Lisowczycy

[učitel]

Hi, Kadrinazi.

I can agree with you. Lisowczycy could really pick the land-left standards on the battlefield. There is such a possibility there! Then the problem is, what kind of hierarchy (order) of those standards was it! Generally each „kornet“ (cornet), „korouhev“ = Czech word for choragiew (about 100 riders), had its own standard. Further was a standard for a horse squadron (švadrona), a regiment (pulk), and others. But you know these things certainly.

Well, I think - two of us will not solve this problem. Again so much detailed information are missing about the Bílá hora battle!

And to your another sentence I´ll write next time.

[Kadrinazi]

I cannot agree with You here - squadron or regiment didn't have their separate standards! There were only company standards, that were set as 'important' as per companies order - so colonel's company standard was the most important (sometime identify as regiment's colour), then lt. colonel's, major's and 'normal' companies.

[učitel]

squadron or regiment didn't have their separate standards!

Hi, Kadrinazi.

I absolutely cannot agree with you, that regiment didn´t have its own standard. I dont´t know how it was in Polish army exactly, but in western-type army the regiment = pulk had its own standard! The colonel (Obrist) had his own regiment, that was his property! The same it was at the cavalry! The squadron was bigger order than the cornet and it was usually under command of „obristleutnant“ (lieutenant-colonel).

[Kadrinazi]

Both in Polish and any Western army (including Swedish) colonel's company standard was treated as 'regimental one' - and regiments didn't have any additional standards than companies' ones. Look into any muster rolls of regimental staff in either Swedish, Spanish or Imperial army of that period - You won't find any ensign in regiment's HQ - ensigns are only on company level The fact that majority of colonels were owners of their regiments (exemptions exists, like in Sweden with native troops) didn't change the fact, that it was 1st company standard that was treated as standard of whole regiment.

The same situation was in regards to squadron (that, truth to be told, rarely were 'normal' units, usually were created ad hoc before battle as combination of 2-4 cavalry companies) where standard of the most important company (of officer in charge of squadron - it could be either colonel, lt. colonel or major) could be treated as squadron's standard.

[učitel]

Hi, Kadrinazi.

Well, back to „captured standards at Bílá hora battle“: you actually answered you yourself! You wrote, that you didn´t eliminate the information about 52 captured standards.

So, count with me:

Protestant formations had at Bílá hora 19 800 – 21 000 men (according to various sources). The infantry batalion had about 300 men, the infantry regiment had usually 10 batalions; it means about 3,000 men together.

The horse regiment had usually 500 – 1,000 riders (800 riders). Count each standards (according to your theory), and your result will be 30 standards at maximum! So like Magnuszewski thought about it, that he supposed some 20 captured standard!

If Lisowczycy pick the ground-left standards at the battlefield, they had to collect from the ground also Catholic´s units standard…

How could Lisowczycy managed that „rytmisters Wojcech Sulimirski and Stanislaw Stroynowski laid down 52 captured standards to feet of the leader“? It was at Dembolecki´s fantasy who glorified a lot of Lisowczycy´s activity. (Dembolecki even doesn´t write who was „the leader“ – we know that it was Duke of Bavaria Maxmilian I.) ((I personally don´t believe any priest!!))

[Kadrinazi]

i don't understand Your calculation here, how You get that '30 standards'? - do not count number of troops but number of companies (not batalion, as it was just tactical term not part of regiment's organisation), as each company (even when low in strenght) took their standard into battle.

Protestant army had approx 55 companies of foot + 62 companies of foot + unknown number of Hungarian's units. So clearly more than 110 standards were present and majority of them could be captured. I do not believe that Lisowczycy could offered Catholic standards - after all Catholics were victorious, none of their units were destroyed during battle (although could some of them could be shattered), they would notice if any of their own standards were lost.

[učitel]

Hi, Kadrinazi.

1) I don´t write that Lisowczycy collected from the ground also Catholic´s units standards (really this is a nonsense), but that they had to collect from the ground also Catholic´s units standards (thought to gain „52 standards")! We didn´t understand each other!

2) When I counted, I naturally don´t mean numbers of batalions, I named them for soldiers´ quantity only! I counted numbers of participating regiments plus numbers of colonel´s own units (of which you always mention).

[Kadrinazi]

I still don't get it, maybe something is lost in translation here... Why You assume that Lisowczycy had to collect from ground any Catholic's standards at all? If there were more than 110 Protestant's standards to be capture, there was no need to 'borrow' anything from any Catholic units after all.

[učitel]

If there were more than 110 Protestant's standards to be capture

Hi, Kadrinazi.

