Time for some capitalism

At some point it'd be cool for you to also cover the second most notable polish cavalry unit - Lisowczycy/Elears. They seem to only be recognized in Poland and Russia, and completely unrepresented in KZfaq history-sphere.

He dont deal cause none of battle against Winged Hussars was win - i mean unit on unit not army on army.

The Carolineans when!?!?!?

Grateful to you

Indeed. Russia had time to grow and then beat them bough.

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 fishing Hubert

Yeah man we could have both teamed up against Russia and take it.

@@bicepbrah8179 But who would have conquered Sibiria then?

Indeed! Russia did not shared border with nobody strong from south side or east, they have possibilities to grow. Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth did not have this luck -> almost always was attacked by couple enemies in the same moment (for example 1655 Moscow, Sweden with Branderburgia, Rakoczy from Transylvania and Cossacs) and holded this attack -> which nations could hold in same situaction? Swedish politics was very stupid (very fast they lost all lands with Finland inculded), only geographic location made them strong, other things are not impresive.

Steel is normally cold

@@assumjongkey1383 As opposed to hot steel, guns. :D

@@shorewall no .just ..no

@@assumjongkey1383 war

@@assumjongkey1383 Try touching the gun barrel as it fires.

*Happy mask-muffled Krieger noises intensifies*

@@Mariner797 Imperial fist nods approvingly

@@ieuanhunt552 F O R T I F Y

Meanwhile: *sinister shotgun noises*

“You were loud and ugly and now you’re dead!” ~TF2 Soldier

They flew right over his dirt. Wings, remember?

I have a jar of dirt!

@@LuzikArbuzik77 who am who are you

@@teaCupkk And get a pike in the belly.

The most tactically important weapon, ever since it was introduced, it has been used by every army, even nowadays. It has changed, improved with new technology, but it remains so that the first user would recognize the must modern versions. There are no indications that it well ever fall out of use, especially given its uses outside the battlefield. The knife? No... the shovel!

Words of wisdom!

Epic comment!!!

@@True_black_swordsman bring the blood

He didn't take it down tho. Just chellanged it more boldly.

@@civishyperboreum6853 Gustavus Adolphus is greater than any Polish leader in history, he definitely destroyed it.

I don't understand, what does Gdańsk have to do with the battle of GNIEWO? Gdańsk was a really hard city to capture; I don't think Gustavus would've been able to even if he reached it. Do you know any first hand accounts which says the Swedes were planning to capture Gdańsk?

​@@Leaffordes Found some sources in Polish saying about it, Gdańsk was important trade center for Poland, and Swedish forces already captured many surrounding fortresses. They even tried to negotiate with the city. Gustav started to build a bridge across Vistula River to cross it. There was even a letter in which Gustav said thah he plan to capture Gdańsk. Futhermore Gdańsk had weak point on it's eastern side. City asked king for help, that's why they besiedge Gniewo, which had only weak garrison and was important to secure Swedes flank.

There is zero evidence in the Swedish sources supporting the idea that Gustavus intended to capture Danzig/Gdansk in 1626. Even before Gniew Gustavus had not only detached much of his army to provide garrisons in towns and forts but was moving south rather than west towards Gdansk. If he had intended a siege of Gdansk which was the most powerful fortress city in the Baltic he would not have landed so far away nor dispersed his army. Instead he would have landed at Putzig aka Puck and moved directly at Gdansk. That is the plan established earlier when a counter-invasion was planned due to rumors that Sigismund Vasa was assembling an army for a 2nd invasion of Sweden a few years earlier. Rumors turned out to be false but the plan was kept and updated.

​@@Vonstab As it was said in this video it is hard to tell the truth today, because both sides tells different story. There was a letter from 19 VIII 1626 written by Gustav to his brother-in-law George Willhelm in which he said that WHEN he will take Gdańsk, he will give Piława back to George. He already capture most of important fortresses or cities, securing his flank, like Puck, Elbląg, Gniewo, Tczew, Malbork or others. Gdańsk was cut off and the truth is it felt threaten, and made active preperations for siege. Then there was a failed negotiations, in which Gustav demanded not only City's neutrality, but disarment and giving up polish ships and others. After this failed, Gustav announced Gdańsk as Swedish enemy. Swedish forces were already present near Gdańsk, when Poles started besieging Gniewo, they fired upon Gdańsk at night of 17/18 IX, but then retreated to Gniewo. Gdańsk itself had weak point on easten side, it was only protected by narrow river (Motława and Green Gate), and some earth works. No matter what was the truth, Gdańsk felt threaten and Polish forces main objetive was to secure it, that's why after battle of Gniewo, they marched north. And thus Poles achieved strategic victory at Gniewo, alongside with Swedes.

