Talk:Battle of Gniew

Outcome
According to all Swedish and English books I've found, the battle ended with a Swedish victory ("Great Commanders of the Early Modern World: 1567-1865, Andrew Roberts (ed)" - "Vägen till Stormakt, Claes-Göran Isacson" - "Crusader Castles of the Teutonic Knights, Stephen Turnbull" - "Svenska krig 1521-1814, Ulf Sundberg" - "Sweden, Enlalrged Edition: The Nation's History, Franklin D. Scott" - "A history of Sweden, Michael Roberts") However, according to Polish historian Radosław Sikora in the book "Niezwykłe bitwy i szarże husarii" he claims the battle to have been inconclusive (Both sides achived their goals or neither side achived their goals). What does Radosław state in this sentence, how did the battle end inconclusively? Imonoz (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If I understand this correct, you claim this battle to have been inconclusive because Sigismund managed to reinforce the army at Danzig after he abandoned the siege of Gniew (or engage the Swedes so they could not reinforce the army sieging Danzig)? I don't understand how this could possibly be a bigger achivement for the Poles to first lose a battle (tactical) and then being forces to cancel their siege which was their objective (to take back Gniew, stategical plan)? Or let me put it this way; if Sweden in the end would've taken Danzig (which they didn't) would the battle still have been considered inconclusive for you? Or, if Poland would've won this war, would every battle been considered Swedish losses then? Since that's where the battles brought you? If that sounds weird to you, well then.. I just agrees with most of the historians, majority and about 90% claims this battle to have been a Swedish victory, EVEN other Polish sources do.


 * The purpose of Sigmund there was no gain Gniew. His goal was protecting a Gdańsk before Gustav Adolf's army and it succeeded. Poles withdrew the first, not because they were defeated but only after the Swedes lost after the first clashes fancy a battle in the open field. And the poles have reached their goal. Majority of Polish studies (and not just Polish) relating to the battle based on Article Jerzy Teodorczyk "Bitwa pod Gniewem (22.IX - 29.IX - 1.X.1626). Pierwsza porażka husarii". Teodorczyk use of Polish sources, but this article are contrary to the source texts to which they refer. Many historians, was based on this article. Radosław Sikora began to investigate this battle again used by the Polish sources (including those which use Teodorczyk) but benefited not only from Polish sources also from Sweden and other. And this is latest state of research.89.231.29.36(talk) 22:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So, correct me if I got this wrong; Sigismund sieged Gniew to keep the Swedish army occupied from aiding Danzig? So, the battle was already an achivment for him before it even started? That doesn't sound like a battle plan but more of a strategical overall plan. Since the Poles did in fact retreat (even though they weren't beaten by Sweden according to Polish sources, they still retreated). So that would give the tactical edge to Sweden, who also saved Gniew which gives the strategical edge. So Sigismund had none, none at all attention to actually save Gniew thus he sieged it? Cause if he had, that would've been a strategical failure. And if not, he still lost the tactical phase. This is how majority of the sources look and there's modern sources about that battle not just in Polish language. Also a small note, Gustavus became very sick after this battle, which stopped the troop movements overall - was this a part of the battle strategic affects as well?


 * I think, as in most of the cases, Wikipedia user need to stop aurging for themselves (as I was doing now, but now I know more of what you mean) and just go by the majority of the sources, which in this case supports "Swedish victory". However, as user Volunteer Marek suggested, there should be a mention of this somewhere in the article. And by the way, as you can see below I removed some of your text about the siege of Danzig. I will create that article some day now, (if you don't wanna do it) and you can paste it right in there. Imonoz (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Swedes were under Gdańsk before the arrival of the Polish army under Gniew. Gustav Adolf wrote in a letter 19 VIII 1626 to George William about his plans to gain Gdansk. It was a few days after the break Swedish-Gdańsk negotiations. Text that you removed referring to events before the coming of the Polish Army. If the army of Sigismund III was destroyed by the Swedes. Is devoid of hope for relief Gdańsk would face the victorious army of the Swedish. Came a voice to those who are already in the July-August negotiations vote of the tractability against Swedes and it was their not little. And if Sigismund's army arrived too late it falling water in Vistula revealed access to Gdansk from the east and his fate would face under a big question mark. Gdańsk to remain Polish city, Polish army had to show up at the time. She had to come if not winning it had to come unbeaten. And so it happened. Poles primary goal was to Gdansk protection against the Swedish army (to prevent the loss of the city). King Sigismund informed about this the Gdańsk inhabitants in letter of 17 IX 1626. Target maximum was to preserve the current state of ownership but also the recovery of the seized Prussian towns by Swedes. It was intended to achieve by provoking Swedes to battle and break them in this battle. What did the Poles? approaching to Gniew (first Polish soldiers came under Gniew 18 IX) managed to provoke the Swedes to leave the surrounding area Gdańsk (on 15-17 IX made foray against located about 4 km north of the city, Gdańsk fortress Wisłoujście. On this occasion also fired Gdańsk. On the night of 17 to 18 IX Swedes withdrew from the Gdańsk area and they set out to meet the army of Sigmund). Managed to provoke Swedes to battle but they are not broken. Swedes also not defeated Poles. So after three days of fighting that did not change anything in the balance of power. Abandoned the intention of smash the enemy's troops and chosen a different way to achieve the main objective- from Gniew, Polish army marched north, securing Gdańsk before returning Swedes under this city. And how it looked from the Swedish side? Gniew was a small town with a population of about 60 times less than in Gdańsk was also the southernmost outpost of the Swedish troops, outpost guarding the crossing of the Vistula itself does not have much significance in this war. Gniew by Poles recover in the next year has not changed practically nothing in the balance of power. Importance Gniew was a prestigious. Battle of Gniew was so because it was the first outpost Swedish which stand in the way Polish army. Not because that Gniew had some strategic importance for this war. Gustav Adolf came to his defense primarily for reasons of prestige, demonstrating its determination to defend once occupied resorts, reduced the risk of riots in the cities and towns seized during the previous hostilities. Burghers of Malbork or Elblag do not really know what to do, or expiate their offense against the Polish king (both large and important city let Swedes in their walls to without resist) and seeing the weakness of the Swedes conspire or perhaps even rebel against them or seeing the determination of Gustav Adolf and the success of the war to keep quiet? Result of the first clashes of the two monarchs was so tone propaganda. What the Swedes did? Swedish army has survived three days of fighting with the Poles, that is not shattered, failed to break through at this time to Gniew and failed to introduce a new garrison. But thanks to the Poles resigned from intention to destroyed the Swedish army, and so that the rolled up siege and abandoned position previously occupied. And for Swedes Gniew was the rescued. Swedish troops entered the town without any resistance on the part of Poles.


 * Both parties guided the other goals in this battle, what else Poles were fighting and what other Swedes. In fact the two sides has reached its main objectives (albeit in quite unexpected way), Poles have not lost Gdańsk what was for them a huge strategic dimension. Swedes have not lost Gniew which had a large prestigious dimension.


 * In direct clashes neither side was able to break down an opponent. Poles were unable to break the Swedish army. Swedes were unable to break the Polish army, they were not able to break into their garrison in the castle.


