Battle of Kirchholm 1605 (Poland vs. Sweden) DOCUMENTARY

Battle of Kirchholm 1605 (Poland vs. Sweden) DOCUMENTARY


100 Comments

  1. Great documentary, just one thing, winged hussars were not only polish, but lithuanian too. So it mightve been a mix of both.

  2. That map make me irritaded. Gotland is Blue but Öland not? It was the other way around. Most of western Sweden seems to ve norway despite norway not having these lands

  3. Jan Karol Chodkiewicz was an Elder of the Samogatians at the time. The Polish Winged Hussars most likely where not there. " The Polish Crown declined to raise funds for defence" The Poles and Lithuanians that where there would be few in number and most likely friends of his. He did not become the Grand Hetman of Lithuania until after the battle. The battle was won with Samogatians and regular Hussars.

  4. When an impatient general witnesses a feigned retreat, all their battle plans seem to go out of the window

  5. Poland??? Fake! poles even not supported and sitting their homes.
    Sweden vs Lituania featured Samogitia.

  6. shame that you say russia when it didnt exist in that time russian empire only came to be in 1712 before that it was moscowy kingdom …or mascowy tartaria ..

  7. Chodkiewicz is pronounced incorectly in the movie. Ch isn't pronounced like English "ch" but as "h". This is similar situation like with "k" in English where it can be represented by "k" as well as by "ck". On the other hand "cz" in Polish is pronounsed like "ch" in English so this sound should be on the end of this surename not on the begining. Also "w" in Polish stands for English "v". I also heare "a" instead of "o" after "Ch" and "o" instead of "ie" after "k". Anyway English speaker just hearing this name probably would write it down as "Hodkievich".

  8. It's sad, there we could not live in peace with Sweden. We have a stupid King, and they break promises every time.

  9. Sigismund was a great king, but he should have tolerated Sweden's autonomy. It was only a matter of time before Poland was again throwing itself into Russia or Ottoman lands. The loss of Swedish and Cossack allies killed the Commonwealth.

    I really can't think of an empire with as many enemies, and such competent enemies as the Commonwealth had. But it also "made" so of those enemies.

  10. Wow the winged Hussars are amazing.
    Thou the blunders of the swedes propably contributed to their success just as much as the polish bravery and skill.

    The outcome however is more then glorious

  11. nice episode, but factual mistake: Chodkevicz and his soldiers were mainly Lithuanians and their vassals, not Poles. Poles participation in this battle were minimal

  12. 1:27 This is not the reason for the Union at Krewo. TLDR: Defeating the TO was a byproduct of the Union, but not its purpose. Great video, regardless.

    The causes are more domestic rather than foreign policy related, especially on the Lithuanian side. Jagiello wanted to preserve Lithuanian identity from being subsumed by Ruthenian, so opted for Catholicism through Poland whilst also gaining the Kingship that would enable him to eliminate competing dynastic claims against his patrimony in Lithuania. For the Polish nobles who elected Jadwiga and married her to Jagiello, and subsequently elected him King upon her death, they wanted a King that would rule from Krakow rather than abroad like Louis of Anjou had done in the union with Hungary. They also were threatened by the House of Luxembourg holding everything around them (Hungary, Bohemia, Brandenburg) and having good relations with the TO.

  13. Duchy of Pomerania, while was ruled by the dynasty of Gryfites with Polish descent, wasn't a part of Poland in 17th century.

  14. Wow. I wish you did a series of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wars and battles. Lot's to cover: election wars, wars with the Ottoman Empire, Swedes, Russians, a Cossack revolt.

    Subscribed and waiting till the Winged Hussars arrive!

  15. A nice film but the name is not really very correct – with all my love and respect for brothers Poles – also with my deep gratitude for the help in this and many battles, sorry but this was a victory of Lithuanian army. From 4 000 men – 500 men were from Poland – 5 infantry regiments. 200 more crossed Daugava on horses on the last moment before the battle – this was aid from duchy of Courland.
    So we may write this was the victory of (officially called) the Commonowealth of Both Nations – (Lithuania and Poland) this can be correct – but not simply "Poland vs. Sweden". SWEDISH SOURCES MENTION LITHUANIAN ARMY and the battle cries of Lithuanians "mušk!" This is surely a Lithuanian word meaning "strike/beat!"…

  16. Elected Monarchy.. That's some pretty cool shit. You can vote for the best person to be King… someone who stands out and is deserving of the role. Unlike normal monarchy where there is often some problems with succession and is the successor son worthy enough to be King.. Often the son is not like their father and you are gambling on the leadership. I guess if they were elected they could be taken account for too, a terrible King could easily be stripped of their title. I like this system.. now vote for me 😀

  17. "TERCIO" is a spanish word olny used in those times to name the Spanish army, who was the best in combine long spears and arcabuces. They never were deafeted 150 years. So this word, in my opinion, sould not be used for the swedish army.