@@alder2460 lots fo food

He has an evolutionary overdrive.

@Marcelo Henrique Soares da Silva A bit like Steve Jobs then? Take stuff that already exist, put it together in a new way (or in a more successful way, at least) and then being hailed as a ingenious inventor! ;)

Gustavus Adolphus to shipwrights: I'm altering the ship, pray I don't alter it any further.

WHEN THE WINGE- GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS!

GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS GO FORTH DEATH FROM ABOVE MAKE THE ENEMY KNEEL ACERBUS ET INGENS GO FORTH DEATH FROM ABOVE IT'S AN ARMY OF KINGS

The wars were pretty much the definition of Cool vs Awesome

Gustavus became a badass fighting the Poles, and Sobieski fought on both sides in the Swedish wars, so yes

Phillip of Macedon built his army from scratch and introduced new ideas and tactics that ensured Macedonian dominance on the battlefield for generations. Had he not been assassinated his overrated son would of never been remembered.

"But damn, he was so reliable, effective [...] A genious and a legend." Though he goofed pretty badly in ship design.

@@seneca983 What! I cant just double the size of artillery and reinforce the entire ship without making everything unstable?

@Alvi Syahri But i sometimes think we underestimate that the persians were the ones who created an empire, Alexander just usurped that empire, while by no means a small feat his empire was not that much bigger than the persian.

@Alvi Syahri I see what you mean. Ursurp does have a flavor of scheming courtiers while the behavior i was after was more something like how the invading nomad tribes of central asia conqured great nations just to form a thin layer on top of the newly conqured.

What do cz and ch mean to you? For my people is symple exactly that c-z and c-h, we mainly use single letters for singe sounds.

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 questions

cyrilic letters suit slavic languages so much better, in my opinion. I as a Ukrainian have no problem pronouncing polish but reading it is confusing AF

@@johndoe-qj2kt Its not the latin letters that make polish strange its the things they have added in combination with not adding some more. Id say that out of all the slavik ways of writing cheholovak is the best. And out of all baltoslavic latvish is the best. My problem with kirilik is that you cant write many things in it snice many letters change what sound they make depending on the next one. The best writing systems are ones where this is minimized by giving every sound a letter of its own, and for ease of learning similar sound should have similar letters.

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 cz is like English ch in 'check' or 'chop', while ch is pronounced just as h. I believe that they used to be slightly different sounds but we stopped distinguish between them.

Is that war

Shame he got nerfed

@@firstnamelastname4249 arms

Well, he learned from one of the best: Frederik Hendrik van Oranje Nassau.

Except when it came to ship design.

Then the winged hussars arrived Coming down the mountainside vs Gustavus Adolphus, Libera et impera Acerbus et ingens, Augusta per augusta

WE REMEMBER IN SEPTEMBER WHEN GUSTAVUS. ADOLPHUS. LIBERA ET IMPERA.

Nice to see you here

@@FieldMarshalYT same with you friend

@@CivilWarWeekByWeek but not u:(

@@assumjongkey1383 how disorganized

Well, sadly we too have to play the 'KZfaq game' to some degree. We try to stay away from much of the other stuff that is bad for the overall viewer experience but spikes engagement such as calls to action, pop ups, cringy humor and the like.

@@SandRhomanHistory That's okay, I genuinely thought it was a funny thumbnail. I wouldn't worry about having to play the algorithm's clickbait game, as long as you provide good content like this I think viewers will forgive you for the occasional silly title!

Gustavus was nearly killed in many of his battles. At Dirschau he got a bullet in his shoulder that couldn't be removed, the nerve damage from it paralyzed two fingers on his right hand. It would have been really interesting to know what would have happened had he survived Lutzen.

