The Battle For Lithuania 1617-1626 | Polish-Swedish War (Pt. 2) 

Thanks guys!

Homie I got to know is the man that narrates your videos a machine making that voice is is a human? I’ve been watching your videos so much throughout the work day I started un ironically speaking with a British accent

Agreed Kings and Generals.

@@SandRhomanHistory please do on the sikh empire

this is the moment of one legend salutes another...

Thanks again. I'm trying but man, that language is hard.

Yeah, but pronunciation of the names of some Livonian (Latvian) cities are wrong.

@Redsand Which ones?

@Redsand I guess SandRhoman could go for the Polish version "Birże". Not sure if he would find it easier, but at least Google Translate offers Polish audio.

I was surprised about Daugavgrīva, didn't think it was so old. Only criticism I have is that map of Riga doesn't correspond exactly with maps of 17th century maps of Riga I've seen before.

Greetings from a swede, thats actually an interesting fact. Sometime in the future ill make sure to take the boat over to see the gates and buildings!

@@Nick_Goblin You are welcome! But the Old city of Riga is quite small. Sadly, it has only a few medieval fortifications left. Even in a smallest Tallin has left many more later medieval houses and fortfications.

Interesting suggestion. Well, one thing I can say is that army size tended to increase sharply in the early modern period. Military historians talk a lot about "revolutions" (like the infantry revolution or artillery revolution), same goes for the so-called "army revolution" which refers to the numeric increase of armies. Speaking off the top of my head I think an army in the Italian Wars at Pavia was around 40k while the Swedes in 1630s managed to bring in armies of about 70- 100k. However, it is important to note that these numbers refer to all men in a variety of garrisons, so this 40k / 70-100k is not one army that fight in one battle but many forces across Germany. So this would certainly be interesting to dig into. In any case if we just pick two random battles, Pavia 1525 and Breitenfeld 1631 (both the biggest or at least big battles of their respective wars) then the difference in army size becomes apparent (at least anecdotally): At Pavia both sides put around 20k men into the field while at Breitenfeld both Tilly and Gustavus commanded around 35-40k-ish men.

Probaly because the swedish intervention in the 30 years war changed the overall balance pretty heavily, up til that point the protestants had all but been wiped out, the swedish intervention, and the later french intervention would change the state of the war and eventually lead to a protestant victory.

@@alexanderrose1556 True that. The Swedish intervention was decisive for the outcome of the Thirty Years War. But it's still weird that this conflict is so rarely talked about. Gustav Adolph's military reforms and skills as a general were decisive in both wars. And, as I stated above, this war allowed the Swedish army to, in a similar way to the Luftwaffe after the Spanish Civil War, enter the following war with experienced soldiers who used field-tested methods.

Thanks again!

With an extremely unfortunate name in retrospect lol

(And win)

his first war with Denmark did not end well

Thanks man. Considering that there are so many history channels that's a pretty big compliment!

We have an unfinished video script somewhere about that. Maybe we get to produce sometime next year. It depends on other projects and how busy we're going to be in January / February.

@@SandRhomanHistory that sounds really cool I will definitely watch the video when it come out keep up the good work guys I’m a massive fan

@@SandRhomanHistory Oh, this is great news! Can't wait!

Birth of Russia from Alexander Nevsky to Ivan the Terifying would be an interesting series of videos :-)

@@martinan22 I agree and Poland would definetly get mentioned and as would the winged hussars

Well, the quote fits the video. It's not meant to support anything he did!

@@SandRhomanHistory Oh it fits perfectly. And I didn't mean in the slightests to imply you support what he did. I was just surprised that's all.

Great suggestion! We already have a few pages written on the Ingrian war but we delayed it for now. We might do it sometime in 2022.

The greatest armies are often created under pressure. When there is a real, life-threatening necessity it often creates the best ground for reforms. Just like the menace of Muscovy, Teutonic Order and especially Mongols/Tatars caused Commonwealth to create a great cavalry-based military then Sweden under the pressure of Danemark, Muscovy and Commonwealth created even greater military force and efficient state apparatus. Kind of reminds me of WW2 and how the Red Army became an unstoppable force at the end of this conflict.