  18. You should do a video about the Islamic conquests. A whole video for Spain, India/Pakistan/Afghanistan, Constantinople, Egypt and North Africa, and the successful resistance by Ethiopia.

  19. The title is misleading actually. In broad terms it was Polish – Lithuanian Commonwealt vs Sweden and the actual army in the battle was commanded by the hetman of Grand Duchy of Lithuania Jan Karol Chodkiewicz, who was a lithuanian of rusenia descent. So your title suggest it was Poland when in fact it neither happened in Poland, nor was fought by Poland warriors.

  20. "We gonna count them after we beat them" is what Żółkiewski said before the battle. If Polish dude has a long beard and a bunch of winged-hussar mates, you better make friends with him.

  21. Great job and video! Make one about battle of Chocim in 1621 and 1673 (Chodkiewicz and Sobieski) and one about Battle on Viena in 1683, Battle of Kłuszyn in 1610

  22. Polish Winged Hussars, are often depicted as an undisciplined, wild bunch, like knights in the Middle Ages! Not so much here! The lances are often shown too short. In addition, hussars have never attacked the enemy formations sword-wielding like often shown, but with lances! After the shock impact with the lances, the sabers were used to finally defeat the most fleeing enemy. Of course this has to be trained for years, to ride in a loose formation and then attack with knee to knee with extremely long lances. Understandable, excellent trained hussars are no longer available! Indeed the Winged Hussars were one of the most effective military forces in the world. The Hussars were undefeated over a period of 125 years and are therefore the most effective cavalry in world history. Usually, a Hussars attack caused complete destruction of the opponent’s forces, and no military formation of that period was able to effectively resist the Polish Hussar charge. These were the elite of the Polish army being a unique, highly trained, extremely disciplined, manoeuvrable, hard-hitting, heavy cavalry. The ultimate shock cavalry. The hussars used tactics of speed and manoeuvrability, especially in the charge which was carried out at a full gallop in tight, knee-to-knee formations. The men were individually well skilled in horsemanship and the use of their arms through a lifetime of practice and a major part of their training was to combine these individuals into a single unit. The King of Sweden Carl X Gustav 1655 has said, “If I had some ten thousand of such Hussars, I would expect to easily conquer not only Turkey, but the entire world.” Decisive for the successes was the tactic, the training and the equipment. The ultimate shock cavalry.

    Lance ( Kopia ): Their primary weapon was a 5½-7 metre long hollow lance, much longer than the old knights lances as well as being much lighter due to their hollow construction. This construction allowed the extreme length! This allowed a much longer reach, especially useful against pike. Pikes were always a lot shorter. The Hussars were the only cavalry who successfully attacked Pike Formations head-on! Of course they would rather flank them. A wooden ball at the gravity point protecting the hand and helped balance the lance. The production of the hollow lance was state secret that was never broken! As a rule, the lance broke on impact. In fact later in the 17th century it was felt shameful if one did not break one's lance in the charge, as this would mean that you did not strike the enemy with enough force. Not infrequently two enemies were pierced on impact, sometimes even three or more. A Hussar once killed six musketeers in one thrust. Depending on how closely the enemy units were staggered! Mostly, panic arose and the remaining fleeing enemies were cut down with sabers or if they were armored with war hammers. Of course, the hussars used their sabers, depending on the occasion! Each lance had a silk pennon with the colors of the unit.

    Armour: Their armour consisted of light helmets, breast and back plates and arm protection pauldrons and forearm guards.The total weight of armour was light, being around 15kg, so allowing the horses to charge at full gallop speed. Nevertheless, the armour effectively protect the Hussars from musket fire. The loss rate at direct fire was very low!