*Battle of Trzciana

@@Jauhl1 We would write in Swedish language.

The book 1632 explores a Swedish Empire where he never dies.

@@Jauhl1 Yeap, and that was the reason the battle was tactically undecided, cause the Swedish next in command wouldn't continue the assault

polish lithuanian swedish empire would be op

That's how people die back then.

Liar

I can't find any source confirming this was said

@@seanbeahn6895 There are some polish sources claiming that.

@@maverick8697 I'd take those with a pinch of salt if I were you

@@seanbeahn6895 IMO they as believable as others.

Slowly walking

Lol, I always wait for your response when the polish are in his videos

@@toootdooot710 I "sound" like I'm crazy, don't I?

Weren't muskets also faster to reload and lighter to carry? Also what about accuracy and range in comparison to an arquebus? I think those four were the biggest difference, am I correct? Although I guess this all would still depend on what kind of a musket is being talked about.

@@darthwalrus4740 Muskets weren't exactly lighter and because of their length, they weren't easier to carry, although Gustav was trying to decrease the overall weight of his soldiers' firearms when possible. As for the reload speed. I honestly don't know how arquebus would be slower to reload than a musket. I think that mostly goes down to training as well as loading procedures. Soldiers were usually loading their weapons by following a series of commands given by NCOs. Such loading procedures contained between (give or take, I don't know all of them) 16 to 24 different commands. As for accuracy, theoretically, longer barrels of muskets should offer higher initial velocity which in turn should mean musketeers should be able to shoot with better accuracy and on longer distances too. But, that's just a theory. Considering that soldiers in this time period often lacked training in accurate shooting it usually meant that the overall difference wasn't huge. It was however significant enough to make musket a dominant firearm of the period. As for the accuracy in the actual battles between Swedes and Poles. This is how it was analyzed by Ph.D. Radosław Sikora: "In the battle of Gniew there were a total of three attempts undertaken by Polish cavalry to break Swedish foot. In the first attempt - September 22, 1626 - the hussars charged several times were hit by a hail of missiles from 2 squadrons of infantry and 6 guns (2 squadrons had 576 shooters). It should be added that the hussars' charge conditions were very inconvenient. The hussars first had to cross the flood embankment, behind which the Swedish infantry was formed. That's not all. The hussars had to charge on the powdery sands of the Vistula. The aforementioned embankment currently has a height of up to 8 meters and is not easy to cross, even on foot. It was lower in the 17th century, but it was a very serious obstacle on the way to infantry. The hussars, "jumping over" this embankment, certainly were not able to do it without disorganizing their own ranks. The result of these charges was that every attack by the Polish cavalry was repulsed. It looked like that after the fire of the infantry, the hussars' charge broke down and the hussars retreated. The infantry, on the other hand, began to load weapons in a hurry. At that time, the Polish Cossack banners in the second wave tried to approach the infantry group and take advantage of the fact that it Swedish foot was almost defenseless while reloading. However, the Swedish reiters each time went against the Cossacks and tied them up with a fight. In the meantime, the hussars were reorganizing their ranks and returning to the fight. At this point, the Swedish reiters withdrew trying to avoid confrontation with hussars. However, this time was sufficient for the infantry to reload their muskets. Subsequent charges of the hussars met with the fire of the infantry. The situation repeated several times, and finally, the Poles gave up and withdrew. Considering that Polish cavalry only tried to break the Swedish ranks three times, we can count how many missiles fell on it. Well, at least about 1,728 musket balls and 18 canister shells were fired. What were the Polish losses? Well, they amounted to (in 3 different diaries) from 20 to 50 killed riders (one of the diaries gives the number 19-23 dead, the other two - 30 and 50)." --- Hussar phenomenon by Radosław Sikora

Good times

Who lost many times to Koniecpolski and nearly lost his own life twice! After one battle with Koniecpolski, King of Sweden said „ I never saw such masacre”.

@@lothar3610 It's a good thing he learned from his mistakes. He was no mediocre commander.

@@FieldMarshalYT I am not saying that. Personaly I think he was a genius, same for Koniecpolski. Clash of titans.

@@lothar3610 Oh yes, Koniec was a damn great military leader for sure.

