The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 117

The Greatest King of Poland?


hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
20 Nov 2010 #61
Prussians did not fight, their only attempt at besieging Warsaw turned into humiliation, the war with Russia was an effective stalemate, Poland was not losing.

You are wrong on both counts, and I am afraid that you are letting nationalist sentiment cloud you judgment.
1. It wasn't a stalemate- if it was, why did the Polish forces continually withdraw and mostly fight a rearguard action? The Russians had Warsaw in their sights, and they would have pounded it into rubble and murdered all and sundry if the king did not capitulate and surrender.

2. Though glorious in the popular imagination, Racwawice is hardly a great victory and a minor battle in the greater scheme of things. Even if for one second i were to concede and say that it was a stalemate (which it wasn't) The important thing is that the battle was fought on Polish soil-not Russian, and it was the Poles who suffered the most.

3. If the Poles would have shown any possible sign of success (which they did not) Than the Prussians would have put greater forces into the field.

4. Although the Poles had the numbers they did not have the equipment to fight a sustained battle against two professional armies.

And finally not all Poles were in favor of the revolution, many landlords actively supported the Russian forces.

So to bring things full circle-the king had no choice but to surrender.

And I am not depreciating the revolution, it was quite extraordinary by European standards. I am just looking at the matter realistically.

that is then and not than.

Anyhow further more to my earlier point they fought and lost battles(in which they were greatly outnumbered) like the Battle of Szczekociny-against the combined armies of Russia and Prussia.

They also lost the battle of Battle of Chełm.

Trust me Polish history is grand enough for you not to have to embellish it any further.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
22 Nov 2010 #62
The Russians had Warsaw in their sights, and they would have pounded it into rubble and murdered all and sundry if the king did not capitulate and surrender.

You mean the same Warsaw that was defended by a f*ckton of redoubts, 7.000 soldiers and 10.000 militia and which could not be taken by 30.000 Prussians with 90 cannons but according to you would be captured by 17.000 Russians with 50 cannons under Fersen? Warsaw had f*cking siege artillery defending it, no one was going to pound it anytime soon, learn history mate then talk rubbish.

2. Though glorious in the popular imagination, Racwawice is hardly a great victory and a minor battle in the greater scheme of things.

Jesus Christ mate you dont even know which war we're discussing do you? We're not talking about Kościuszko's insurrection but the war in the defence of the constitution.

3. If the Poles would have shown any possible sign of success (which they did not) Than the Prussians would have put greater forces into the field.

Still an uneducated troglodite aint you?

Battles at Krzemień, Markuszów,battles of Zieleńce all of them won. As for Prussians they couldnt put greater forces because at the time they were broke, 30.000 men was IT which is why they were so desperate for Russia to win, should Russia lose the war Poland was likely to end Prussia as a state.

4. Although the Poles had the numbers they did not have the equipment to fight a sustained battle against two professional armies.

Poles had 70.000 men against 90.000 Russians and 30.000 Prussians and thats not counting units raised, they had more than enough in numbers and equipment.

Russia was unable to bring more due to it being an effing huge country and Prussia couldnt bring more because it was at the time a bankrupt state, Poland had every chance of ripping it enemies a new one IF its king had the nuts for the job.

Sadly he turned traitor.

And I am not depreciating the revolution, it was quite extraordinary by European standards. I am just looking at the matter realistically.

Cameron we're not talking about Kościuszkos uprising in 1794 but about polish-russian war in 1792 in which the polish king betrayed Poland despite the war going well for the Poles.
OP PennBoy 76 | 2,437
22 Nov 2010 #63
polish-russian war in 1792 in which the polish king betrayed Poland despite the war going well for the Poles.

the bastard
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
23 Nov 2010 #64
we're not talking about Kościuszkos uprising

OOOPS, my bad(:
POLENGGGs 2 | 150
26 Nov 2010 #65
The one where Drinking, stuffing-yourself-mad, and wearing XXXL clothing
when it was in fashion. That King MADE What Today We Call POLISH

Hooray

Król Sas Niech żyje nam.
Ksysia 25 | 430
26 Nov 2010 #66
Król Sas Niech żyje nam.

the German one? Heh, best time between PL and DE. Swapping Kings ;) Lots of love, no war at all. All those marriages between all levels of people. And even Germans peacefully living in Poland as citizens.