The information "110 Protestant's standards" is your opinion only and I don´t agree with you.

[Kadrinazi]

Why? It's based on number of companies/cavalry cornets present and each of them had separate standard.

[učitel]

Hi, Kadrinazi.

A particular problem (I have indicated it earlier) is, that units and formations were as of organizational (regular) type, so of tactical type. The units of tactical type had not usually any standard.

For example: at cavalry – the regiment (pulk) was divided on companions. Each of companion had its batalion (also kornet, korouhev, choragiew). But the tactical unit of the cavalry was the squadron (švadrona), made up by several companions.

Sometimes, the regiment was divided on squadrons directly – then such a squadron could be as of organizational -, so of tactical type of unit.

(The facts have been taken from the encyclopedia „The Military History of Czechoslovakia – Volume II – 1526-1918; Naše vojsko, Praha 1986.)

Kadrinazi, will we talk about "numbers of captured standards" all the time?

Rozsławił ich rajd na Siedmiogrod, to fakt, ale to nie przez nich Bethlen nakazał odwrot spod Wiednia.

Could you analyze closer this your opinion, please?

[Kadrinazi]

I study organisation of 17th century regiments - both foot and horse - in few armies and none of them had standards on regiment/squadron level. Only companies had standards - You can find that in any muster rolls of regiments. I already pointed to the fact, which You ignored, that in regimental HQ there was no rank of ensign but only on company level. When we look closely into any pictures from period (for example from TE) we will find that number of standards in regiment = number of companies, as even when companies were understrenght still their standards were taken into battle. Classic example (and very detailed) on companies level is list of Swedish standards captured by Poles after battle of Hammerstein in 1627:

http://kadrinazi.blogspot.com/2010/04/od-z...i-zalewali.html

You will find that each company present had its standard and that there were no additional standards on regiment/squadron level.

In regards to real effect of Lisowczycy's raid to Transylvania - it had some effect as propaganda but it wasn't main factor that forced Bethlen to quit his siege of Vienna. Joint Czech-Transylvanian army that besieged city was taking heavy losses due to plague and lack of food, didn't have heavy artillery, also they didn't received support from Styria, Karyntia and Kraina. Bethlen left with his troops on 5th of December 1619, while same time Lisowczycy (highly divided because of conflict between officers) were already en route home, which forces of Gyorg Szecy and George Rakoczy in their wake.

[učitel]

Hi, Kadrinazi.

Yes, I agree with you. You´re one of the few, who appreciates Bethlen´s act in front of Vienna like I do. Bethlen always acted in those situation in the same way, he several time surrounded Vienna and in the end it turned even so. You characterized your army accurately!

But, some effect had Lisowczycy´s raid on then Transylvania (East Slovakia today) on Bethlen´s thinking. Bethlen has been afraid of Lisowczycy very well since!

In the 3rd Bethlen´s mission (August-November 1623) to Habsburg´s contries, Bethlen surrounded one Moravian fortified town – Hodonín. (His problemes were like you have described in Vienna in 1619.) Finally, there was declared the armistice on 29th November, and „The 2nd Nicolsburg Peace“ on 8th May, 1624. But then Bethlen enforced to Peace Treaty „important for him“ sentences, so that Polish king was apprised with Peace Treaty-conclusions. Bethlen was afraid of Lisowczycy, not to raid in the back from the Biescady Mountains, as it was in battle in Humenné. This fact shouldn´t ignore. (Otherwise Stroynowski´s and Kalinowski´s pulks of Lisowczycy were called, but they reached too late – in the middle of December, so they fought against rebels – against Moravian Woloszyns.)

These events describes Magnuszewski in his book about Stroynowski (1978).

[Kadrinazi]

Let's be honest, Bethlen's army was not suitable in siege operation, they could block Vienna for some time but that was all he could achieve. We had interesting opinions of Swedish officers from Torstennson's army who cooperate with Transylvanian forces in 1645 - Sigismund Bethlen's army was light cavalry force of very limited value so it's not surprised that joint Swedish-Transylvanian attempt to capture Brno (Brunn) was such disaster. Bethlen's army looks good 'on paper' and during 'small war' (skirmish, small-scale cavalry fights, etc) but in overall were poor quality troopers. So it's not surprise that they were beaten by Lisowczycy (truth to be told - I'm not great fan of Lisowczycy as battle formation, which I already mentioned in that topic) at Humenné.

[učitel]

Torstennson's army who cooperate with Transylvanian forces in 1645 - Sigismund Bethlen's army was light cavalry force of very limited value...

Sigmund Bethlen? don´t you think rather Jerzy Rákóczy´s army??