@@FieldMarshalYT ring the blood

Bloody how quite

What nice afk

Greetings to Polish warriors from Sweden :)

Greetings to both from Finland!

NO? Ceasar was a Roman. Good try tho.

@@peternystrom921 Not the one from fallout!

Good old lord

Sir, we praise sweedes here

@@hannibalburgers477 Nope.

Firing on people

If only those Vasas could have avoided quarrelling with each other.

@@alanpennie8013 that can be also said of the Polish dynasty - the Piasts. In 1138-1295/1320 they were nothing but a quareling family, making Poland into 7 warring principalities, instead of a unified Kingdom that matched the strength of Hungary and outmatched Bohemia (well, that might've simply been the earlier Piasts being more militarilly savvy/skilled than Przemyślids, but whatever)

A cli4

A beast in the shape of a man with a dream, to rule sea and land

Dedication. Dedication. They're outnumbered 15 to 1.

@@ailius1520 Round them up look into their eyes They beg for their lives

The Lion Of The North, the Warrior King!

Learning new

What it it

nie zrób kupy z wrażenia

thanks man!

And what wasn't mentioned was that 40% of that army consisted of an Imperial German relief force, Reiters, professional heavy cavalry that actually could fight the Swedes head on.

There was no "9000" Swedes at Honigfelde, the Wiki page you link to shows this as do any look at the Swedish sources, indeed the 5500+1300 listed in the Wiki is probably a bit too high since the numbers have been rounded up in the case of the infantry while the 5500 cavalry was the ration strenght in number of horses who had to be provided food and paid for rather than the number of men able to fight. (The Regimental staff and the officers in each company had additional horses, for example a German cavalry company in Swedish service had 12 officers with 26 horses in each company.) Apart from a small force of 50 musketeers the Swedish infantry was not engaged in the battle but rather continued the march to the Swedish camp at Malbork while the cavalry fought a rear guard action to cover the movement of infantry, heavy artillery and the wagon train. If you want to count the Swedish infantry they we should also count the Imperial infantry which was present but never joined the battle. Documents show that after the exchange of prisoners the Swedish dead in the battle numbered fewer than 500 with up to 1000 wounded. (The number of wounded is hard to fix since Swedish records listed sick and wounded together and sickness was common in the army in Prussia. 1052 men were listed as sick post battle.). Had the Swedish army been 'completely defeated' then losses would have been far higher and included the slow moving wagons and artillery as well as the entire infantry force. Swedes had no need to regain the initiative, they got what they wanted from the Truce of Altmark which let Swedish troops occupy important parts of Royal and Ducal Prussia with the right to collect tolls from the rich trade going through Gdansk. The treaty also secured the Swedish possession of most of the Duchy of Livonia. The only thing the Swedes did not get was Sigismund giving up his claim to the Crown of Sweden.

@@Jauhl1 Reiters were divided into light, medium and heavy you should remember that. When it comes to quality the German reiters were far worse than the Winged Hussars and even Polish medium cavalry (Pancerni, at that point known as chorągwie kozackie) were better and Gustav was mostly surprised by their fierceness as well as the hussars of course. It was 1,200 Polish Winged Hussars, 1,200 Polish medium and light cavalry and 2,000 Habsburg cavalry vs. 6,000(apart from this there was about 3,000 mostly infantry which did not take part) Swedes (mostly cavalry). Polish light and medium cavalry as well as the Imperial cavalry attacked from the front, while the hussars attacked from the Swedish left and caused the entire force to suddenly rout.

@@aleksandersokal5279 Never heard Reiters being referred to anything but heavy cavalry. Moreover the Reiters was the direct development and replacement of heavy lancers of Europe, Unlike Lancers their pistols allowed them to fight with the Pike and Shot formations, while Lancers could only charge and against a secured Pike and shot front that was suicide. Lancers could still do incredible damage if they caught the enemy in disarray but they lacked flexibility of modern cavalry Fighting with a lance also demanded alot more skill and training. Which is why they were replaced everywhere but Poland. At Trzciana the Reiter's was the crucial element the Commonwealth lacked. Something that could fight and tie down the Swedes head on without being massacred, which allowed the Hussars and Cossacks to flank and intercept reinforcements. SandRhoman has another video on the black riders if you are interested kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g8Cbndx3y9O8kok.html

