The Battle For Royal Prussia 1626-1629 | Polish-Swedish War (Pt. 3) 

That Sweed with Polish hairstyle make's me laugh every time.

Will you do a video about the irish battle of clontarf

Are you planning on covering any of the following Polish-Swedish conflicts, such as the Deluge?

I'm gonna sleep good on my side of the world

True story

My name chef

Regarding the mispronounciation of the letter "c", it's even funnier in the case of the name Potocki, especially since it was pronounced right in Koniecpolski.

He is swiss

@@andreascovano7742 Yeah, in this case, he has to be familiar with the German language.

Polish influence on German Prussian?

Interesting. In 18th century Russia also hired one of the German officers Nassau-Zigen, and sailors called him "pie with mushrooms", bc the way he ordered to go forward "вперёд" sounded like "пирог (pie)" due to his heavy German accent, and "греби(push the oar)" sounded similar to "грибы (mushrooms)" 😂

Yes. Managing an army of about 1500 soldiers in Total Wars is not that easy, despite you have active pause and camera which can fly everywhere. I cant imagie how hard it must have been to manage, say, 15000 soldiers standing on a battlefield, struggling to see all soldiers :P

"Regarding the Battle of Gniew and whichever side won the battle." Two well-known historians, Michael Roberts and Robert I. Frost, views this battle as a Swedish victory, despite acknowledging the Polish view of wanting to secure Gdańsk - I guess, the Polish army retreating from the battle while also lifting the siege of the town it was fought over (just to secure a town somewhere else), is not a good criteria for having won the battle, according to them. "I guess reaching a consensus regarding this event is almost impossible." If you'll continue to disregard anything but the Polish perspective here, then yes - "impossible" indeed. "In addition, neither side was able to break the enemy's army." An army doesn't have to be "broken" to have lost a battle. "No wonder that both sides claimed victory." Actually, I do think some people back then might've raised their eyebrows when hearing the Polish claims of victory in the battle, despite having retreated from it.

Well, if we go by this way of thinking, the Battle of Dirschau was a decisive Polish victory, the Polish army on the second day of the battle forced the attacking Swedish army to withdraw and stopped its offensive towards Gdańsk and excluded the two leading commanders Gustav Adolf and Johan Banner lol

This is true. It was a problem for the Swedish army even in the Great Northern War; by then, however, the Swedes recruited Vallack light cavalry (Poles and Lithuanians) to chase away the enemy's light cavalry. In the Russian campaign of 1708-1709, there were concerns about insufficient amounts of Vallack cavalry in the Swedish army, as Cossacks frequently harassed the Swedes - the native Swedish cavalry was simply to heavy to catch up with them, or the horses too small.

@@Leaffordes Hm, by "Vallack" do you mean Wallachian cavalry?

@Igor Hartmann Well, Poles had to deal with these kinds of tactics on the regular basis against Tatars, Cossacks, and Sabats and although it wasn't easy Polish light cavalry was capable of neutralizing this kind of threats. So I think for Swedes it mostly came down to the lack of skill and experience as well as equipment and horses optimized for this kind of warfare.

​@@kamilszadkowski8864 I'm not familiar with the Wallachian cavalry, so I can't tell you for sure, but I think - even though the name would suggest so - that they were not exactly the same; according to Nordisk Familjebok (a Swedish encyclopedia), the Vallack cavalry were (roughly translated): "Valacks, or volochs, was a light cavalry which Charles XII raised in 1702, according to the Polish and Russian [cossack?] style. Initially, the 200 man strong corps was commanded by Magnus Stenbock, and mainly consisted of citizens of Kraków - in which town the king camped for the moment. In 1706, two regiments of Vallacks were formed under the commands of Sandul Kolza (captured in 1708) and Andreas; these regiments formed the vanguard of the Swedish army and frequently fought against the Valacks of the Czar and Augustus, which they often beat. A large amount of Vallacks followed Charles XII to Turkey (1709), and then to Stralsund (1715), and even Norway (1718)." - the names of the Polish commanders has been 'Swedenized'. Judging by this, I think Vallacks was just a name that the Swedes used for light cavalry (and not necessarily Wallachian cavalry); in Swedish, 'valack' is also the name for a castrated male horse, while a 'valackare' is someone who castrates horses (I don't necessarily think that Vallack cavalry has anything to do with valackare, though). In my opinion, their role in the Swedish army has been downplayed in later literature. When I'm reading contemporary accounts and diaries of Swedish soldiers, I get the impression that the Vallack cavalry was very appreciated.

