Hi gang!
I'm not good at munti-posting, so I'm going to address a few points made over the last few posts. I think a lot of the info posted is true, but somewhat taken out of context. So, I'm sorry if I don't give proper attribution, but you all know who made the original posts.
1. Does Poland include the Polish Lithuanian combination? There is no objective way to answer this, I did count it and view it as the Polish glory period. If not, I think its 'unfair' to Poland, how do you judge their importance if you take out their best period? Somebody here said this was only 100 years. That is technically correct, since Lithuania and Poland weren't formally joined until the Union of Lublin in 1569. However, they shared the same king since 1385, which unlike in Spain worked well.
Remember, Poland was strong on and off before then. From its inception in 966, and especially after Boleslav, they had a very strong period lasting 150-200 years until they ran into internal strife. Then, they had a very strong period in the 14th Century especially under Casimir.
And, after 1385, they were a true power, and Poland was the senior partner of the union. Their defeat of the Teutonic Knights in 1410 was significant. Indeed, in WWI, the Germans considered the victory at Tannenberg (500 + YEARS LATER, and against the Russians and not the Poles!) as 'revenge'.
So, Poland had an initial power period of about 150 - 200 years, and then another from the mid 1300 to the mid 1600, another 300 - 350 years.
2. Poland continued to use cavalry after it was obsolete, against guns. Well, yes and no. In their glory period, they were a cavalry army. As was pointed out, Napoleon continued to use cavalry, and was often his decisive arm. However, under Nap, cavalry was now a force to be used selectively, when the enemy was disrupted -- then it was still decisive. A genius like Napoleon made them very effective.
Cavalry was essentially made a secondary arm after the advent of new conical bullets in the 19th century, and the rise of infantry using rifles instead of muskets (rifles had been available in the 18th century and even earlier, but were too expensive for mass use).
When the Poles used their powerful cavalry, they did often go against gun armies. The game (Civ) simualtes this fairly well -- knights are still effective against musketmen. The Polish cavalry was a battle force, not a seige force. While they used cavalry, they were still a very strong arm.
However, I do think Poland 'fell' partly because they were a feudal power, and didn't modernize and adopt many of the changes going on in military science (as well as economics). So, yes, they did fall behind technologically. I think this occurred because they were a feudal power and didn't have the government ability to switch as the other nations did.
3. Sweden ended Poland's power, and then the cossack rebellion and the Russians hurt them.
Here again, I partly agree. I wouldn't quite agree with this as presented, at least on timing. I do think Sweden was a great power then, more than a match for Poland per se, but invading and defeating another power in their home territory is a different story. The Cossack rebellion really, really hurt, and Russia and Sweden joined the fun. However, Poland eventually beat them all back. But, as I said above, these other powers were modernizing, and Poland wasn't, and the nationalistic tendencies behind the Polish/Lithuanian union were forming cracks at the core.
3. The Poles occupied Moscow. As was stated above, this was at the invitation of feuding Russian nobles. During the Russo-Polsih wars, the Poles occupied what we think of as the Ukraine, but they didn't get to Moscow.
4. During WWII, the Poles were a sad, sorry group charging the Germans on their horses aainst a mechanized German army that took the battle field like the Daleks of Doctor Who.
No. As was pointed out, the German army was a mixed bag -- some of it looked like an 18th century army, with supplies carried by carts and mules, and horses were used extensively. They employed tanks and airplanes well, as a strike force.
A German Panzer division had 4 battalians of infantry and 4 of tanks. Their doctrine was to have the infantry create a breach, and tanks and air units expanded the breach, surrounding the enemy. Unlike WWI, usually tanks weren't used to create the breach, they could be vulnerable to anti-tank fire.
The Poles had 11 cavalry units. These forces did have (crappy unfortunately) anti-tank weaponry, some automatic weapons, etc.
Of course, during the confusion of the key battles, cavalry did fight against tanks, but it isn't like the 'popular' press presents, with lances down charging aganst the tanks. What happened, of course, was that cavalry UNITS opposed German UNITS which had tanks. The tanks were, of course, the key German weapon and there were cases when Polish cavalry AND Polish infantry AND Polish artillery faced superior enemy force and didn't have enough or good enough tanks, planes, or anti-tank guns to fight them as effectively as they would have hoped.
The Poles fouhgt well during the war. They were totally flanked; their original war plans were made before the fall of Czeckoslovakia --after 1938, they had to change plans and faced a hopeless situation.
The DID have a technological disadvantage, there is no question about it. They were faced with fighting a technologically superior enemy -- but the same can be said of Japan, for instance.
The Soviet invasion was the last straw, but the Germans really did defeat the Poles. But the Poles fought well and bravely, inflicted a lot of casualties. The Polish flyers in RAF were superb, and as I said before, it was the Poles, not the British, who broke the enigma code.
5. Cavalry was obsolete in WWII. This isn't technically true. The Russians and Italians had used cavalry formations. Of course, cavalry was a specialized force, used for recon where mobility was needed. They were mostly used in places that were difficult for mechanized forces. The Soviets had cavalry throughout the war.
The last cavalry charge I know of occurred at Amhara in the Ethiopian campaign, where it was reasonably effective. Remember, though, these cavalry had guns, not lances!
6. Sorry, I probably misstated when I said 'They weren't as powerful as Venice' to imply that at the time, only Venice was stronger in Europe. Castille probably was also, I would put Poland third, and one could make a case for Leon and Aragon. Again, I apologize about that!
7. The only statements that I think were really off base are the ones that say 'Poland doesn't belong because they used cavalry against the Germans, who had guns and tanks, and they were stupid so used cavalry. They were technologically overwhelmed' or something like that.
My personal view is that this is silly. As I pointed out, yes, they were technologically outmoded and were defeated by Germany in WWII.
But, does this mean that Persia doesn't belong in the game because Britian and the USSR overrran it in WWII? Egypt doesn't belong because they were hammered many times, by the Romans, Arabs, etc? Greece doesn't belong for similar reasons, defeated by Rome, the Turks, etc?
So, I find this argument ridiculous. If Poland deserves to be included, it is becuase it was a Medival and early Renaissance power. They weren't a power by WWII but neither are half or more of the Civ's included.
Best wishes,
Breunor
