzig. Danzigers defeated at Lubieszow, 1577. This is Bathories royal infantry guard defeated seven large German knecht companies.

1579-82. Bathory's successful campaign against Muscovy fortresses of Polotsk, Wielkie Luki and Pskov (1579-1581).

1587-88. Archduke Maxmilian enters Poland to accept offered crown by one faction. He is defeated at Cracow and captured at Byczyna in 1588 by Zamoyski.

1591. Unsuccesful Cossack uprising.
1594. Another Cossack uprising.
1595. Zamoyski's intervention in Moldavia, Polish candidate put on Moldavian throne.
1598. Unsuccesful expedition of Sigismund 3 to recover his Swedish throne. Defeated by Duke Charles at Linkoping, and deposed. Basically a battle fought by Swedes on both sides.
1600 Zamoyski's expedition to Moldavia.

1600-11 Polish Swedish war in Livonia.
Polish victories at Kokenhausen 1601, Bialy Kamien and Kircholm 1605. Poles unable to take advantage of these victories due to financial problems.

1605-07. Rebellion of gentry quelled at battle of Guzowo.

1605-09 Polish intervention in Moscow's Time of Troubles.

1609-19. Russo-Polish war.
1609-11 Smolensk falls to the Poles.
1610 Zolkewski defeats Muscovites /Swede army with Scottish / German mercenary support at Kluszino, opening road to Moscow, the Poles garrison Kremlin. King Sigisumnd's son Vladislav becomes Tzar.

1612 Poles ejected from Moscow, Romanov becomes Tzar.
1619 Peace of Devlin with Moscow. Poles take large areas of western 'Russia'.
1619. Polish units sent to help Habsburgs in Transylvania (so-called First Vienna Relief)
1614-21 Polish Turkish War

1615 Expedition to Moldavia.
1620, Zolkewski killed by Turks when his army disintegrates at Cecora.

1621 Ottoman invasion halted by Poles and Cossacks at Chocim.

1617-29 2nd Polish-Swedish war.
Gustavus Adolphus advances down Baltic coastline whilst Poles are busy with Turkey.

1627-29 Hetman Koniecpolski returns from the south and fights Gustavus Adolphus to a standstill in Prussia; Gustavus wounded on several occasions. Polish naval fleet defeats Swedes at Oliva in 1627 freeing the blockade of Gdansk. Swedes take 3.5% toll of Polish Prussian trade in subsequent Truce of Atlmark.

1633-35 Another Ottoman invasion halted at Kamieniec Podolski.

1635. Peace of Sturmdorf with Sweden. Swedes return Prussian ports to Poland. This was due to French intervention. France knew that Poland was about to invade Sweden, and she didn't want her two allies in the east bloodying themselves anymore.

1632-34 Russ-Polish war. Smolensk is relieved by the Polish King after Russian besiege it.
1630,1635,1637 Cossacks uprisings.
1638-48 Golden Peace in the Ukraine.

1648-54. Cossack Rebellion. Polish armies defeated at Zolte Wody, Korsun, Zborow and Pilawce.

1651. Poles destroy huge Cossack army at Beresteczko (largest cavalry battle of the 17th century).
1652. Poles defeated at Batoh.

Deluge of 1654-67, Russian, Swede, Transylvanian armies invade Poland.

1654-67 Russo-Polish war. Tzar Alexis invades Lithuania. Smolensk, Kiev and Wilno falls.

Swedes invade Poland in 1655, they overrun Poland under Charles X. Nationalist revival at Czestochowa. Two, 3 day battles of Warsaw.

Battle of Warka, 1656. First Polish win against Swedish forces in the field opening the doorway to more victories. Previous to that Polish armies were weak, disorganized, many of them sideing with the Swedes and hence were defeated on several occasions.

1657. Transylvanian invasion under Rakoczy defeated.

1657 Treaty of Wehlau. Brandenburg Prussia is bought off by being given control of Ducal Prussia.

1658-59 Swedes are expelled by Polish armies, Czarniecki attacks Swedish fortresses in Denmark.