    Tactics: The unique part of the hussars was their battle field tactics which gave the Polish army a powerful striking force, superior to all other European cavalry for over a century. The hussar's armour was relatively light in comparison to the heavy cavalry of the West and this allowed them to charge as the horses maximum speed, while Western heavy cavalry depended more on the actual weight of their troops rather than speed. This also allowed the hussars to move form standing to charge speed relatively quickly. In addition to the long lancesit was this quick change of speed and or direction and their ease of movement that led to much of their success, originally against the Tartars and later against Muscovite, Turkish and Western armies. The charge started at a slow pace and in a relatively loose formation. to minimize losses by firearms. It was not until the last few meters that the riders joined together to form a line, practically knee to knee, and hit the enemy like a wall with lances! The ultimate shock cavalry! More specifically, the attack looked like this! Riders slowly passed the first 50-60 meters. Lances were lifted up. During next 150 meters Hussars increased their speed to trot. 150 meters in front of the opponent, the lances were lowered to combat position and the trot went into a gallop. At 50-60 m before the enemy line, the horses were running galop (the maximum speed was 60km / h – approx. 40 miles/h). With a loud cry. The Winged Hussars hammered into the ranks of the enemy. The sough of the wings, the thunder of the horses' hooves, and the roar of the hussars produced a frightening thunder. The enemy was hit by a spiked thunderous wall. It was possible to repeat the charge several times until the enemy formation broke (they had supply wagons with spare lances). But the attack caused often complete destruction of the opponent’s forces, and no military formation of that period was able to effectively resist the Polish Hussar charge. For this reason, some armies did not even try to confront them face to face. An example of this is the Polish-Swedish Battle of Gniew, when Swedish King Gustav Adolf simply did not want to fight the Husaria in open territory and ordered the troops to stay in their trenches. When opponents face the battle, it usually happened that with their enemies as in the battle of battle of Kircholm. The Hussars launched a devastating charge against the enemy which ended the battle in the decisive victory of the Polish forces. The battle was decided in all of 20 minutes! Poles were 100 killed and 200 wounded. Sweden were 7600–8000 killed and captured. Hussars have always modified their combat tactics based on the opponent with which they were to measure up to. For example, when fighting the Tatars, they often left their lances behind and were more likely to use firearms – Tatars were a fast-paced, but poorly armored cavalry, so the Hussars were prone to fire pistols. On the other hand, when the Hussars fought with the Swedish army (which comprised mostly of infantry), the lances were their primary weapon. This would allow the Polish riders to use the maximum power of their destructive charge.

    Wings: The hussars are of course famous for their legendary wings, though these were not always worn. The wings consisted of feathers fixed one or a pair being either fixed to the saddle or the backplate. Most feathers were eagle feathers, although ostrich feathers were also worn, either in natural colours or dyed. Various proposals have been put forward for the reasons for their use. The explanations! Making a rushing sound in the charge. It was a thundering wall with long spikes that hit the enemy. The absolute shock! More shock cavalry is not possible.The wings should have served o stop tartar lassoes and to defend the backs of the men against swords. Most probably, combined with the wild animal skins and lance pennons, their effect was psychological. By increasing the size and magnificence of the horse and rider they made them look more fearsome. In addition, the enemy units recognized from far, there are these really tough opponents who will fight hard! From the very far well recognizable.

    Saddles: The hussars used a new type of saddles, they had an oriental style but were deeper, to provide proper support to the rider's back, especially at the moment of lance impact. Especially! The saddle and with it the horse took up the whole force of the impact, because the lancet knob was in a loop. The loop was connected to the satellite. So that the lance with the whole weight of the horse formed a unit!

    Horses: The horses were bred to run very fast with a heavy load and to recover quickly. These were hybrids of old, Polish equine lineage and eastern horses, usually from Tatar tribes. As a result, a horse could walk hundreds of kilometres loaded with over 100 kilograms (warrior plus armour and weaponry) and instantly charge. Also, hussar horses were very quick and maneuverable. This made hussars able to fight with any cavalry or infantry force from western heavy cuirassiers to quick Tatars. There was a death penalty for selling a husaria horse to someone outside of the Kingdom of Poland.

    Ranged weapons: The Hussaria preferred bow and arrow for a long time. They were more accurate and were also used during the attack from about 200 meters away while riding. They shoot as well as Tartars. Later also pistols (a set of two to six pistols) and carbine were used. For the pistols and carbines became more handy and could also be fired from the horse.