 * The disappearance of Poles from under Gniew affect it the doubt of the destroyed Swedish troops (Swedes did not come out in the field no 2 X). Poles modified so as way achieve the main objective- instead break the enemy and in this way save Gdańsk, Poles get past opponent and marched into Gdańsk, shielding it against Swedes back under town


 * So who wins this battle? the one hand, the two opponents. On the other hand, none of them.89.231.29.36(talk) 19:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Two opponents can't never win a battle in this sentence, since they were fighting for a town - some side had to win it? And in this case it is Gniew, since the battle is named "Battle of Gniew" get it? And Sweden lifted the Polish siege of the town so they won? Maybe if this article was named "Battle of Danzig" majority of the historians would agree with you, but it's not. That's why, I think you should place this value information in the article of Danzig siege instead. Imonoz (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Poles were more interested in securing Gdansk as gaining Gniew. 2 X Poles went out into the field but the Swedes had no desire to fight. In Gniew crew lacked water, and if the Poles were in their positions probably took the Gniew. But did not see sense continue the fight if achieved what they wanted. Swedes not forced Poles to withdraw. 2 X Both sides were in their positions from before fights. 89.231.29.36(talk) 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So if I understand this correct, Sigismund first had attention to capture Gniew since he sieged it. The Swedes came to lift the siege, they managed to beat the Poles off from the hill and then held it. Sigismund then decided to lift the siege and march towards Gdansk (Danzig) to block the Swedish army. Well, first of all, the Poles retreated (which is tactical failure) from their objective in the battle - "Gniew" as in "Battle of Gniew". Only here I think it's obvious who won. But then, I aslo have to inform you that Swedish sources are aware of that Sigismund blocked Gdansk after the battle and I'm sure the base of the English sources are too. Thus it is considered a Swedish victory or Swedish significant victory. And yes, of course was Gdansk of higher value than Gniew to the Swedes, but this battle was about Gniew and not Gdansk, that is why, once again, I think that information of yours should be put in the Danzig article. And as I said earlier, every battle is not automatically won only because one side won the war. Imonoz (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigmund moved under Gniew, because he wanted to Swedes departed from Gdańsk. After the capture of the hill by the Swedes, Sigmund went out into the field with his army but the Swedes did not come out of the fortifications. In the evening Sigmund returned to the camp with his army. While the Swedes retreated from the hill and returned to the village Gronowo, where was their camp. The fight of October 1, did not settle anything. October 2, Poles also came in the field but the Swedes did not come out of his camp. If the opponent did not take the fight, in this situation, the Poles withdrew but it accomplished what they wanted.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This doesn't make any sense, according to Swedish sources the Swedes did NOT under any circumstances retreat from the strategical important hill, and the Poles retreated the day after. Ask yourself this, WHY would they retreat from something that they reasonly captured without being forced to? Does it make any sense to you? Cause it sure doesn't make sense to me.. I'm sure the whole reason for the non Swedish attack you're repeatedly saying is because they had the tactial edge of the hill. Yes, the Poles did withdraw from the field, and yes, the Poles accomplished to aid Gdansk which isn't Gniew, which is, what the battle was about (listen to the name). In the end Sweden accomplished to win the war didn't they? Which holds my unanswered question: wouldn't every battle then be considered Swedish victories since the war was won by the Swedes, cause that's where they brought Gustavus even if they were losses he achived progress from it? I'll answer it for you: No, they wouldn't because that's strategical thinking and success can one way or another be brought from every loss. Imonoz (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Polish sources speak of withdrawal Swedes from the hill. Polish sources said yet that Swedes feared ambush because Poles set fire grange Ciepłe who was near the camp Swedes. Except that in this battle neither side not reached an advantage over their opponent. In both Poland and Sweden this war is perceived differently. And why was such and not other outcome of the war is another matter. Swedes have won this war not because they have achieved some successes in battles just because they took the city which at the beginning of the war were almost defenseless and later Poles among others, of lack of suitably large infantry they could not those cities recover.89.231.29.36(talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We've been over this before, and it feels like I'm repeating myself. Just a question does the Polish books you're reading take any notice to the Swedish perspectives? In Swedish works, an ambush isn't mentioned, therefor, hardly that feared. Of cource they won partly because they achieved progress from battles, battles is not only field battles but sieges as well. Yo do take cities and fight on the field to achieve something from it. Imonoz (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes the authors of Polish books use both the Polish and Swedish sources e.g. Radosław Sikora. And Swedish authors of the books or use of Polish sources?

From the hill which took the Swedes was to the castle a few kilometers. How they came to the castle? the same day they left the hill. And in the night after the departure of Swedes, Poles left the position under castle. Swedes do not fought their way to the castle.89.231.29.36(talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Most Swedish authors do, atleast now days. But as things are said, there's never any onesides historians because history would get written wrong then. It may be true that Swedes didn't fought their way to the castle, which I haven't stated, actually according to Swedish sources it says we didn't, just that the Poles had withdrawn the next day after the hill fight and Gustavus could march into Gniew, the date of the inmarch is not detailed. Imonoz (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Polish sources, after the Polish cavalry charge on the hill, Polish infantry attacked Swedes on the hill fighting lasted two hours and ended when the Polish infantry lacked gunpowder. After that, Poles went out into the field but the Swedes had no desire to fight in the field. Poles waited until evening and retreated to their camp on a hill Swedes at the same time withdraw the hill and retreated to the village Gronowo where they had camp. On the night of October 1 to October 2 Poles have decided that if the next day there will be no fighting in the field it will withdraw because its main goal already achieved. Poles set fire to the farm Ciepłe (which was located near the Swedish camp) and withdrew from their positions under the castle and only after that Gustav exchanged garrison at the castle. October 2 in the morning Poles came into the field and Swedes once again did not want to go out in the field. In this situation Poles withdrew.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Swedish and Polish sources differences on this sentence Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I've learned, you don't have to crush your enemies to win a battle, there's always footnotes to this. Since they're often fighting for the place near of where they "fight", the ones first to retreat are tactically defeated. And I doubt you've been reading any Swedish books about this war? Because I haven't been reading any Polish ones but yet I always have that in mind, that Swedish sources might not always be accurate, since there's always two sides of every coin - what the Swedes claim doesnt necessarily mean the Poles claim it and vice vers. For example, the Poles claims the Swedish didn't dare to come out in the field, however, the Swedes claims the opposite = 2x sides. Imonoz (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Something different force the enemy to withdraw and quite another when the enemy retreated himself. I admit that I've read only one Swedish book (Peter Englund: in Polish "Lata wojen" in Swedish "Ofredsår") It had a lot of errors especially the battle of warsaw 1656, and comparing hussars to medieval knights, and regard it as obsolete. I know that other Swedish books are more based on sources but I had no opportunity read them.89.231.29.36(talk) 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That may have to do with prestige, but leaving the battle field, even if you're forced or decides to retreat is considered a tactical failure, and even more if you leave it so the enemies can achieve what they wanted. Yes, Englund has received a lot of complains about some of his books, and most of them from Swedish readers (some where he translated Polish sources completely wrong). However, his book about Poltava is very good. This is not the case for every Swedish book though, in the one I'm reading now says the Polish cavalry "to be very skilled, uniqe and fearful enemies". Imonoz (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Both the Poles and Swedes have achieved what they wanted. fighting under Gniew did not prejudge the outcome of the battle, because neither party has defeated the enemy. If I'll have the opportunity to willingly read it.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, only the Swedes achieved what they wanted in the battle = Gniew - "Battle of Gniew". the Poles achieved what they wanted in the long term stratergy = Gdansk (but you have to remember, attacks on Gdansk was until 1629, so that wasn't a decisive phase). but the Swedes achieved what they wanted in the ultimate long term stratergy = to win the war. Think of it like this way, when the Poles won over Sweden in the battle of Trzciana, that did most likely save another Swedish town from being sieged by the Poles, since then, Sweden held them occupied by losing a battle or forced them to reassamble. So in a way it could be judged as inconclusive. Depends on how you think of it because both sides achieved a goal with it. But it shouldn't, because that battle was won by the Poles. Don't blame my example, cause I threw it out of the air, what is important here is that I'm trying to make a point for you to consider. And i'm sure most of the historians speaks for this, hence the majority on "Swedish victory". Imonoz (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Poles also have achieved what they wanted. Swedes 15-17 September 1626 strafe Gdańsk and by the fact that the Poles went in Gniew, Swedes withdrew from the Gdansk and moved under Gniew. Later Gdańsk built fortifications in the east. So that the Poles have achieved what they wanted. Except that under Trzciana Swedes retreated during the fighting and Poles in Gniew had not been forced to withdraw, just withdrew because modified their plan to achieve the main objective. Polish sources say that the Swedes did not want to fight in the open field and the Poles do not see the point in standing still near Gniew they withdrew.89.231.29.36(talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Does Radosław Sikora mention in his books why he includes successful overall before and after troop-movements which indicates in the strategical campagin view as a battle-trophy? Poles achieved whay they wanted with their marches and movements, not as an direct form of battle succuss. The Swedes however, achieved Gniew, in a direct form of the battle. During Trzciana Swedes retreated before the fighting even took place, since Polish and Imperial troops united. So the goal of Gustavus was to retreat: the goal of Poland was to caught and crush him during his retreat. Who achieved the goal?


 * Radoslaw Sikora use both Swedish and Polish sources when writing his book and wrote why the battle was inconclusive and what the objectives of the two sides reached. Gustav also achieved his goal by troop movements and not by fighting. Battle took place a few kilometers from the castle and Swedes took the hill which also was a few kilometers from the castle, Swedes on the same day before the night left the hill (Polish sources talking about this). So how can fight their way to the castle if they had in front of him Poles and had a few kilometers to the castle. Swedes not defeated Poles to get into the castle. Poles left their positions in front of the castle themselves, they were not forced to do this (as you suggest) but first the Swedes retreated from the hill and also it is in Polish sources (among other witnesses of these events- and You not have any basis you think these sources to be false). And Swedes did not achieve its goals in the battle.89.231.29.36(talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I know who Radoslaw Sikora is, and I've knew who he was even before this discussion took place, I surely doubt he would've gotten this wrong, cause someone has (I've been looking for books he wrote but in English versions but haven't found any, he might not translate his work which is a shame, but probably costful); Troop movements during a battle stage, as of the battle of Gniew, is considered to be a part of the battle. Troops movements outside a battle, like when it's over, or before, is considered to be troop movements in the war campaign view, which is, more strategical than battle movements. However, the affect of battles are sometimes written decisive, but that's when the battle affects one side, so no troops movements on the map (outside the battle) have to be done by the losing side. For example, if one side is beaten, but still kills let's say 75% of the enemy force so the enemies are not able to achieve their objective as could be to capture a town far away because they're too few men, that could be considered a strategical achievement (typically it's said to have been a phyrric victory then). However, only when they're not able to achieve it even if the ones who lost doesnt have forces themselves to stop those 25% who's left. Cause if they do have forces and needs it to stop the winning side who lost 75%, it automatically progresses into map strategics again and the battle isn't the deciding factor, but the overall map stratergy is. With other words, battles are decided at the very moment they end, and a winner is picked.


 * Radoslaw Sikora's books are not translated into English but this does not mean that historians from other countries, they do not know, for example Robert I. Frost made a review of the book Radoslaw Sikora "Polish Military Power at the Time of the Polish-Swedish War of 1626-1629. Crisis of the Empire." (Also in this book Battle of Gniew is considered inconclusive) wrote "The Polish-Swedish war of 1626-1629 was a crucial phase in the development of both states, and has long been in need of a fundamental reappraisal. Sikora's book is a most welcome contribution to the growing literature on military change in the seventeenth century." You can see it here: http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/ksiazki/wojskowoscoksiazce.pdf - On the second page writes in english. Gustav exchanged garrison after fighting also thanks to the movement of troops. Both sides had achieved their objectives by troop movements.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that I personally looked for books from him, but since there's no books translated, I can't read them. All in all I think he seem to be a respected Polish author. Yes but those exchange of garrison troops was part of the "battle of Gniew" tactics, you can read more about the different stages of stratergy here. Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So with a little hypnose here, if Gustavus didn't get sick and actually would march against Sigismund again, and somehow break through their blocking and reach Gdansk, then I am very positive Radoslaw wouldn't consider this battle inconclusive. This is why battle movements is different from strategic overall movements. And when thinking in these reaches, an achievement can be considered from every loss. That's why there is certain rules for this to not obtain any overall strategic afterwards movements (cause then the battle is already over).


 * Gustav if had not been ill and if he had gone in Gdańsk, he had no chance of getting the city. Sigmund as he came into Gdańsk, citizens of Gdańsk completed the build fortifications to the east of the city. And if there was a battle Sigmunt have chosen battlefield, and surely it would be a place conducive to Cavalry. Gustav did not have sufficient force to get the Gdańsk after finishing of fortifications.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, this was a hypnotic thought to show an example, of when you achieve something from battle or when you achieve something from (stage two- and three) on troop movements at the "strategic level of war" and not as a direct result from the battle. Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There's several reasons why relieve battles isn't fought right outside the town of question (in this case Gniew). First of all, the ones siegeing a town (in this case Sigismund) don't wanna be in jam between the Swedish relieve force and the garrison in the town, therefor, he moves a distance away. Other reasons is because he wanted to find a position to meet the Swedes which would be in his favor considereing the ground, (in this case the hill for example). On the other side, Gustavus, can't start concentrating to relieve the garrison and town because then he would surely get flanked or jammed him self from Sigismund. These are, very common battle strategics which make sense. And I know the Swedes didn't fight the Poles off, but neither have I stated so. To be honest with you, I do get what you mean and Radoslaw, and I agree in a way, however, I think as probably most of the neutral authors (as we can see by the majority) who differs Polish sources, that this is a very long shot Radoslaw's claiming and that it also involves rather much overall strategical troop movements after the battle itself. Yet, as I said I do agree in a way and think it's worth mentioning in the article. Imonoz (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's just that the neutral authors did not have access to Polish sources, and did not know what was the purpose of Sigmund. Sigmund among other things he wrote about his purpose in a letter to Gdańsk citizens.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You said there was other Polish sources claiming this, so I'm sure modern neutral authors have looked into this. You wouldn't consider the Poles to have achieved more with this battle itself than the Swedes would you? You may have achieved more considering Gdansk, but not as a battle without further troop movements Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, both sides could achieve more if they defeated his opponent.89.231.29.36(talk) 19:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you know what? If you would change this battle to inconclusive, I will (and this is a promise) change the battle of Trzciana to inconclusive, since the Swedes achieved what they wanted with the retreat, to actually retreat. The Polish and Imperial troops however, didn't achieve to give that crushing defeat to Sweden, which is a strategic failure. I doubt you would like that, but maybe now you see how weird it feels when some historian after soon 400 years tries to change the tide of battle, cause the battle of Gniew have generally been consider a swedish victory since then. And this stuff as we're doing is generally what happens on English Wikipedia, that's what's so good with it, so the sources can fight eachother. I love my Swedish history, but at least I'm honest enough to say I want the truth of history rather then some onesided or romantic view. Imonoz (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to change the result of the battle but I'll give you an example battle of Chojnice which took place in 1657 and according to the Swedish sources 3,500 Poles were killed. And according to Polish sources, only 18 died. Looking at a loss to give Swedish sources one gets the impression that these losses are not real and sources are wrong considering the fact that the Poles had there significant numerical superiority. Polish sources speak of 300 dead Swedes and many prisoners. Swedish sources say they are "light". So which source of this battle is objective? But on wikipedia are both "versions" of the battle. Although the real version of the battle seems to be obvious.


 * I completely agree with the battle of Chojnice, it's the most two sided battle I've seen I think. However, as I've understood, there's none majority side which could be said to be the correct. Swedes and Poles claim difference and so does neutral English views. Also, according to Swedish view, that was a surprise attack which could explain why those many killed Poles, on the other side Polish sources are at least as truthful. I don't think there's any "objective" side for us to take. We weren't there and can't judge for ourselves, hence why looking at the majority of the sources is decisive, and in that case they are equall as much. Imonoz (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Swedes attacked by surprise but only one regiment (Wiśniowiecki regiment had less than 200 men) do You think that a few thousand troops stationed in one village? Polish army was deployed in several locations. Was still winter, Swedes had to go several kilometers to attack the Poles and the Swedes had less resistant and slower horses. After the surprise attack, before dawn was a skirmish in which the Swedes were forced to retreat from the village. Later Poles chase Swedes and their defeated. The fighting and the chase took part part of the Polish army that is much less than 10 000 men and Swedes was 950 to 1500 men (according to Gordon was 1500 men).89.231.29.36(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think they all stationed in the village of question, but that's not what Swedish sources claimed, even if they would've hit up camp 2 km outside the village it would still be called "battle of Chojnice" since that's the closest village. During this war however, "The Deluge" the Swedish army was overall better qualified than the Polish one, here's a sentence from Robert I Frost's "After the Deluge" - "The Swedes were overall more superior in training, discipline and equipments comparing to their enemies". Also the Swedes fielded more cannons in battle. And a lot of battle horses of the Swedish army was bought in Germany and Poland. Those traditonally small war horses Sweden used in the Thirty Years War, wasn't used as much in this war. Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not what I meant, Polish troops stationed in several villages but the Swedes attacked only one village in which there were fewer than 200 men (According to Polish sources) and lists of Polish army after the battle also did not show large losses. Swedes have a better army during "The Deluge" (with the exception of the cavalry). The weaker condition of the Polish army had an impact earlier events (civil war known as "Khmelnytsky Uprising" and the Polish-Russian War) and above all Battle of Batih and a very small number of hussars (the largest number of hussars was in battle of Warsaw was their there about 950 which is a very small number compared with, for example Battle of Khotyn 1621 where was it about 7000). Later, however, the Polish army was better trained as at the beginning the Deluge.89.231.29.36(talk) 19:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Swedish book "Karl X Gustavs fälttåg" claims: "10,000 Poles camped by the town of Konitz, without any guards to spot possible enemies. This would hit the mback hard. Around 3'o clock in the morning the Swedish cavalry attacked in full fierce and managed to kill 3,500 half wook up Poles. All the wagons and many banners and standards also got conquered by the Swedes" So there's not much about it. Does the Polish source consider this battle a victory or defeat?