@@Leaffordes Ah, I see now. So it might be confusing but Polish light cavalry came in few different styles. One of them was Wallachian cavalry (the other was for example Tatar cavalry which evolved into Uhlans). So yes, I'm pretty sure you are actually referring to Wallachian (style) cavalry. That would suggest that the names "valachs" and "volochs" are simply distorted versions of the Polish name of this formation: "Jazda Wołoska".

All things considered he did well with polish pronancations (aside from some minor mistakes like you mention), but the Swedish once, well, they need some work

It's briefly mentioned in the song "I låga ryttartorpet", but yes, that war has left very little cultural impact, like most of our wars for some reason.

​@@Ackalansome cultures define themselfe about some halfe forgotten war 300 years ago while other cultures define themselfe about more Event Events

Lmaooooo

Fun fact Prussians originally were a baltic tribe that got genocided by germans, so germans are not really Prussians. They just stole the name to give themselves legitimacy over the region

⁠@@Crazyman12457don’t forget to mention that the Germans were Teutonic Knights aka a holy military order, nothing more Christian than genocide the natives

that will take some time though! lots of reading to do. we will cover parts of it in an upcoming video about the southern border of the PLC (and its defenders)!

@Piotr Bury Rousseau was right all along then X)

Based France

Its basically france saying « Sweden, stop fighting good Catholics’ Poland-Lithuania and start fighting bad Catholics Habsburgs! »

might answer part of that question in the 200k subscriber q&a

@@SandRhomanHistory Will be interested to see that.

Well both kingdoms has kings of the same line, Vasa. Sigismund was heir to sweden but unless he changed location from poland which he had mainly grown up in to Sweden. His uncle usurped him & Sigismund failed to reclaim his fathers/swedish throne due to nobles not supporting him taking the throne when trying to reclaim it with force. Not this Sigismund in the video ofc. Poland & Swedens Vasa kings were great warrior kings untill the end and ruled for centuries.

@@emilpeterson7034 Well, he really fucked up being a king of Sweden, with his false promises and supporting Catholicism in a Protestant country, while also not really living there.

@@demilung well was one lf many issue. We can see similar issues for english kings not being able to rule France or the other way around. Very hard to rule two major powers with a channel between

you are everywhere bro haha :D

shoulda stayed in poland :P

Hel was actually a series of islands at that time

@Piotr Bury seems logical that monetary interest played a role. They didnt wanna pay for the war in that they hadnt much to gain

"Was there a certain reason that poland agreed to the unfavorable peace with sweden in 1629?" Yeah. They were fed up with the Swedes blocking their grain exports, especially in light of quite likely taxes expansion required to finally get rid of them. Basically, Poland was growing fat and lazy.

@Piotr Bury fun facts. Yeah poland was really interesting during its commonwealth times.

@Piotr Bury yeah, no, it was not a democracy, that's a myth. And the number of people in Sejm were more than a few orders of magnitude smaller than the often repeated 10% with voting rights claim. In practice it was oligarchy with the highest aristocracy doing what they wanted, to the detriment of common good. Which was the reason of why it all has fallen.

In some sources it's said that Sigismundus and his court agreed for this peace mainly becouse they wanted to shock nobility, increase the support for the next war and higher taxation for it etc. But King died in 1632 and planned war with Sweds never break out. His son don't have enough time for full scale war with Sweds becouse Russian started war over the Smoleńsk lands during his election.

Yes

Yes Sweden (and there german mercenaries) did get there asses kicked repeatedly, but becuse the Swedish army at the time was mostly mercenaries, so the Swedish king did not have that big problem to stomp up a new army. All this change in the miltiary reforms, and the creation of the Carolean army, that core was a fully professional army of Swedish troops (and troops from the Swedish empire) the Carolean army was almost unbeatable but then the Swedish king did louse the army, it was almost impossible to replace it. Hence one major defeat doomed the Swedish empire. Compare to Gustavus Adolphus who did louse a army almost every year in the begining in his career, and still wining.

@@kirgan1000 louse

"why Sweden managed to extinguish most of its border conflicts and focus on the war, while PLC could not" PLC was a democracy. In democracy the majority rules. Those whose lands are already taken don't even count. Funny how it works, isn't it? "PLC failed at diplomacy" I don't think so. "didn't seem enough to bring it down" They finally bounce back, but only after being seriously shaken by the Deluge, and never to the same level they used to be at. Mostly because its political system was very effectively deconstructed by foreign influence. Sad story, really. Good thing it's impossible to happen in the West, or we are screwed... ;-)

@@bakters "why Sweden managed to extinguish most of its border conflicts" because Sweden was in the middle of nowhere

@@bmc7434 "Sweden was in the middle of nowhere" But they were in the middle of nowhere, because nobody in his right mind wanted to live there. In other words, they were small and poor country, yet they managed to contest and secure a series of victories against one of the greatest military powers of the World. That was only possible, because Sweden wanted what the king of Sweden wanted. What good did it do to them anyway? A huge expense, huge sacrifice for next to no lasting gains...