I guess innovation is needed when you cannot beat an enemy just with the brute force of sheer numbers. Germany in World War knew that they was going to lose a long war of attrition, so they therefore had to experiment with new types of weapons (flame throwers, poison gas, uboats, zeppelins), new types of tactics (stosstruppen, auftragstaktik).. the new ideas would make the German army a formidable foe in WWII, but it wasn't enough to win WW1.

Thank you! Cheers!

Arguably, it was still more peaceful in Europe than when you were around :P

@@SandRhomanHistory not really or is that true . I thought 30 years was the most bloody pre 20 th century war in Europe??

@@SandRhomanHistory *laughs in WW2*

@@sagagis ww2 was nothing compared to the 17th century lol, literally almost every country or state was in constant wars at this time.

Whats so good about Riga being sieged?

Our capital or anything our country related being mentioned ANYWHERE is a cause to be happy

The Baltics was the crownjewel in the Swedish empire. The breadbasket of the empire. The biggest city of it was not Stockholm as one could expect, but instead it was Reval (Tallin). And it was militarity important as a landbridge for invasions into Poland, and for denying Poland closer access to Stockholm and Finland. And the area provided some of the oak trees for the Swedish navy. Some of Swedens oldest military marches played on flutes on drums is named after a nobleman from Livonia: Wolmar von Schlippenbach ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2Lpse5UXlWg.html

Latvia was also the Silicon valley of the Eastern bloc during the Cold war. It was there that the Russian's laid their high tech computer industry and its automotive industry. But thanks to failed neoliberal policies have the Latvian government destroyed much of the headstart the country had compared to many other East European countries. And robbery by Swedish banks and the idiotic monetary policies forced upon Latvia by the EU have destroyed its economy. It would have been interesting to see what could have happened if those 3 plagues never happened. Perhaps the country would have been the high tech Mecka of Europe then.

Maybe. But the pattern is that the further away from the Muslim world, the more likely a country is to become protestant. Meaning the state take over the church and use it as the propaganda machine of the state. Meaning, bigger armies, better bureaucracy, more consistent policy. Its hardly likely that Sigismund could have changed that. Its big man theory of history vs marxist systemic theory of history.

@@martinan22 Digging deeper you will find the reason that Poland didn't became Protestant, was some idiot who started arguing with a priest and a monstrance was damaged during this row. Quite a big issue for that time. This guy just had to pay for a broken glass, however rapid Protestant expansion was stopped and counter-reformation had a time to form.

Well, he had himself to blame - promising same land to two different groups to gain their support. Plus, considering how "nice" Catholic Commonwealth was to Orthodox subjects, you think a union of Catholic and Protestant countries under one throne would work?

@@demilung What do you mean? Many of the most powerful nobles in the Commonwealth were Orthodox.

"Why are my comments disappearing?" I dunno. There's nothing for my under "held for review". I only see this comment by you (last four hours). Pronunciation: thanks, I used a variety of translation services but sometimes I remember them incorrectly. During the process of researching and writing wrong pronunciations get stuck in my head.

So Swedes couldn't capture it and threaten the Polish flank.

Username indeed checks out ;)

He didn`t have the numbers to face that army and it was his equal or better in terms of quality. If authoritarian states are ¨always more efficient`in supporting the war effort¨ than how do you explain the lack of efficiency in German, Italian and Japanese war production in WW2? The Western democracies were lazy in preparing before the war but once the war was on, they organized their economies for maximum output very quickly and efficiently. It took the Germans until 1944 to properly get their war production going. Generalization is difficult. Authoritarian governments are able to be more ruthless but their mistakes are not as easily criticized or corrected.

@@somewhere6 Yeah it's a pervasive myth. Nazi germany was incredibly inefficient.

@@somewhere6 " than how do you explain the lack of efficiency in German, Italian and Japanese war production in WW2? " --- The main problem of Germany was lack of resources. They still managed to steamroll through most of Europe and give Allies a tough fight despite them having about 10 times fewer resources than all Allies combined. It also took another authoritarian state to take them down. Soviets caused about 80% of all German casualties. Japan's initial successes in China were also quite staggering not to mention Philipines and Singapur so easily. "The Western democracies were lazy in preparing before the war" --- Which literally proves my point. "but once the war was on, they organized their economies for maximum output very quickly and efficiently. " --- By enacting wartime law, restricting civil liberties and effectively becoming more authoritarian for the duration of the war. "Authoritarian governments are able to be more ruthless but their mistakes are not as easily criticized or corrected." --- Mistakes, in general, are not easily corrected. I don't think democracies are any bit better at doing it. I mean, how often in democracy reform is needed but is not enacted by any consecutive government because the topic is controversial?