@@Jauhl1 Are you serious? You never heard of reiters without armour? Reiter heavy cavalry in 17th century was properly known as the Cuirassier s (who wore the 3/4 armour), medium known as just reiters (who wore breastplate, backplate and a helmet or no armour and helmet or even a cap and no armour), light known as arquebusiers (who had cavalry arquebuses). You are wrong about the lance, as in Poland the hussars had lances which were longer than pikes which allowed the hussars to break a pike formation without any issues (at Trzciana the fight was mainly against cavalry so this does not matter). Hussars were far better at charging head on than reiters (because of their lances).

Look at those numbers

Gustavus didnt save the europe like hussars did

@Niek Vels Holocaust wasn't Catholic, it was based on nazi ideology worshipping their own views

@Niek Vels Not gonna comment on the catholic debate stuff here, but it is true the Winged Hussars didn't save Europe. Even if the Ottomans captured Vienna it would be nearly impossible to keep control of, send troops to, and maintain the city. Especially during winter which many Ottoman troops were not used to. The Hussars were legendary cavalry indeed, but the whole 'Saved Europe" thing is just propaganda.

@Niek Vels dude the Catholic Church got almost kicked out of germany by the Nazis, they got a shit tone of land stolen and the German government still pays reparations for that. Hitler represents christians less than Timur represents Islam

@Niek Vels Adolf Hitler was protestant

Very useful

*pipes ;). Long ass pointy pipes ;)

Lepiej się weź za książki Radka Sikory, zamiast miauczeć o podręcznikach i chwalić ten filmik.

What’s new

Yes.

Soon... soon...

Couldn't agree more.

To be fair, the very first Total War was set in this era - in Japan. Ditto its sequel. The Japanese had shorter pikes, no mounted pistols, and no artillery, but otherwise very similar weapons and tactics.

I was convinced he couldn't wear armour because of the wound he suffered at the Battle of Tczew against the Polish. I don't see how being fat would stop you from wearing armour.

Do you have a source?

@@MrVonTrolling This honestly sounds like propaganda than fanboyism is keeping alive

Yeah, according to some Polish sources everyone praised polish soldiers

@@MrVonTrolling mentioned in the book: Radosław Sikora "Z dziejów husarii" (but it is in Polish so probably it won't help you. The author is a professional historian.

@@demilung except winged hussars rather not, but they were really exceptional and this is not a creation of propaganda.

Rather well*. These charge-filled battles either remained undecided, or a Polish-Lithuanian defeat. And all it took was actually using the terrain to one's advantage, who'd have thunk?

@@mateuszjokiel2813 There were two defeats (Kiesia 1626 and Górzno 1629), two stalemates (Gniew 1626 and Tczew 1627) and four victories (Czarne 1627, Oliwa 1627(sea battle), Treiden 1628 and Trzciana 1629) for the Polish Commonwealth in this war. Apart from loosing some Prussian castles and towns at the start (which were regained after the finalized peace treaty in 1635) the Commonwealth did pretty well in this war.

@@aleksandersokal5279 Swedish victories: Wallhof 1626, Gniew 1626 is classified as a "formal Swedish Victory" by wiki, Selburg 1626, Weden 1626, Dirschau (tactically) 1627, Gorzno 1628, Polish victories: Czarne 1627, Dirschau (strategically) 1627, Oliwa 1627, Treiden 1628, Trzciana 1629 I count 5 Swedish (discarding Dirschau) and 4 Polish (discarding Dirschau)

@@seanbeahn6895 Gniew 1626 and Tczew/Dirschau 1627 were both stalemates because both sides achieved their goals and claimed victory. Walmozja/Wallhof 1626, Selburg 1626, Wenden/Kieś 1626 and Treiden 1628 were part of the Livonian Campaign. While Gniew 1626, Czarne 1627, Tczew/Dirschau 1627, Oliwa 1627, Górzno 1629 and Trzciana 1629 were part of the Pomorenian-Prussian Campaign. This is why I forgot about the other battles (I focused on the Pomerenian-Prussian campaing as the war since it was the main part but forgot parts of the other). So when adding all up, we end up with two stalemates (Gniew and Tczew), four Swedish victories (Wallhof/Walmozja, Selburg, Kieś/Wenden and Górzno) and four Polish victories (Czarne, Oliwa, Treiden and Trzciana).