*Moscow: A town with mostly wooden housing and no paving, close tothe Polish border...

Becouse Gdansk is first native name. Danzig was german name of Gdansk in 19 century. For us, Poles this form have clear connotations with the Nazi occupation. In medieval times oudside Poland the second most common form was Gedanum. The first mention of Gdańsk comes from Saint Adalbert's Life written in Latin in 999. It describes the visit of Bishop Adalbert in the area in the spring of 997, and this date is often assumed by convention as the beginning of the city's history, although there was a fishing settlement here already in the 7th century In this document, Jan Kanapariusz wrote the name of Gdańsk in the Latinized form by urbe Gyddanyzc.

@@kryniov111 From my research the name Danzig goes back to the Teutonic Knights in the 14th Century. Given that in this video that the city was part of Royal Prussia, I was curious to the reason for the choice.

@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 Gdańsk goes back to 10th century and the creation of the Polish state itself, Danzig is just the Germanification of the word Gdańsk... By the way the Teutonic Knights stole (and I use stole because they were our allies at the time) the city from Poland in 1308, when the city was defended from Brandenburg invasion of Polish Pomerelia. When the knights took the city, they sloughtered the Polish troops inside and half of the native Kashubian/Polish population.

Gdansk is the original name. Slavs were there before Germans, just like in Eastern Germany today.

@@ontheline3077 It is irrelevant to my question. For example, nobody calls Istanbul by the name Byzantium or Constantinople today. And in most historical videos those names are used for specific time periods. That is my question here and has nothing to do with who was there first. Since I have not really seen a lot of videos on this area prior to the Napoleonic period, I wanted to know if there was a convention on naming this city. Also, I note in the video he provided alternate names for some cities but not this one. This is a video author question that seems will go unanswered as both names were in use before the time of the video.

I was thinking about this surname but I have some issues with such obvious interpretation/translation. That nobility originated from village of Koniecpol/Old Koniecpol. Given geography (Koniecpol is near Częstochowa in Silesia) it could be also translated as "Edge of Poland". I think it is more likely given how ordinary most surnames were. The same as debate regarding entymology of word slavic (where latin speakers think of "slaves" while, slavic people either of "word" or "glory")

Sooo France created back a disappeared Poland twice (Napoleon and 1918), declared war on Germany to support the country that allied with the Germans on the Sudetten crisis in 1938 and supported Poland's territorial claims in 1919 despite this seriously endangering France's alliance with the UK. How did France have a tendency to harm Poland again ? You see it is easy to select facts that align with pre-established theories. Try to be a bit more objective in your analysis next time. (Precision : i do not think France were always good allies to Poland, but it has not specifically always harmed it either)

Sweden and France had a very close relationship. Mean the queen during the french revolution rather stayed with the swedish ambassador instead of fleeing. Sweden have alot of french king and supported & later joining them during 30 years war. Even tho the war was about "religion". Our king is an ancestor to Napoleons general Jean Baptist Bernadotte. Guess if Napoleon got mad when one of his kins join the allied and led the coalitions northen army. The monarchy was always very close.

@Blendzior this is a voluntary biaised fact (as stated in the second paragraph) but it is true : since Germany promessed the city of Český Těšín to Poland, the country declared it's neutrality during the crisis and helped Germany strong-arm French British and Tchecoslovaks into giving in. Once again of course it is a biaised reading of the big picture, just like the initial comment was, and that is the whole point : if we look for biaised facts to back up a theory we'll find them.

@@emilpeterson7034 And the Swedes helped back : half-way between legend and history it is highly possible that the city of Paris was spared destruction in 1944 thanks to the ambassador of Sweden

@Blendzior Poland and Czechoslovakia were in a fight for some border regions since 1919. When the Third Reich claimed Sudetenland, Poland supported it because it allowed them to get some couple of cities too from the Czechs that had been in dispute.

Commonwealth of Lithuania are you drunk? You know the ruler of the Commonwealths most important title was the King of Poland, 45-50% (while 30% was Ruthenian, 8-10% Lithuanian and the rest were other minoritites) of the population was Polish, 2/3 of the army and sometimes even 4/5 were recruited in the Crown of Kingdom of Poland, Crown of Poland was also the biggest part of the Commonwealth, the language of the nobility was Polish and to top it all of the Lithuanian nobility (which spoke Polish) received their nobility status (they ceased to be some cheiftains and boyars) from the Polish nobility during the Union of Horodlo in 1413? When it comes to the naming conventions it had three most important names, which were: Królestwo Polskie i Wielkie Księstwo Litewski (which was the official name and meant the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), Rzeczpospolita (simply the "Commonwealth") and in the 17th century the name Rzeczpospolita Polska became the most popular (the Commonwealth of Poland). I will also add the the westerners simply refered to the state as "Poland" due to the fact that the rulers highest title was the "King of Poland".