@@plaparen That is true. Many of their decisions regarding production were just terrible. The decision to build Tiger II is a prime example.

*"He didn`t have the numbers to face that army and it was his equal or better in terms of quality."* Wrong his army defeated Austria and Poland. *"Authoritarian governments are able to be more ruthless"* I think there is a difference between being authoritarian and being centralized. They are not the same thing. Sweden was not a Hitlerite dictatorship under Gustavus. The country was still having remains left from its time as old feudal state. The King had to make concessions to the nobility before he could become King. Otherwise would they not accept to vote in favor of letting him become the new King at his young age. When wars were fought in Germany and more money was needed, did the King need to negotiate with the peasant class and beg them kindly to accept extra war taxes. The King also realized his own limitations and did delegate out responsability of economic matters to his advisor Axel Oxenstierna. The King was a passionate man with strong feelings, temper, energy, impatience and big dreams... while Oxenstierna was a pragmatic realist, a man with a big brain, and a very cynical and macchiavellian view of the world. The two was close friends and in combination were those two men invinceable. The King laid out bold plans and invested his energy to make them work. While Oxenstierna made the King calm down and abandon his most wild and unrealistic ideas, but keeping most ot the rest of the plan and fixed all money and logistics to make it work. He always found out ways to get money, he was an expert negoatiator and he was a clever player in diplomacy that could lure Denmark into playing their cards wrong and lose despite a strong hand. If I could make a clone out of one brain to rule Sweden - then I would pick Axel Oxenstiernas. So Sweden was never authoritarian in that sense that the King had unlimited powers. The Swedish King was in fact pretty weak compared to the absolutist Kings of the 1700s, like Carolus Rex who did not have to listen anyone except God. But Sweden was a centralized state. The King, his advisors, the nobility and the peasants all stood unified to win the war in Germany. The nobility did not try to stab the King in the back and use dire times to expand their own powers at the expense of the King - like what often happened in other countries. Instead did the nobility realize that they had a common interest with that the King and country was doing well. If the nobles did their duty and fought the war and did it well, then they would get rich from plundering cities, and they would get more power and status by showing strong capabilities as a General on the battlefield. By making themselves useful for the state would they help the country, and in return would the country help them get rich and promote their career. It was a system of win - win for everyone involved. So one can say that Sweden was an extremely centralized state. And extensive documentation was done to make best use of limited resources like money and manpower. Churches did document how many locals lived in their area so the state would know how much taxes that could be collected, and the newly born male children were put into the system so the state would know how many potential future soldiers it had available. Its perhaps no coincidence that Sweden with this obsession also became the first country in the world to get a Central Bank, and in 1749 also first in the world to regulary count population numbers on an annual basis. This institution responsible for all statistics gathering already existed back in the 1600s so even long before 1749 was government control without equals. But even with such a massive "surveillance state" I would not call Sweden opressive. The tax burden was more equal and fairly distributed than in most other countries - like France, Austria, Denmark, Russia. A peasant back in those days would probably have been most free if had been born in the Netherlands, Britain or Sweden.

Many members of the Polish parliament thought the same.

@@kamilszadkowski8864---That is hardly a surprise to me.

Nie tylko.Szwedzi za skarby wywiezione z Rzeczpospolitej prowadzili wojnę na zachodzie europy.

Wrong. At the end of the day, Sigismund's rights to the Swedish Throne were forfeit, do the new dynasty was legitimate now.

3) Kokenhausen = Koknese

An island in front of a medieval city also is showing wrong. It's located a little bit upper by the river (or to the south in a scheme).

I guess because the Swedish forces were still combat effective after this one.

Most likely prevent Swedish forces from capturing the village and threatening the Polish flank. Since most of the Polish-Lithuanian troops were cavalry I imagine it could be dangerous if Swedes would manage to put their infantry in there.

Scorched earth tactic basically

It‘s known by that name. From academics to history buffs, everybody uses it, so it’s np.