@@mateuszjokiel2813 wonder if there is any conection to the way swedish peasant armies managed too sometimes deafeat german landknechts and noble knigths 100+ years earlier? By preparing fortified ambushes in tigth forests.

Winged hussars in the war against Gustavus, even while outnumbered often defeated the Swedes. They acchieved great victories in the later years against different enemies too. The decline of the hussars came at the beginning of the 18th century and not because their tactiscs were "outdated", but because the middle class of the nobility (out of which members of the winged hussars were recruited) became impoverished and thus the hussars weren't able to fight in great numbers anymore, because not too many nobles were rich enough to buy the obligatory equipment.

No it was because the calvary commanders were idiots. Just like the takeda fighting the oda

@@civishyperboreum6853 Right. As I said, the historical winged hussars were an effective military force. My point is, internet memes are comically exaggerated. Come to think of it, the internet fanboyism is comical, too. If the part of my comment "at a time that calvary was going out of style" was confusing, I meant in Europe as a whole. I wasn't saying they became obsolete or Poland-Lituania lost interest in them because calvary wasn't cool anymore.

@@piperar2014 they are like the modern "katana fanboys".

​@@piperar2014 Point is, that efficiency of hungarian-polish hussars (wings were largely ceremonial) depended on two factors: experienced and brilliant commanders and CRAZY expansive and sophisticated training and equipment from individual, through group (poczet) to entire banner. It was HEAVILY optimized for what it was to do, which in time, proved - of course - ITS UNDOING. Not unlike the Spartans, for example. Remember, at height of hussar power banner-men ("towarzysze") were usually rich nobles, trained literally from birth with huge institutional knowledge. Breeding, selection and training of horses was CRAZY expensive AND LONG (basically, single equipped hussar could cost equivalnet of yearly outcome of few villiages). Hussars were, kind of, equivalnet of batllecrusiers - outrun artillery, outfight everything else in both individual and and more importantly, team combat. There are mentions - usually in russian / moscovite sources - how entire banners were literally able to change direction and reform almost in place. When you have say, 150-300 experienced and superbly trained and equipped professionals used in optimal moment and terrain against essentially expandable draftees ... well, result is forgone conclusion. Still, they were still mortal and once lost, it took a LONG time to replace experience and skills lost with everyone of them within "poczet". Also, inefficiency of contemporary firearmes caused simple effect: unless rider or horse were hit on the head or, in case of the horse, in the hoof / leg, horse was able to keep pace with other horses for next few tens of meters, which usually was sufficient to break opposing formation. Of course, horse fell minute or two later, but any survivor who didn't witness it was convinvced that polish hussars ride on immortal horses xD Few battles and few such testimonies in that day and superstitious age, and there you have it - just like Allies saw "Tirger" in every German tank, even when documents showed that there was company of said tanks, with platoon of them operable :D In time of Northern Wars, when firearms quality and usage doctrine improved and most of institutional knowledge was lost and hussar banners were not replaced with anything but general appearance.... well, the end has come. Problem with Commonwealth in general was inability to turn sometimes stunning tactical / operational successes (Klushino) into lasting strategic victory; do you know, that after famous battle of Kircholm (crushing defeat of Swedes) Polish king WITHELD money for hussars and Hetman Chodkiewicz - their commander - paid them with OWN MONEY? :) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ft51m6mf15nFhnU.html

It sure does hurt

I think they where the heavy cavalry of the Polish army?

@@alicelund147 Yes, Hussars were heavy, shock cavalry. However they were often a minority among Polish cavalry. Poland also had light cavalry (armed with sabres, bows, pistols and musqets) and mid-tier cavalry called "Pancerni", armed very similar to light cavalry with two small differences: they wear mail armour and often they used short lances.

@@alicelund147 Yes they ware but bulk of polish forces of the time was made by light cavalry without heavy armor and lances. Husars ware used for breaking enemy lines with lances and the others killed what was left.

@@pawekobylinski4634 Yeah, Hussars were kind of like the knights of their era since weren't they also noblemen?