Bring that time back!
Mr Grunwald 19 | 1,542
26 Nov 2010 #67
Bring that time back!

Don't we have it?
Ksysia 25 | 430
26 Nov 2010 #68
I don't think so - when I talked to some German tourists, in Croatia, on a boat - they say they regretted that they never come visiting Poland.

I think if Neighbours visited us more often, it should be easier to make real life friendships. Like I go to Germany sometime to eat Lebkuchen and drink Riesling
Olaf 6 | 956
26 Nov 2010 #70
Comming back to what was in post #22 and #23:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6200539.stm
thenews.pl/national/artykul139914_march-demands-jesus-be-made-king-of-poland.html
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237824,00.html
There is no hope if those fundamentalists put it into action, Poland will be even more a religious country than it is now.
OP PennBoy 76 | 2,437
26 Nov 2010 #71
Poland will be even more a religious country than it is now.

I doubt that, with all that's happened in the Catholic church, only the old generation still goes to church in masses.
Lodz_The_Boat 32 | 1,535
26 Nov 2010 #72
generation still goes to church in masses.

By the way, even I am religious and believe in God (although I am not Catholic anymore like my parents). Still I do not support extreme and misdirected religious sentiments which are often fed to the masses by the Churches around the world, not only Poland.

I never accepted the role of the Pope since I studied the Bible and the history behind it. But ofcourse, nothing against those who enjoy his position (like my own mom and sisters). However, he really doesn't have anything beyond the Roman's tool for political leverage through religion.

Humanity is a great religion, and any religion in favor of humanity is my religion =).
Olaf 6 | 956
26 Nov 2010 #73
Really like your attitude, Lodz_The_Boat. Although my views are different, I believe what you wrote is really open-minded.

I doubt that, with all that's happened in the Catholic church, only the old generation still goes to church in masses.

- It's not about just going to church, or belief itself. The articles were about the fundamentalists who treat Poland as their playground and think their views are supreior, and want to move this country 700 back in terms of attitude and open-mindness. Obviously they lack this and are intolerant, imposing their religion which in my opinion should be kept to oneself. After all that is what's about beliefs, not marketing and gaining more followers... (at least should be).
David_18 68 | 982
26 Nov 2010 #74
And finally not all Poles were in favor of the revolution, many landlords actively supported the Russian forces.

Yes indeed. One of the Lubomirski members refused to transport the gunpowder that was the main deposit of the Polish army. He was scared to loose his lands incase the russians would have won which they did.

4. Although the Poles had the numbers they did not have the equipment to fight a sustained battle against two professional armies.

They did have the equipment but the equipment was scattered between all the magnate estates and some magnates refused to share it because they feared the wrath of the Czarina.
ConstantineK 26 | 1,259
5 Dec 2010 #75
BTW, how many orthodox or protestant believers live now in Poland? May be they need support? May be it is right time to rise the dissident movement again?
jwojcie 2 | 763
5 Dec 2010 #76
^^
1.3% but it is Polish Patriarchate independent from Moscow Patriarchate.
Anyway there is a few orthodox in Poland but not to few to find a new Dimitrij ;)

Hm... as for an open question with even less seriousness I would propose
Władysław III Warneńczyk, the proud father of Krzysztof Kolumbowicz :-) :-) :-)
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
6 Dec 2010 #77
BTW, how many orthodox or protestant believers live now in Poland? May be they need support? May be it is right time to rise the dissident movement again?