1660 Peace of Oliwa.

1660. Muscovites defeated by Czarniecki at Polonka.
1660-1 Cudnow campaign; Muscovites driven out of Lithuania.

1665 Rebellion of Lubomirski.
1666. Rebelled forces succesful at Matwy. Same year Lubomirski apologies to the King and leaves Poland.

1667 Ukraine partitioned between Poland and Muscovy.

1671-99 Polish-Turk wars.

1672 Kamieniec falls to the Turks.
1673 Sobieski defeats Turks at 2nd Chocim.
1675 / 76 Victorious Polish battles against Turks at Lwow and Zorawno.
1677. Polish-Swedish Alliance aimed at Prussia. Swedes defeated, Polish action results in Stettin being returned to Sweden.
1681 Podolia returned to Poland.

1683. Sobieski relieves Vienna commanding combined Polish / German forces. Turks defeated even more conclusively at Parkany.
1691. Usuccesful Sobieski's campaign in Moldavia.
1699. Last Polish-Tatar battle at Podhajce. Hetman Felix Potocki defeats Turk / Tatar army.

cheers

andrus

 

[unmerged(13)]

Glad to see another fellow Pole here


Nice update.


Sapura

 

[unmerged(164)]

Gentlemen.....great history stuff thanks.
One question, why is the relationship historically with Lithuania so close? Was their some historical event that caused this to happen?

 

[unmerged(210)]

Originally posted by Dragon on 06-26-2000 12:52 AM
Gentlemen.....great history stuff thanks.
One question, why is the relationship historically with Lithuania so close? Was their some historical event that caused this to happen?

This is the most funny part of Polish history I believe. Poland and Lithuania were at severe odds in mid-ages. Lithuanias were still pagan while Poland has been christianized. We shared one common enemy - Teutonic Knights but apart of that there were more possible conflicts than agreements. Both nations competed in todays Ukraine and Lithuania wanted to became the dominant nation over the Rus (not Russia!). In fact Muscovy was Polish natural ally against Lithuania but...
In 1385 Poland lost her dynasty and young Polish princess who inherited the throne was supposed to find a husband. Regency believed Lithuanian candindate would be perfect, so Jagiello (later known under his Christian name as Wladyslaw) became Polish King under the condition Lithuania will be added to the Crown (Poland). This happened only in 1569 (real union - before the Duke and the King were 'elected' separately) so almost 200 years later. There is a theory that says, that electing Lithuanian a Polish king was the worst possible option for Poland as it got embroiled in long and bloody wars with Muscovite (later Russia) over eastern part of the Commonwealth which eventually resulted in descent of this empire.
Lithuanian claim Poland 'conquered' them but in fact that was only cultural expansion (even now most ot Lithuanians speak Polish - at least as a second language).
From the other hand Poles complain they gave up complete conquest and control of Prussia to help Lithuania hold out against Muscovy.
A fact that you cannot forget is that until the Jagiellon dynasty faded away and died out (around 1575) the Duke of Lithuania was 'elected' first and then naturally became the King of Poland (that was the deal to have one ruler). 'Elected' because the nobles had to 'confirm' the King on the throne (not yet a free election) and in fact choosen only amongst those available members of Royal Family (sometimes pretty abundand as in times of Jagiellon dominancy in Easter Europe when they ruled Poland, Lithuania, Hungary and Czech).
Of course as time passed both nations merged and melted together forming multicultural though united nation (even in 1831 and 1863 when Poland rebelled against Russia, Lithuanias joined in). Funny thing, many of people considered the greatest Poles, thought of themselves being Lithuanians (so again nationality being rather a question of morale and ethics more than language).
The 'romance' ended in 1921 when Poles have taken Vilnus from the young Republic of Lithuania (both sides had comparable claims to the city). The WW2 is completely other story...

hope this helps

andrus

 

[unmerged(164)]

Thanks, interesting how things play out.