 * According to Polish sources, Poles have won this battle. If you know French, here you have the letter Des Noyers (Secretary of the Polish Queen) to the Queen, letter dated 8 January 1657 (6 days after the battle), author of the letter describing this battle: Je ne vous écrirai qu'un mot pour vous dire que je reçois ici votre lettre du 24 novembre. J'avais déjà appris par Dantzick la mort de M. Dupuis dont j'avais été fort touché, tant pour la perte que vous faisiez de cet ami, que pour celle que tout le public y faisait. Nous avons été prêts d'entrer à Dantzick et le roi de Suède même nous avait envoyé un passeport; mais la reine s'étant rencontrée avec notre armée qui allait au quartier d'hiver, elle trouva à propos de rebrousser chemin ; cependant les Suédois, pour faire croire que notre armée fuyait, envoyèrent un fort parti après, choisi de huit régiments qui, sur la minuit, enleva le quartier du prince Constantin Wiszniowiecki, dans lequel pourtant il n'y eut que dix-huit hommes de tués, trente blessés et neuf prisonniers. Ils dormaient sans garde comme en temps de paix, parce qu'ils croyaient être à dix lieues de l'ennemi. Les fuyards donnèrent l'alarme partout et jusqu'à Konitz où nous étions. Les généraux montèrent à cheval à une heure après minuit. M. Czarnecki prit une route pour couper le chemin aux ennemis qu'il trouva en retraite; il les poursuivit, mais jamais ils ne voulurent tourner tête, fuyant à bride abattue; il en tua environ trois sents et fit quantité de prisonniers et rapporta trois cornettes; il les suivit jusqu'à la forteresse de Stokow où ils se retirèrent et d'où ils tirèrent le canon sur les nôtres. Enfin ils n'ont pas de quoi se vanter. La reine a si bien opéré qu'elle emmène les vieux généraux avec elle et a mis l'armée sous M. Czarnecki qui va rentrer dans la Prusse ducale.89.231.29.36(talk) 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not the cavalry? Why is that? What made the Polish cavalry better than the Swedes, the Polish (winged) hussars can't be considered since they were a minority during this war from what I've understood. I'm talking about overall cavalry. Imonoz (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Polish cavalry was moving faster than the Swedish, Polish horses are hardier and more resistant to the hardships of war. High skills hit-and-run tactics and destruction of communication lines and supply bases, and high trained fencing.89.231.29.36(talk) 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Under Trzciana fought only Poland and Austrian cavalry without infantry support so it is difficult to expect that they destroyed the entire army of Gustav however Swedes were defeated and were forced to retreat. Gustav strategic plan was to prevent the merger of the Polish army and the Austrian what he did not succeed. And when there was a battle, Gustav battle plan assumed victory in battle but lost the battle. So just after defeat Gustav modified his goal in order to avoid total destruction of of its troops.


 * If the Poles and Austrian would've gathered their forces and hunted the Swedes as a unit, they wouldn't catch up with them, that's why you send out lighter and faster forces. Swedes was not "defeated" before they retreated, because the battle didn't appear before the retreat. Yes, Gustavus, overall strategic plan was to prevent those from uniting, there's a difference. When the actual battle accured when the allied forces caught up with Gustavus at Triciana, he had the goal to retreat, because that was at the time what he was doing. Gustavus didn't modify his plan after the battle, he modified it before the battle as I said above, there was no battle before he retreated. Gustavus as well achieved his goal, "to save his men and in the end repele the allies" cause the actual battle started during the retreat. Imonoz (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Poles and Austrians sent light cavalry but infantry was in the back. Of course Gustav withdrew before the battle but he tried to fight off Poles under Pułkowice but was defeated and forced to retreat. So when Poles attacked, Gustav plan was to repulse Poles but he did not succeed.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Polish and Austrian infantry marched towards the battle to, if necessary take a part in it. Yes, he did try to fight of Poles at Pułkowice, but that was to cover the retreat, he didn't have any attention to crush the Polish Austrain forces. The Polish Austrian attack was in the end repusled by the village of Nowa Wieś. Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely infantry marched to take involved in the fight but it did not arrive on time to Sztum and without infantry Poles and Austrians could not take Sztum.89.231.29.36(talk) 19:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would you they want to take Sztum? Imonoz (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gustav at night withdrew from Sztum but the Polish-Austrian infantry had not yet been under Sztum. If it came faster probably would attempt to attack.89.231.29.36(talk) 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * However, Poles had achieved their strategic target under Gniew. You do not see the difference? Poles withdrew but were not forced to do so as the Swedes near Gniew. And the Battle of Gniew was not considered since the beginning of the Swedish victory (Only by Swedes, while by Poles not) but Poles withdrew it propaganda has done its job and to some extent contributed to what some Polish historians who benefited from Polish sources but their elaboration is contrary to the sources(among others, by the work of Teodorczyk). I also want historical truth but as I wrote above Battle of Chojnice described by the Swedes (is not this romantic view?) with historical truth rather not have much in common.89.231.29.36(talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Poles achieved their strategical target after Gniew by troop movements which is, once again, overall stratergy which should not be confused of decisive factors after a battle. Propargande has not done its job in this sentence since both Swedish and Polish sources claim the Poles to to have "walked off" and not being forced our scattered of the field, I've never claimed that the Swedes forced the Poles off. However, (with a long term example) this could be compared to a boxing match, the one who walks off, thus not beaten out of the ring, is considered the loser. Why would just the Swedish have the romantic view? It could be the Poles from a Swedish prespective. It could be as much Polish proparganda which tried to hide the loss, and yes, it could as well be Swedish propargna to exegerate the victory (if it's considered a Swedihs victory). Imonoz (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Swedes also achieved their goal troop movements which were also after the battle, withdrawal does not mean that you are defeated.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Tactically, it does. But the battle was all about the town of Gniew, hence the name, so those Swedish troop movements are not considered "strategic level of war" but rather "tactical level of war". Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There's always good and bad effects from a battle, even if you lose. Every battle is not automaticlly lost only because you lose a war. And as Volunteer Marek said, many battles would generally be inconclusive, depends on how you look at it, becauce you always achive something from it. But then every battle which weren't crusing defeats wouldn't mather, that's why winners and losers is being pointed out; and according to the majority of books and sources, this battle ended in favor for the Swedes, and that is what Wikipedia users gen should use. Imonoz (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As said before, most of Polish books was contrary to Polish sources of this battle because they were based on article Teodorczyk. Polish sources say clearly that the Poles withdrew themselves not because they were defeated. Only each repeat mistakes of this article and so it is adopted. Why the battle of Dirschau is Inconclusive on Wikipedia? The strategic goal reached there only Poles. Poles under Gniew also achieved its goal but also Swedes.89.231.29.36(talk) 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes we got that cleared out now I think. The Battle of Dirschau was considered inconclusive since majority of the sources fought eachother, that is in the talkpage. And it says clearly in the article that Poland actually did win strategically, however, tactical is also important for morale and self prestige etc. But this battle ain't like Dirschau, cause here the majority of the sources speaks for a Swedish victory and have done so for almost 400 years now, it would be rather impossible for an author to change the tide now. Imonoz (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Polish sources do not write that Sigismund was defeated. (write about that witnesses to of those events and also those which there was no in Gniew). Both sides were doing propaganda. Battle considered to be Polish defeat because Poles withdrew, but it withdrew because they wanted to do.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, they withdrew because they wanted to, still they withdrew from Gniew. And yes, the battle was considered to be Polish defeat because Poles withdrew and Swedes took Gniew. That's why a note of what Sigismund achieved should be noted in some kind of analysis in the end of the article. Imonoz (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdrawal does not mean defeat when it is not forced to do so. Herself battle was a draw because neither side has achieved superiority.89.231.29.36(talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Repeat: to leave the field is considered a tactical failure.


 * When it reaches its target is not a tactical failure.89.231.29.36(talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And then you might as well consider the war to have been a Polish victory. Imonoz (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And yes, Gniew was of strategic importance for the Swedish army otherwise they wouldn't have captured it and I added that in the article (not as big as Danzig, but that siege countinued to 1629, this battle was in 1626). A town is still important to help achive capture larger cities. What you're refering to here above, sounds more of overall stratergy (troopmovements etc). I think it's obvious Sigismund, if he had the chance, would try to both capture Gniew AND crush the Swedish army if he had the chance to do it, same goes for the Swedes who managed to lift the siege but not crush the enemies, but since they retreated as I said above it was a tactical victory. Imonoz (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote above that the lack of water in Gniew a fortress would probably have been conquered by Poles. But if Zygmunt gain Gniew would have to destroy the army of Swedish to be able to go into Gdańsk what been its purpose, otherwise the Swedes laid siege to Gniew and re-occupied by the city. Swedes did not come out in the field on 2 X so there was no reason to wait.89.231.29.36(talk) 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But since the Swedes took the strategic important hill from the Poles, that may have affected Sigismund. In Swedish books it says that the Poles had gone away only the day after the last battle and that Gustavus planned an even bigger assault. And Gustavus knew that the water and supplies in Gniew were bad, but obviously, since he didn't attack right after that battle, he must have known how things cooked up in the Polish camp and maybe that they were about to retreat. Imonoz (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But the Swedes on the same day which took the hill, withdrew from the hill to his camp in Gronowo. Poles after fighting on the hill went out into the field and waited there until the end of the day but the Swedes did not want to fight, the same was October 2 before Poles withdrew.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I answered this above but this as well seems kind of weird. You're saying the Poles stood in the field to meet the Swedes, therefor, they wanted to fight and not retreat in the first place, and could this be that they wanted to crush the Swedish army? If so they failed their strategical plan, or was it because they wanted to protect their siege? If so they failed their strategical plan since the siege was lifted in the end. So why did they want to fight? Imonoz (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Poles strategic plan was to withdraw Swedes from the Gdansk. Poles before withdrawing form Gniew tried to do battle in the open field but the Swedes did not have on feel like it, sources say about this. Poles wanted to crush the Swedes (Swedes also wanted to crush Poles) but only to fight in the field because the majority of the Polish troops was a cavalry. But it was not their main strategic objective. Poles besieged Gniew because they wanted to Swedes withdrew from Gdansk and what they did. Poles also reached a strategic plan. If the Poles defeated the Swedes probably had plans for other activities but the Swedes also have such plans. Both Poles and Swedes achieved their main goal. If the Poles wanted to capture of Gniew it would not retreated but it was not their goal.89.231.29.36(talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Poles strategic plan was to withdraw Swedes from the Gdansk." exactly -> strategic plan -> not battle plan. You don't battle just to withdraw. "tried to do battle in the open field but the Swedes did not have on feel like it" = Polish sources, Swedish ones doesn't support this. Swedes wanted to lift the siege of Gniew, and of cource if possible crush their enemies but that wasn't the objective of the battle. In strictly battle goals, the Poles did either want to protect their siege or crush the Swedes or both, as retreating to Gdansk is not part of the battle success but the overall troopmovements on a wider strategical view. What I'm saying is that the majority of the historians have considered this since it's generally called a Swedish victory. We're not getting anywhere here either.


 * I have written several times Gniew was not a target of Poles. And Swedes strategic plan was Gniew- also this is not a battle plan only a strategic plan, also wanted to crush Poles. What they failed. If it was possible Poles also wanted to crush their opponents, but it was not the main objective. Possible only after the defeat of the enemy expected gain of Gniew. But Polish sources say that the Swedes not willing to go into the field. Neither side defeated his opponent but both sides had achieved their main objectives.89.231.29.36(talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, since Gniew was the whole thing which cooked up the battle it would be strange if this wasn't the battle plan? I know what you've said, but you know as well what I think of that. Winning a battle is all about not letting your enemy achieve what he tries to achieve, in this case, Sigismund failed on this (Gniew). Gustavus attention was never to stop Sigismund to march the direction he did after the battle, his attention after the battle of Gniew, was to achieve a stunning defeat on him, but that was AFTER the battle of Gniew. Sickness stopped that however. And at the time the battle was, Gdansk wasn't even proper sieged by Swedish troops, they just blocked the harbor from ingong and outgoing ships. Yes, and Swedihs and Polish sources differs on that going in to field thing. Right, neither side crushed their opponents, one side walked off the battle though. Imonoz (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gniew was not a battle plan, Polish sources say clearly what was the battle plan. So Gustav allowed the Poles to achieve their goal. When Swedes were under Gdansk to the east of the city had no fortifications so it was a lot easier to gain than later. Later, Gdańsk was out of reach for Swedes. Gustav had less troops from Sigmund. So probably not would have beaten him.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But aiding Gdansk can't be considered a battle plan in the battle of "Gniew"? That's a "strategic level of war" plan, not a battle plan. And the siege of Gdansk countinued to 1629, so I wouldn't say, what Sigismund achieved wasn't that decisive. Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But Polish sources say why Swedes did not want to go out in the field, by clashes in September 22 where Poles won (According to Polish sources).89.231.29.36(talk) 19:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And ofcource, GIIA didn't only come to the Gniews rescue for prestige? That's like saying he started a war but had no intention to win it. Because wars in general was unnecessary during this time wasn't they? And as I said, Gustavus became sick after the battle, which stopped troop movements overall. Did Radosław take that in account as well? As I asked you before, would this battle still in your opinion had been an achivment for the Poles if you would've actually lost Danzig? Cause that's like saying as I did above, us Swedes would automaticlly win every battle because we won the war. For example, after the Swedish victory at Narva 1700 against Russia, Peter I made his army stronger cause of what happened. Would that be considered a Swedish loss then? No because the battle itself was won by the Swedes. Imonoz (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * When Sigmund arrived at Gdańsk it was irrelevant whether Gustav Adolf is sick and that the Swedes will go on or not to Gdańsk. Because they were not able to get to Gdańsk. And if they went into gdańsk and wanted to besiege, the Swedes would have been shattered. Gdansk had 5,000 mercenaries and 10 000 armed townspeople and Sigmund had more than 14 000 troops. Well, from Narva to Lesnaya 8 years have passed and to Poltava 9 years. The Russians won thanks to a higher proportion than reform because these were negligible.89.231.29.36(talk) 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No. It clearly says that a full order attack from the Swedish side couldn't be done since Gustavus fell ill. And you don't know if they would get shattered, no one does. And 5,000 mercenaries are of much more value than 10,000 townspeople. The Russians won the war cause of more soldiers and also increased reforms, these reforms started more seriously after the battle of Narva, and could be a factor why they won the war in the end. So you could say Narva actually in some way, made the Swedes lose the war, well not ONLY Narva but you know what I mean. But yet it would be weird to consider Narva as a Swedish defeat since at the time and the battle itself was a victory. Imonoz (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And how amounted to all Swedish forces that could go to Gdańsk if Gustav not got sick ?(from what I know the Swedish army in Prussia had then 20,000 troops and large part of them were deployed as garrisons) Gdańsk had already built fortifications in the east of the city. When combined with an army of Gdansk Poles had 30 000 troops (of which 10,000 are levée en masse). Gustav Adolf rather not risk battle with such numerical superiority of Poles (Moreover, even as the Swedes had the advantage of numbers, Gustav Adolf sometimes avoid fighting e.g. under Riga 1621 or Grudziądz 1628). If Charles XII went after the Battle of Narva in interior of Russia would probably beat them. Peter the Great did reform the Russian army but became much stronger as before? I doubt. Peter introduced a flintlock lock. At the time the firearm was a very ineffective most of the losses in battle was the result of melee weapons.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole reason why Gniew was so important was because it protected the gathering in Tcew, and yes, Gustavus was planning to aid the sieging force sooner, but the fact that he got sick slowed all things down + that Sigismund blocked their pathway, you see, the point I'm trying to make here is that the blockening itself wasn't as decisive of why Sweden couldn't reach Gdansk but the fact that he got sick as well, both worked together. There's non speculars of how he would have done it, but that he was gonna do it, I'm sure there was a way if he really planned to do it, otherwise it would be unnecessary wouldn't it? Yes, and Polish armies avoided fighting as well etcetc - These are just questions of what side you're asking. You fail to see the point I'm making here as well, I didn't want to go into the GNW, I wanted to explain to you how a loss battle can affect you good; But you're wrong here, Peter I underrestemated the Swedes before Narva, and thought that his force would do. However, afterwards it proved the opposite and he reformed his army much faster and greater than what he did before. This was how the battle affected him good, to realize whom and what he was up against. Even though at a devestating cost. Imonoz (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gustav went to Gniew because if Poles it captured, both Elbląg and Malbork that conspired against the Swedes because they were afraid that the anger of Sigmund (because these city let in inside Swedes without a fight). Swedes have a chance to get Gdańsk only if they did not go in Gniew because immediately after the departure of Swedes from under Gdańsk, townspeople began making fortifications in the east and then the city was already to be impregnable for the Swedes. Depart Swedes from under Gdansk gave so time townspeople to complete the fortifications. So the main goal of Sigmund was achieved. But the Poles do not avoid fighting with the advantage of 20 to 1 as Gustav had in Riga (at numerical superiority Poles do not avoid a struggle in contrast to Swedes, unless you know of any examples? then replace them). Only the benefits of depart Swedes from Gdansk were immediately in contrast to Narva for Russians.89.231.29.36(talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Now you're talking again like Poles knew the Swedish goals better than themselves. The Swedes aided Gniew for several reasons, 1st - to protect the gathering at Dirschau, 2st - for prestige, losing a town is not good for morale or truces, 3rd - because they were close. And so what if the Swedes would have marched straight for Gdansk? Would that mean you would've lost the siege of Gniew cause your overall stratergy failed? No, you would not, you would lose in a strategical overview plan, but not as in a battle. If you manage to capture Gniew, that is a itself victory. I don't even know what you mean by numerical advantage of 20 to 1 at Riga, so I won't be able to give you an example. Whatever that means/ Imonoz (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can say the same thing that the Swedes knew better what were the objectives of of Poles. Swedes near Gdansk were previously before the Battle of Gniew was. Only that capture Gniew was not target of Poles. With 20 to 1 I had in mind the siege of Riga where Gustav had almost 18 000 troops and Radziwill less as 1000 and Gustav did not want to attack.89.231.29.36(talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the target of the Poles was to win the war. But you sieged Gniew, because Gniew was your objective to achieve something on your overall strategical phase of troop movements. It sounds too dizzy. Sigismund decides to siege Gniew to get the attention of Gustavus -> Gustavus battles Sigismund to lift the siege of Gniew -> (Here it gets interesting) after the hill battle, Sigismund wants to fight Gustavus again (for what reason if he intented to withdraw?) -> Sigismund then withdraws and gives Gustavus his achievement (Gniew), which means he loses both the field (tactical phase) and Gniew (strategical phase) -> However, Sigismund believes he won the battle because he now gets an oppertunity to aid Gdansk, yet losing Gniew which the Swedes wanted to accomplich = Tactical victory for the Swedes (the field), strategic victory for the Swedes (Gniew), strategic failure of Sigismund (to stop the Swedes from achieveing their goal, Gniew). Since Gustavus did not intend to march against Gdansk by this time, what exactly did Sigismund stop the Swedes from achieveing? You have to remember that Gustavus intented to march against Gdansk AFTER the battle cause he wanted to crush Sigismund, and that was where Sigismund was going. But as I said sickness stopped this. And to say, "Gniew had no value to us, it wasn't our goal" sounds rather stupid, towns and cities are made to fill a purpose and have goals. So the conclution is that Sigismund achieved something out of a loss battle. And that's why we agreed to mention this in the article. Imonoz (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, Poles wanted to win the war but Gniew was not the main objective. Sigmund has decided to withdrew on the night of October 1 to October 2 provided that the Swedes do not go out in the field. Poles strategic objective was to withdraw Swedes from Gdansk. If Gustav attacked Sigmund, it Gustav would be defeated (I wrote earlier why).89.231.29.36(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gahhh, you can't use speculations as a fact - "If Gustav attacked Sigmund, it Gustav would be defeated (I wrote earlier why)". Yes, so if Sigismund first decided to fight the Swedes, his main goal with the battle would've been to crush Gustavus rather than withdrawing, and according to Polish sources, Gustavus didn't take up the fight, so he didn't have any goal to crush the Poles. It was afterwards, when he discovered that Gustavus didn't want to fight, he retreated. Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I want to do as user "Volunteer Marek" suggested, go by the majority of sources which is Swedish victory, but still add the view of historian Radosław Sikora in maybe some "Analysis" portion after the "Battle" section. Which would explain how this helped the sieged Danzig. But as this battle is knowned as the Battle of Gniew or Mewe, and Sweden actually lifted the siege of Gniew I think it's obvious who won it. Imonoz (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that would be the proper way to deal with it.  Volunteer Marek   21:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So user "89.231.29.36", would you agree on doing it like this? Imonoz (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Swedish and Polish sources say otherwise as a result battle. I am in favor to take account of progress of this battle from both sides.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not what we said.. the result tab stays at "Swedish victory" and the overall result as a "Swedish victory" hence the majority of the sources, however, a notification would be said in the "Aftermath" or "Paralyse" how the battle affected Poland good and helped with the Siege of Gdasnk. As this discussion haven't brought us far, we follow the majority of the sources. Imonoz (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Now in Poland, this battle is considered to indecisive. Polish older elaboration (like Teodorczyk) of this battle was conflicting with the sources and therefore previously considered this battle a Swedish victory and I think that important are opinions of both sides.89.231.29.36(talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And that's exactly what I'm saying, since the majority of sources goes with Swedish victory and have done so for soon 400 years, it would be rather impossible to change the tide of the battle now. Even more impossible when the actual battle is named "Battle of Gniew" and not "Gdansk", I support it to be mentioned in the article, and I've added it in the aftermath (how the Poles drawed success from the battle and used it with Gdansk). Overall, I don't think this discussion will take us any further, I have no intention to have the last word, but to prove some points which we've done to eachother, I thinked it's safe to say we understand eachother like clear glass by now. Imonoz (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 400 years ago, Sigmund did not consider himself a loser. Nobody wants to change the fate of battles. Most of the English and Swedish publications of the battle did not have access to Polish sources if at all some have.89.231.29.36(talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * kings often gets in disperse that they didn't lose a battle, this is about their honour. Swedish kings have sometimes claimed certain battles were not losses, but victories. That's why it's important for neutral eyes to search and discover from a neutral point of view. And yes, of cource have there been attention to the Polish sources as well otherwise they wouldn't be considered history writers, but as it seems the overall battle was not judged in favor for the Poles according to neutral eyes. This is like you're saying we should discuss this for ourselves and judge this battle for our own, completely ignoring authors. But as I said, this battle has generally been considered a Swedish victory for all these years. I'm honestly getting a little tired of this discussion, and I know you are too, we're not getting anywhere, if there's none point to prove for eachother why have it going? Out of all the text we've written, we could have made 10 new articles instead. But I don't regret we had the discussion however. Imonoz (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral authors used the Polish studies that were inconsistent with the sources.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well.. I can't speak for all the authors but there's a thing I want to know which doesn't have anything to do with this. The Polish winged hussars are said to have been undefeated for 100 years, at what period and in what battle did they first lose? I've tried to find facts about this but failed. Imonoz (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The first squadrons of hussars was established in 1503, for the first defeats to be honest I do not know. The earliest defeat of which I know was the Battle of Dobrynicze in 1605, battle took place during the first Dymitriads, Russians defeated army of Polish magnates. It is possible that the earlier there was a defeat.89.231.29.36(talk) 19:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks. I started adding some text to the Battle of Górzno, I would appreiciate, if you would like, to add some Polish perspectives to it as I don't want it to be onesided.Imonoz (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ok, maybe tomorrow I write something about this battle.89.231.29.36(talk) 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway, if you do not intent to answer on this talkpage, even though I've sent private messages to you, and keeps reversing the results, I'll request to have you blocked from this article. And I would like to discuss casualties as well, more than 500 killed Swedes you say? That would make 470 of them killed BEFORE the main battle only in two skirmishes? And I would ask why you keep ignoring Swedish sources I put up? According to Swedish sources, casualties of the two skirmishes was light, both for the Swedes as the Poles. And I would also like to inform that the 500 killed Poles is a Polish source, not a Swedish. There's a good note to this; "The victorious part always has the most reliable information about casualties (bodycount + list), then there's the losing part which have reliable information only on their own casualites (list)" Imonoz (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * When it comes to casualties. 23 September was a ceasefire both sides buried their soldiers. The smallest number of losses relating to the Swedish army it 360 deaths and the largest 500 deaths. Polish losses ranged between 13 to 50 deaths. The losses on both sides refer to the struggles of September 22. 89.231.29.36(talk) 22:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Those 360-500 killed are not initally Swedish sources, those are clearly Polish ones. Out of 3,200 Swedish soldiers, only 900 were engaged in the 22 September skirmish, this was a reckon party to scout Polish entrenchments, not to overwhelm any Polish troops. Swedish sources are very clear on that. And according to Swedish sources, that skirmish ended in favor for the Swedes, and so did most of the fighting. The Polish view is opposite as we can see. However, lightly considered killed is not between 360-500, that's very heavy numbers out of 1 skirmish and 900 men. According to the Swedish sources, both sides casualites were amounted very low for its intense fighting. And also, there was a lot of engaged Cossacks, were those counted in the Polish KIA numbers? As 500 killed Poles is a Polish source, I think we should go with Swedish source on killed Swedes Imonoz (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Swedish losses were so large because two cossack regiments (was a light cavalry formation, before 1648 light cavalry called cossacks because of equipment and not consist of ethnic Cossacks. Only the Poles and Lithuanians. Registered Cossacks were ethnic Cossacks)  destroyed the Swedish infantry regiment (write about the witnesses of these events). How to end the skirmish as a victory Swedes? when Swedes hid behind the entrenchments.  At the Battle of Treiden 1 II 1628, numerical troops were similar as at Gniew (in September 22) and the Swedes suffered losses there from 200 to 300 deaths (most of the losses that the infantry) and Poles 30-40 deaths. So that losses of Gniew may be similar, considering the fact that the battles of September 22 lasted almost the whole day losses can be even higher. About 500 killed Poles wrote Jerzy Teodorczyk who made a lot of mistakes in his article, and did not refer to the source, many studies are based on his article and therefore give such losses. Cossack cavalry was included in the Polish losses. As I wrote above they were Poles.89.231.29.36(talk) 19:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your information about the Cossacks, quite honestly I didn't know that but I'm always happy to learn. That "destroyed Swedish infantry regiment" is not being mentioned in any Swedish sources historians know of, it could be confused with a regiment that fled which was called "destroyed". I did not say the skirmish of 22 September ended as a Swedish victory; but as they had intention to scout the Polish positions and so managed to do so, it could very much be called a Swedish achivment. Would you stop saying "Swedes hid behind entrenchments"? those were not meant to hide behind, but "take cover" behind, which is a big difference, and it served a purpose. It's like saying "Polish Hussars hid behind their armor", the armor was not used to hide behind but to work as cover. Your way of expressing yourself in this article sometimes sounds like you wanna make the Swedes look like cowards, however, us on Wikipedia are not meant to give our own opinions, but facts, that's why id don't fit.