@@darthwalrus4740 Thay was noblemen but it was the case with all cavalry. Only infantry could be made with no noblemen except officers. Some exceptions ofcourse occur. Hussars consist mostly with rich and very rich because thay had to pay for their own equipment. About 10 helpers, 12 horses, 2 wagons, number of special hollow lances etc. Horses were very expensive due to special 3 years training and every couple of charges happen thay were shot. Hussar was equivalent to today's tanks in costs.

Koniecpolski: YES

fails

@@civishyperboreum6853 Who?

@@onehope6448 Stanisław Koniecpolski.

@@ChillDudelD Literally who? A nobody. Meanwhile Gustavus Adolphus is considered one of the greatest European conqueror and the Father of modern warfare.

Wow. In Russian it sounds like "The end of Poles". What Koniecpolski means in Polish?

@@-_Hatred_- Hah, literally "The end of Poland", though it's simply a coincidence of grammatical conjugation. The name of that noble family is derived from the name of the town of "Koniecpole", so "Koniecpolski" basically means something along the lines of "one who is from Koniecpole".

The war was a family quarrel.

It wasn't necessarily unresolved. The battle itself was a loss, though it did prevent the Swedish forces from advancing to Danzig.

@@mateuszjokiel2813 Therefore it is unresolved as both sides achieved their goals, also it is Gdańsk not Danzig (even though most of the population was foreign it still was a part of the Polish Crown).

@@aleksandersokal5279 When I speak English, I use the generally regognisable English nomenclature. More people are familiar witg Danzig than Gdańsk, and I can't see anyone downloading a Polish keyboard setup just to write city names xD Both sides achieved their goals, but the Polish only did so in the short term. Poles just lost an important fortified town and were in no position to take it back. Meanwhile the Swedish needed but wait for reinforcements and then did actually advance north. Or at least that is my understanding of the situation, yours may differ.

@@mateuszjokiel2813 The town was lost before the battle, so they did not loose it because of this battle. The entire battle was an offensive action to retake the town from the Swedes, which failed. But the swedes also lost initiative and could not move any further. Also if you are Polish and you are worried about Polish letters not being understood by foreigners use Gdansk(without the Polish letters).

@@aleksandersokal5279 Fine. Use Gdansk. But if using moder native naming conventions Gustav Adolphus would be Gustav II Adolph. Was Gdansk at that time a german or polish speaking city?

stanislav endofpoland

@@r1a1_lactose_enjoyer I wondered about that too.

c'mon guys, he does much better than any other youtube historian. Most don't even try.

Bring it on

Yes but at the expense of weigth. Too achive bulletprofness they became heavier and fewer armour pieces were worn.

@@borjesvensson8661 But what I've read that some bullet notches were punched afterwards. But based on logic alone, the cavalry would not have been used for Charges in the 18th, early 19th century if the effect of musketfire would be too deadly.

@@currentofthesnake5348 most cavalry that performed charges with drawn swords or laces in those centurys where unarmored. Light hussars, lancers, cossacs, the carolean cavalry. None of these wore armor(well lanciers in some armies and carolean cavalry sometimes but seldom) and all performed charges

@@borjesvensson8661 I know. The only cavalery who wears breastplates were the currasiers. I think mostly the shock from such a carge counteract the musketfire.

But the point is, musketfire is very effective at close range, so the key to an succesful charges lies when the Line fires to early.

Yay

The presence of the Imperials was critical since the Poles were repeatedly overwhelmed by Swedish counter attacks against the over extended Polish cavalry. Each time the better disciplined but slower moving Imperial Cuirassiers arrived and crushed the counterattacks.

@@Vonstab I feel like the Imperial "Black Cuirassiers" of that time are severely underappreciated. Probably in part because they didn't have the flare, nor the lifespan of the Winged Hussars or the military genius of Gustavus Adolphus to bring them into the spotlight. The truth is, as a whole they had a excellent record of putting up a fight and devastating opposing regiments when given the chance. Especially under Albrecht von Wallenstein during the battles of Lutzen, Alte Veste and Steinau

Why wouldn't it? Look at other Polish-Swedish battles of the period, the Poles had an obvious upper hand when it came to cavalry. In the case of Trzciana/Hongsfelde there were only 2000 Imperial Reiters, the entire allied force there numbered around 5000 soldiers.