@@aleksandersokal5279 interesting i can see you put alot of thought into this, lots to take away from my side and also i dont drink

@@rext87able Sorry I exaggerated a bit with the length of the reply, but I was thinking that you wanted to troll here and that is why I had to bring as much stuff as is feasible in a youtube comment.

@@aleksandersokal5279 nah dude i wasent trolling i was actually serious about my question? dont really know too much about this period or the politics involved. I mean i know that the Commonwealth had alot of resources tied down with the ottomans but i found it had to believe that the would just cede a important port location to Sweden. Just makes no sense to me

@@rext87able Poland was very slow to react to crucial situation due to the fact it was a semi-democracy the word "Rzeczpospolita" is the polonisation of the Latin word "Res Publica", which means both "the common thing" and "the republic". Due to the fact it had democratic institutions, while its neighbors were autocracies, this meant Poland had to do far more debating and paperwork before anything could be done.

When?

Och ändå slakade vi er så förnedrande 🇸🇪

@@2121gul What good did you get from it?

@@2121gul I would not say this war was embarrassing for the Commonwealths military, that would be more applicable to the initial stages of the Deluge (1655-1660) or the Great Northern War (1700-1721) which was a total military disaster for Poland on all fronts (due to numerous reasons).

Slakt är ingenting att fira och förnedring av de fallna speglar illa den glans du vill tillskriva ditt land.

@@2121gul the only thing you slap is your mother. Your old pro swedish history is almost as laughably false as Russian. 😆

your 50 years early for that xD

Everyone wanted his neighbour to fall in this time

You're overreacting. Most of Western Europe didn't care what was happening in Eastern Europe most of the time unless Ottomans were invading. Also, this video literally shows how Austria sent help to Poland. What happened to Poland later in the XVIII century was both due to unfortunate circumstances but also because of the incredible incompetency of the Polish-Lithuanian ruling class and the shortcomings of the Commonwealth's political system. Stop with this victim syndrome. Man up, admit the mistakes of the past, and learn from them.

@Piotr Bury Yeah, pretty much I'm afraid. I would say that democracies can work but large political unions rarely do.

@@kamilszadkowski8864 "Man up"? If there were mistakes in the past they had nothing to do with me personally. as far as Political situation at the time in Poland. At that time Poland came up with first constitution in Europe which the way I see it is a positive achievement. As far as Democracy not working. sometimes some people shouldn't be heard ( you probably think I'm one of them when you tell me to men up) but democracy is still most reasonable system there is. As far as me overeating that would suggest that I'm furious with the west. I'm not. Even though I would definitely prefer if situation of Poland being divided among other countries would never happened. I simply prefer that we would not look to the west or the east for that matter with so much reverence without knowing our own history and work together not against each other as we often do.

@Piotr Bury Waść nie porównuj Najjaśniejszej Rzeczpospolitej do Unii Europejskiej...

Nope Gdansk

When did exactly Finnish cavalry win on even terms against Polish cavalry? No, seriously, I am curious because maybe I've missed some battle? Most that I know. like Battle of Kropimozja ended rather badly for the Finnish cavalry despite them having the numerical advantage.

@Blendzior Yeah...

@Blendzior Cope

@@kamilszadkowski8864 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Swedish_War_(1626-1629) In this war. Also, I find it interesting that you decided to manipulate the standards and say "even terms", when I only spoke about getting blown the fuck out. You've raised the bar from what I've claimed. "The Swedes hoped to provoke the Poles into a reckless attack and then to destroy them with infantry fire and artillery, but Koniecpolski decided otherwise. The Swedes then took the initiative and attacked with cavalry, and managed to deal severe damage to the Polish cavalry, but failed to inflict a crippling blow on the main body of the army (the morale of which remained high, mostly thanks to Koniecpolski). When, King Gustavus Adolphus was shot in the shoulder by a Polish sniper, the Swedes decided to end the assault and withdrew from the field, reportedly in good order."

@@kamilszadkowski8864 Ps. I'm not sure where the emotion came from, since my comment is mostly in jest. Got no hate for the poles and would've much preferred if the Finns and Poles had succeeded in defeating the Swedes during the war against Sigismund.