 * I don't know the battle of Treiden in 1628, but as it is called "a battle" it most likely didn't serve the purpose of a skirmish, which in most cases in Swedish history was to scout enemies and avoid bigger fights. The losses for Sweden in this skirmish was not high, the rolls for it says that Sweden suffered only "light" casualties, rolls were useful for the king to continue the battle and know his numbers of troops. So it could NOT possibly be exaggerated. Around 360-500 dead out of 900, is NOT light casualties but heavy, and since it wasn't a regular battle it would seem very exaggerated. The 500 killed Poles of the three battles and skirmishes of Gniew is however a Polish source. Swedish sources claims this number to have been much higher, how much I don't know exactly since the Swedish author says he intended to work with Polish sources on Polish casualties. That's why I think we should stick to the Swedish sources on Swedish casualties on this one Imonoz (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * About destroyed Swedish infantry regiment speaks some Polish sources, one gives the regiment the loss of 200 killed, so hence the high losses. Swedes were behind the ramparts because they did not want to expose the Polish cavalry attack. I do not consider them as cowards just try to avoid the attack of cavalry and why not go out in the field. 29 IX Poles scout all day long, only lisowczycy managed to provoke the Swedish regiment cavalry and defeated him, and all day long Swedes sat behind the ramparts. Avoid clashes, and this is not my opinion I based only on sources.89.231.29.36(talk) 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The funny thing about the battle of Gniew which I've discovered, is that Swedish and Polish books strictly contradict each other. Poles says they beat the Swedes back, Swedes says the opposite and so on and during the second skirmish of 29 September Polish sources stated their casualties to have been lighter than Swedish, however, Swedish sources states the opposite that way I claimed them to have been equal. But now we're talking about the 22 September skirmish and trust me on this 200 killed Swedes is not considered "light" in perspective of those killed Poles 30-40. And that destroyed Swedish regiment is not mentioned in Swedish books, which is strange cause it would be very important for GIIA do know his dead. As I said earlier I think we should go with each sides own casualty reports Imonoz (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As seen both sides seen the battle differently. Determine the exact loss is probably impossible. Polish sources say that the loss of Swedes during the 3 days of fighting were higher than the Polish. Swedish say otherwise. Course of fights it is a little different according to sources on both sides and as to units who participated in the battles.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. Exaggerated casualty reports on your enemies was pure proparganda to strentghen the morale of you troops, exaggerated light casualties on you own side was less usual. That's why we should go with own sides casualty reports in this battle since a lot of proparganda and bash was throwned on eachother. Imonoz (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Only these 500 killed on the Polish side are also overstated. They come from an article Teodorczyk. Which wrong calculated losses, such as losses of a whole day of fighting he counted as losses relate by one cavalry charge.89.231.29.36(talk) 15:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Swedes those numbers are pretty underestimated and it should've been way higher. As far as I understand those numbers are the only or the most reliable you have. And it should be enough saying those are Polish and not Swedish. Imonoz (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Polish sources, Swedish losses on the first day were much more like you give loss in 3 days. Speaking Swedish sources you mean Johan Loccenius? who writes about 4 000 deaths Poles in 1 October which can not be considered objectively source.89.231.29.36(talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Now you're being silly, a number of 4,000 casualties wouldn't just fly of out of nowhere from an author, those were obvious also considered after real casualty reports of what the Swedes etiemated of the Poles after the battle. But now, at least I think you figure why we should go with own causalty reports on this one. Imonoz (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Swedes give losses their opponents in surprisingly large numbers, in contrast to Polish sources e.g. Battle of Chojnice.89.231.29.36(talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason is because I wanted to show you that us Swedes think the number of those 350 killed Swedes in just one skirmish is way exegerated as well. I have no attention to use Johan Loccenius numbers according to Polish casualties. Imonoz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there's enough sources here to go with "Swedish victory" though Polish sources do stress the "neither side achieved its objective" angle, which could perhaps be added.  Volunteer Marek   20:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your thoughts, Volunteer Marek. However, I'm a bit confused to be honest, Gustav did in fact achive his objective through the battle (to repeal the Polish siege of Gniew). I'm more concerned of what Sigismund achived with the battle? And if it is that it helped the sieged Danzig somehow, I would very much support an add of that information in the article. And for the note, I'm pretty sure there's several Polish sources claiming this battle to have been a Swedish victory as well. I'll wait for "89.231.29.36" to give his opinion about this, though I'm starting to doubt he will show up. Otherwise, I'll add it myself but I don't know exactly how this battle helped Danzig. Imonoz (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, from what I know the main goal of the siege was to force Gustav Adolf to lift the siege of Gdansk. I'll look for a specific source.  Volunteer Marek   01:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Danzig
I removed some text from the prelude phase which included more detailed information about the siege of Danzig, since this is about the battle of Gniew I would suggest you to start the article of the siege of Danzig and put the information in there and I would be more than happy to add Swedish perspectives in there. However, it didn't fit in the prelude of this battle. This is what you wrote in complete form: Imonoz (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