    Close combat weapons: The hussars used the nadziak a rider's hammer against heavily armored enemies or against non-armored enemies the szabla husarska (cavalry saber) or the koncerz (stabbing sword). By the way, the English word sabre is recorded from the 1670s, as a direct loan from French, where the sabre is an alteration of sable, which was in turn loaned from German Säbel, Sabel in the 1630s. The German word is on record from the 15th century, loaned from Polish szabla.

    Servants: The Towarzysz husarski (Companion) commanded his own poczet consisting of two to five similarly armed retainers and other servants who tended to his horses, food, supplies, repairs and fodder and participated sometimes in battle as an auxiliary.

    The helmets were also quite remarkable! Polish Winged Hussar helmet Szyszak. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFNCdtLQEPE

    After this brief explanation of the Hussars I have listed a few battles of the Hussars with a short description! See below!

  23. God, you yanks can't pronounce foreign names at all. French, German, Scandinavian, Slavic, Hungarian, doesn't matter, you will butcher it.
    Do you say "hello" like "cello"? No.
    So you CAN make the H sound, well then use it.
    It's annoying to watch something and hear every single place and name butchered into a completely different sounding name.

  24. I wonder how many people have been killed in wars, since the beginning of time. It's actually sad to realize how many wars there have been, and how many more there will be. There is little to no hope for humanity, humans are violent by nature, nothing can change that. And also: war, war never changes.

  25. so annoying to hear for the 100th time that polish troops couldn't be paid and instead pillaged own teritory. they came all the way from the south, fought bravely and didn't get shit in return. why fight? why work your ass off then? I can imagine the goddamned sejm behind this bullshit.
    the problem with pol-lit commonwealth it seems was its administration. the king couldn't go take a shit without the sejm allowing it

  26. You totally lost the Prussia from the map (which was NOt the part of the Commonwealth for ALL of CW existence!). How could you?… What a historical laugh/disgrace/ignorance…

  27. Kirkholm means Church Island.

    You forgot that we had Finland on our side.
    🇫🇮🇫🇮 The best goddamn soldiers in the world 🇫🇮🇫🇮

  28. Hello I am from Poland and I just discovered you channel. You are doing a great job! Not only in videos about Poland but i love those ones the most! I would really like to see the battle of Vienna reconstructed by you! Keep doing that great videos you are amazing!

  29. Sigmunt III Waza… one of the worst (if not the worst!) polish kings… that owned super strong polish country and led it to war with everyone around, that finally finished in loosing our independence 200 years later…

  30. If someone were to read this comment, though this video was released quite a while ago, know this:
    Chodkevičius (Or Chodkevicz?) Was fully Lithuanian. To add this battle, as well, was won by Lithuania. Yes the nation was called The P-L Commonwealth, however it had secular armies of the Kingdom and Grand Duchy. That means that the army commanded by the hetman was Lithuanian. In no way do I intend to be a bootlicker of my nation, but the way it is misrepresented demands an explanation.

  31. Not Poland vs Sweden but Lithuania vs Sweden. Chodkevičius was leading Lithuanian army. Despite Lithuania-Poland commonwealth there were 2 separate armys. Thus Chodkevičius was leading Lithuanian army against Sweden 😉

  32. The battle took place between the LITHUANIAN and SWEDEN troops, the Polish army did not take part in the Battle of Kirholm. The Lithuanian Hetman Jan Karol Chodkevich led his army and defeated the Swedish army 3.5 times larger.

  33. Chodkiewicz and most of his army were Lithuanian, as all the "better" Polish troops went south to Moldova. So, the Lithuanians singlehandedly conducted this stunning success and all attempts to label this a "Polish" battle is factually incorrect and thus lying.

  34. This is a mistake. It was Lithuania and Sweden batle. Nothing much to do with Poland. Yes we were in union. But 2 diferent armys. 2 budgets. And king for Poland and grand duke for Lithuania.
    Army fighting in there was led by Lithuanian general. Who was paing wages to soldiers from his own pocket. Polish king promised help but no money or soldiers was send to help. Thats why he had to fight with such small numbers.

  35. The Lithuanian Armed Forces consisted of about 4,000 soldiers, mostly horsemen and only 200 Hussars from Poland. The battle was led by the Lithuanian Grand Hetman, so talking about the victory of the Polish army is is not true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *