Grunwald 1410 - Poland+Lithuania vs Teutonic Order

[warpus]

Well you might have a point, but what did he do with all the money?

Does it matter?

 

[Pokurcz]

Does it matter?

As the king in fact was a Lithuanian it might.

Because Norman Davies is so imprecise in his description of the battle (and I do respect him as a historian) there is apparently a reason to not be overtly sure about who was actually responsible for the victory.

I just find it feasible to have some doubt concerning the issue.


Concerning the reenactment of the battle I almost went and saw it, but I stayed in Warsaw and saw the Mucha exhibit in the National Museum in stead.

 

[DrLaban]

Almost nothing is known about that battle except that Jogaila won. It's one of the most propaganda- infested conflicts in the world so all information should be handled with extreme caution. In fact noone is really sure where the armies were deployed.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Almost nothing is known about that battle except that Jogaila won. It's one of the most propaganda- infested conflicts in the world so all information should be handled with extreme caution. In fact noone is really sure where the armies were deployed.

Source?

I think we know our history quite well.

 

[DrLaban]

Not that battle. I can't be bothered to get the book now, but it is an American historian with the Baltic Sea region as his specialty. The fact that he is American means that he has no German, Polish or Lithuanian horse in the race.

 

[LDeska]

There are historic sources that describes that battle (both Polish and German) so the place of battle is known. The truth is that there was never large-scale archaeological works on that site, but with the 600th anniversary round the corner it will be probably done. I hope that this 600th anniversary will be 10 times bigger than the one I've described. Feel invited, I hope that I will come to see it too So remember - 15th July 2010

 

[TheLastOne36]

There are historic sources that describes that battle (both Polish and German) so the place of battle is known. The truth is that there was never large-scale archaeological works on that site, but with the 600th anniversary round the corner it will be probably done. I hope that this 600th anniversary will be 10 times bigger than the one I've described. Feel invited, I hope that I will come to see it too So remember - 15th July 2010

good i should be in poland in 2010...

Not that battle. I can't be bothered to get the book now, but it is an American historian with the Baltic Sea region as his specialty. The fact that he is American means that he has no German, Polish or Lithuanian horse in the race.

He's american so i don't believe him.

 

[Pokurcz]

He's american so i don't believe him.

Yeah, who knows who his ancestors where?!!!

 

[Domen]

It isn't clear by the way if there were more Poles than Lithuanians (let alone more Poles than Lithuanians and Rus'ians/Ruthenians)

The number of banners was 51 for the army of the Kingdom of Poland (not all of them were manned by ethnic Poles though) versus 40 for the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (not all of them were manned by ethnic Lithuanians and Ruthenians though).

Since Lithuanian banners were not bigger than Polish (on average), the answer to the question who was more numerous is obvious.

And army of the Teutonic Order also had 51 banners - exact strength of some of them is known from sources. For example The Banner of the Komturia and Borough of Thorn numbered 214 lances (lance is a unit, not a single combatant - each lance usually consisted of a few mounted combatants). Since infantry was probably not organized in the lance system (just cavalry), thus probably infantry which served under various banners is probably not included in this data on number of lances. The Banner of Hired Knights from Meissen numbered 299 lances. The 2nd Banner of the Komturia of Danzig (which included also some hired knights from Rheinland) numbered only 70 lances (but it was 2nd banner mobilized by this Komturia, so it is very probable that the 1st one was bigger).

In general banners were usually (most likely usually) 80 - 100 lances strong, but there were banners even over 200 lances strong (2 examples above).

In the Teutonic army, lances were also units of account used to determine amount of money payed for service of cavalry units.

When you read in Medieval sources about units which are described by these sources as for example 300 lances strong, they are usually described not as banners, but as detachments (hufce) - which are considered to be units formed by merging of at least 2 banners into one unity (for example in 1401 Lithuanian duke Vytautas camped with his army near Kaunas, and he had Polish reinforcements with him - "a 300 lances strong detachment" - hufiec in original).

At Legnica in 1241 duke Henry the Pious also divided his army into 4 hufce (detachments). And he had in total ca. 3800 - 4600 men.

So his detachments at Legnica were probably ca. 1000 men (not lances!) strong each, with the reserve detachment being a bit stronger.

==========================================

I checked that hufiec translates as "detachment" or "troup" in English (not sure if this is perfect translation though):

http://pl.bab.la/slownik/polski-angielski/hufiec

 

[History_Buff]

Oh Domen. Few others would resurrect a 5 year old thread just for that.

Also, the Poles are such an odd lot.

 

[Pangur Bán]

As I've pointed out elsewhere (to you or not I'm not sure), there is very little relationship between banner numbers and manpower ... even if figures on banners were reliable. But I'm not getting into any big argument from a post made 5 years ago. Grunwald was a great victory for the guy who ruled Poland, and modern nationalist ego-jousting shouldn't obscure that.

 

[Domen]

Grunwald was a great victory for the guy who ruled Poland

Yeah, he surely won the battle by himself.

And there was surely no chain of command - just one guy at the top who personally coordinated dozens of thousands men.

As I've pointed out elsewhere (to you or not I'm not sure), there is very little relationship between banner numbers and manpower...

Yes, to me. You mabe have pointed this out, but you haven't presented any proofs to back this up.

And you also haven't presented any proofs to support your claim that Lithuanian forces were bigger than Polish.

even if figures on banners were reliable.

Why shouldn't they be if amount of money which was to be paid to each banner was based on number of lances it contained.

If you really are a historian as you claimed once, then you seemingly have no or little ability of judging the value of sources.

and modern nationalist ego-jousting shouldn't obscure that.

Once again you make idiotic ad personam claims when you have no true arguments to back up your points.

 

[Domen]

According to this website, Lithuania could mobilize a 20,000 strong army, but it was in 1528:

http://www.xenophon-mil.org/rushistory/rusmilhistbook/litharmy.htm

I don't think that over 100 years earlier Lithuania could mobilize this number of troops.

Especially considering that the Grand Duchy didn't send all of its forces to the Grunwald campaign.

Here also a good website about Lithuanian Medieval armies:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Lithuania.htm

 

[Leoreth]

I think it's very interesting, not to say odd, that there's such a huge emotional investment into a medieval battle in a modern nation.