Yes, and turn a blind eye to Russia's oppression of its own religious minorities as in the past....Humbug

Hypocrisy should be written into the Russian constitution, as the founding principle of the Russian nation.
Jnorsepole
9 Jun 2011 #78
Jozef Pilsudski: Defeated Communist Russia twice, when new Poland was in infancy and vunerable.
Antek_Stalich 5 | 997
9 Jun 2011 #79
Perhaps not the greatest and not of Poland but let us mention Władysław II Jagiellończyk, (English: Vladislas II of Hungary), and in Hungarian II. Ulászló or Dobrze (Dobzse) László.

That Polish guy was just amazing. Being a totally chilled-out and laid-back man, he typically waved his hand when asked for a decision and was answering "Dobrze.." (Good...). This is why Hungarian call him Dobrze until this day ;-)

Interesting reading in Polish:
budapeszt.infinity.waw.pl/es/historia/hist_13.html
Ironside 49 | 10,174
13 Jun 2011 #80
John III Sobieski, Casimir the Great, Stefan Batory?

I'm not gonna read the whole thread. I vote £okietek - mean and tough bastard!

Sadly he turned traitor.

Debatable.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
14 Jun 2011 #81
Debatable.

Debatable how?
Ironside 49 | 10,174
15 Jun 2011 #82
He wasn't acting in vacuum !ie Hugo Kołłątaj , podkanclerzy koronny.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
15 Jun 2011 #83
Kołłątaj supported his decision to join Targowica but its the king who had the final say and he f*cked us ll up royally so how does it change anything, Poniatowski was a bloody traitor and deserved the french solution.
Ironside 49 | 10,174
15 Jun 2011 #84
He was a king who was working for good of his kingdom as he understood it. He wasn't keen on the last ditch defense or some other romantic hero, the worst you can say that he had no balls but traitors - please do not repeat Hugo K propaganda!

He was trying to salvage war which was going badly for Polish forces - he miscalculated, but that was his choice!
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
15 Jun 2011 #85
He was a king who was working for good of his kingdom as he understood it.

Rubbish, he was a king who did not think about the good of his kingdom at all, by your logic i become king and murder half my nation because thats how i understand the good of it?

He wasn't keen on the last ditch defense or some other romantic hero

The 1792 war was not a last ditch defence neither was Poland losing dramatically and thats what makes his treason all the more disgusting.

the worst you can say that he had no balls but traitors - please do not repeat Hugo K propaganda!

Did he leave his own side and join Russia? Yes he did thats treason.

He was trying to salvage war which was going badly for Polish forces - he miscalculated, but that was his choice!

He was trying to salvage the war by capitulating and joining the other side? You're ******* with me Iron right?
Ironside 49 | 10,174
15 Jun 2011 #86
Rubbish,

that discussion is for histmag!
legend 3 | 664
15 Jun 2011 #87
I cant name all the kings but I would agree
its Casimar and King Sobieski.

There is more to the latter than just he led an army to Vienna.
ARGUABLY he saved Europe from Turks or whoever it was.

Now I wonder if it was worth it consider our friendly allies in Vienna carved us into 2 out 3 pieces :|
Llamatic - | 144
15 Jun 2011 #88
The Greatest King of Poland?

The first one...

Mieszko I of Poland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mieszko_I_of_Poland
Des Essientes 7 | 1,291
15 Jun 2011 #89
Before the partitions Poland was great because it was an aristocratic republic. In other words, Poland was great because her kings were prevented from being so.
PolskiMoc 4 | 324
15 Jun 2011 #90
Jan Sobieski.
He saved us from Turks & Tatars.
If not for Sobieski the Partitions of Poland may have happened close to hundred years earlier. Well that would have done more damage.
That Partition of Poland could have been by Turks & Tatars together. Which could have been potentially worse. Poland could have become like the ex Yugoslavia where Bosnians are divided due to Islam.

Also an extra 100 years of Poland under German & Russian control may have meant Poland may have become more like Sorbs or Rusyns or other very small ethnciities within another nation.


Home / History / The Greatest King of Poland?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.