@@civishyperboreum6853 "Only" 2000 Reiters and 1300 Commonwealth Hussars. The professional heavy Imperial cavalry engaged the Swedes from the front, the thing the Hussars weren't capable of anymore.

@@civishyperboreum6853 First what period are we talking about? The 1600 to 1629 period? 1621 to 1629? 1625-1629? The Swedish-Polish war can be divided into numerous periods if one desires to do so. If we look at the 1625 to 1629 period there is no evidence of the Polish and Lithuanian cavalry having an obvious upper hand in battle. The balance of power between the two forces was far more complex and shifted back and forth depending a whole host of factors. It is also worth remembering that the Polish and Lithuanian cavalry was not only the famous Hussars, rather the majority was so called 'cossack style cavalry' and mercenary German cavalry. They all performed differently when put to the test of battle, this of course applied to the Swedish, Finnish and German cavalry of Gustavus as well. Units could do well in one battle but fail in the next. At Gorzno 1629 the entire Polish army collapsed and fled when Rheingraf Otto Ludwig charged the Polish centre with four companies of German arquebusiers yet at Honigfelde the same units fought with such courage and dash that Gustavus repeatedly expressed his admiration for their performance. Unit performance could even shift during a battle, at Treiden two companies of Finns took a frontal charge by Lithuanian hussars and proceeded to defeat the hussars yet a short time later the mere appearance of more Lithuanian cavalry, this time mostly cossack style light cavalry was enough to panic the Finns and they fled leaving hundreds of Swedish infantry to be overrun by the Lithuanians. A comparison between the period of 1600-1611 and 1625-1629 shows how slim any margin of superiority. More often than not success went to the side which was able to use reserves most effectively, unlike Kokenhausen or Kircholm it was not enough to simply line up and charge, attacks had to be properly supported as well. Honigfelde is unusual in that we he detailed accounts of the battle by all 3 commanders as well as additional eyewitness accounts from both sides. Even more unusual they all agree to a surprising degree once you factor in biases and points of vieview. Polish accounts acknowledges that they suffered set backs that had to be solved by Imperial troops while not perhaps admitting just how bad things were. Honigfelde was very much an allied victory, without the speed and shock delivered by the Poles the Swedish rearguard would have disengaged without a battle and moved safely behind the river. But without the numbers and steadfast discipline of the Imperial Cuirassiers and Arquebusiers there would have been no way to recover from the Swedish counterattacks against the extended and exposed Polish cavalry. And the Imperial infantry made it impossible for the Swedes to stand their ground and deliver a formal battle. Gustavus had to withdraw into the vast fortified camp at Malbork where his main force of infantry was deployed. At Honigfelde there were no 'Reiters', the Imperial army had not used Reiter cavalry since 1605. Arnim led a force of 13 companies of Cuirassiers and 15 companies of Arquebusiers into battle together with a considerable number of Imperial infantry which did not engage. The exact strength of the Imperial troops at the battle is not known due to a loss of documents. Swedish spies and scouts counted at least 2000 cavalry and 4000 infantry with Arnim before the Imperial and Polish armies joined together but it is not clear if this included all of the present Imperial units. 1000 Imperial infantry was left behind to guard the wagons and camp while the rest moved to join the Poles. I.e at least 2000 cavalry (a reasonable number for 28 companies) and 3000 infantry. We know that the Imperial infantry was at the battle since Hetman Koniecpolski refers to them in his account of the battle.

Yeah, two reasons: Firstly, because his Swedish name can get you in trouble with the algorithm due to a certain Austrian-german man with a very distinct mustache who was around in the 1930s-1940s. Secondly, the English literature usually calls him Gustavus, so people search for that term which means we have to use it to show up in search rankings... It's kinda dumb but yeah that just how the system works I guess.

I think using Latinized forms of names was all the rage back then but Gustav Adolf was the actual name.

You will hardly find a single letter he didn't sign ”Gustavus Adolphus.” Back then, nobody asked: ”Are you Karl or Carl or Kalle or Calle, or maybe Carolus?” - Because they are the same. But the royalties were scholars, they had always Latin close at hand!