''After the seizure of Livonia, July 6, 1626 Swedish troops landed in the strength of about 13,000 men and 80 guns,[1]in Piława in the port of Prince of Prussia George Wilhelmon the one hand was the vassal of the Polish king, on the other hand brother in law of the king of Sweden. Piława did not appear any resistance, which, together with the subsequent activity of Prussian soldiers and the attitude of George William, formed the basis of the accusations at them.[1]Swedes rapid march set off from Piława on southwest in the direction of the Vistula, along the way taking several small towns and the second largest city of the Royal Prussia, Elbląg, landing troops also took Puck. Swedes also took town and crossing the Vistula- Tczew, Gniew and Głowa Gdańska. On the road to lasting seated at the estuary of the Vistula was another one, but the most serious obstacle Gdańsk. Gdańsk was a big urban center, at that time had more than 64 000 inhabitants (over six times more as the capital of Sweden)[1], from its own resources maintained 3000 soldiers, which is the number after the Swedish landing in Prussia expanded to 5000, in addition to their Gdańsk able to mobilize about 10 000 well-armed townspeople.[1] The city was also a powerful and modern bastion fortifications. City ​​may seem like a not to conquer for the Swedish army, which at the time of landing had 13 000 men but a large part deployed as garrisons captured cities, but the Swedish army in Prussia in September grew to 20 000 men. Gdańsk also had a weak point.[1]Fortifications protected only the western part of the city. Eastern defense based only on small river Motława and a small shaft. Swedes push through Vistula before the arrival of the Polish Army. Townspeople used a high level in the Vistula River and interrupted the dam and flooded Żuławy(areas leading to the eastern regions of the city). Until the water dropping the city was safe, Gdańsk could wait quietly some time to mobilizing Polish troops and relief of King Sigismund III Vasa. At this time lasting the Swedish-Gdansk negotiations. Gustavus officially demanded neutrality of the city but, in fact, demanded to remove the ships Polish king from the port but the Swedish king not promised to remove their vessels blocking city. Gdańsk also had remove from its territory guns Polish king. Citizens of Gdańsk simultaneously they had allow the acquisition by Swedish soldiers food and all goods (and thus the weapon) in the city and do not allow the sale of arms and ammunition to the Polish king. Gdańsk also had to disarm, in other words, deprived of its armed forces Gdańsk had released for free entrance to the walled city Swedish soldiers.[3][4] Negotiations broke off, towards unyielding attitude of Gdańsk inhabitants, Gustavus announced their his enemies. Gdańsk felt threatened, citizens of Gdańsk begged Polish king for help,in this situation, it became crucial when the Polish army come to Prussia. Mobilization in Poland as the conditions of that time ran very smoothly, despite the voids in treasure in little more than two months Sigismund he was able to issue a army which at the Battle of Gniew numerically slightly higher than the Swedish army. Sigismund III Vasa and his army (6780 cavalry, 4430 infantry, 20 guns) rushed to help the city.[1]''


 * Please don't remove information, unless you are willing to start the target article yourself. Until such a point, this info is still helpful in the mainspace here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought about that, and wanted to start the article about Danzig, however, as these are not my words or sources I know of, I thought he would like to put it in there himself. The reason I put it here in the talk was the easy access to it, IF the article will be made. But I didn't think this detailed information of another phase or battle would fit in an article that concentrates on the battle of Gniew and I still don't, but be pleased to put it back in if you like. Imonoz (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know whose words are they, but you are always welcome to use and modify any Wikipedia content. So go ahead and use the above to start the new article; if you figure out who is the author, notify them, and hopefully they'll help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Danzig or Gdansk - which is it?
Places like Pilawa/Pilau/Baltijsk and Danzig/Gdansk should be consistently named in the contemporary language of their populace - namely German. Otherwise there is no excuse for not using the current name, Baltijsk, for Pilau (instead of Pilawa, which is definitely incorrect, and shows the Polish bias of the person who wrote most of this article. [Woofgrrr] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.63.72.95 (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That text, which I copy edited cuz the English was pretty bad, is more relevant to the siege of Gdansk, but here it serves to provide some context. Basically I would retain the general info but cut it down to fewer number of sentences. The text sort of meanders off topic.  Volunteer Marek  18:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Name
When I check google books for the appropriate name I get 8 hits for "Battle of Mewe" and 9 for "Battle of Gniew". So I'm not sure what the claim that there are more hits for Mewe is based on (please note simple google searches are often misleading).

Since it's close and Gniew seems to slightly edge out Mewe, I'm going to move it back. If there is a strong argument for "Mewe" then I suggest a proper request for a move is initiated.  Volunteer Marek  21:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I used the (Swedish:google böcker) without notice. I know I should've used requested move, but didn't thought it would get considered since the few views. It's only that it's slightly confused having some articles named: "Wallhof" - "Wenden" - "Dirschau" which as far as I know have more hits than present-day names, and then: "Gniew" (which as you corrected did have more hits than Mewe) - "Czarne" (Which doesn't have any hits, same with Hammerstein, only in ww2 don't know if that one counts) - "Trzciana" (which, according to me if I did it right this time "Stuhm" have more hits. Aren't the articles in one war category supposed to be either named in what was then the names, or only present-day names? Imonoz (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Tedious, confusing and badly written article
Really, this article needs major rewriting. It is hopelessly written, in a rambling style with no apparent point to it, and also in very poor English. The last 'conclusions' sections are largely incomprehensible. Since your "eye in the sky", Redsnore, has chosen to delete my contributions today, I will take my knowledge elsewhere, and leave you with the heap of tripe (flaczki for you Poles out there, or better still bigos) that this article unfortunately is. Goodbye and good riddance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.63.72.95 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The numbers of Swedish dead are not adding up. If you add casualties from each day it will be more then 30:

22.09 "Between 13 and 50 Poles died.[7][10][11] Swedish losses were slightly higher.[citation needed]" = 30 29.09 "The Poles had suffered no great loss, around 18–43[10][12] were dead. Swedish losses were about equal to those of the Poles.[8][10]" = 30 01.10 "The Swedish losses that day were counted to 30 men killed." = 30

That is more like 90-100 losses rather then 30. Someone here is pro-Swedish. Sebastian

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle of Gniew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406155044/http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/GniewVivatVasa.pdf to http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/GniewVivatVasa.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406155044/http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/GniewVivatVasa.pdf to http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/GniewVivatVasa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Result in the infobox
Hello, Gvssy. In response to your previous edit, it has already been disgussed here in the talk page (See:"outcome" section) "acording to Polish historian Radosław Sikora in the book "Niezwykłe bitwy i szarże husarii" he claims the battle to have been inconclusive" so does other (mainly Polish) historians. The reason being that Both sides did/did not achived their goals. This has also been described earlier in the infobox as "Formal Swedish victory. Both armies achieved their goals." This earlier describtion (which appears to me to also be the longest lasting describtion in the history log) seems to be unilaterally agreed upon, yet this describtion does not fit the infobox guidelines which says that; In cases where the standard terms [X victory] do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section") you yourself even made this change to the infobox. Even though i agree with this being a formal Swedish victory i do not agree with the usage of the term "Swedish victory" in the infobox, since it does not accurately describe the accual outcome. Although i will be pleased to hear what you think about this. Regards - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't check the talk page. I think we should make a new heading titled "Result" to better describe the conflicting takes by historians, and to not mix it with the actual aftermath of the battle. However, I don't think it's accurate to say that the Swedes did not achieve their goals, although I might be misreading your message. Gvssy (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a heading called "Result" would be a great idea.
 * also i did not claim that the Swedes did not achieve their goals, im stating what appears to be stated by Radosław Sikora(?) in the first comment in the "outcome" topic Tinkaer1991 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh alright, I'll add it, although I'm not sure exactly what sources state that it was a Polish victory, i'll have to look through the past discussion. Gvssy (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No source states this as a polish victory, rather as inconclusive Tinkaer1991 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh alright Gvssy (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I genuinely can't seem to find any sources stating it as indecisive, like all of them state Swedish victory, I'll add that source by Radosław Sikora though. Gvssy (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then i would say that the first line should say something in the lines of "majority of scholars states the outcome as a Swedish victory[references], yet...ect) Tinkaer1991 (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)