Talk:Battle of Grunwald/Archive 1

Knights Templar?
Quite impressed they managed to participate in a battle that occurred 103 years after the order was effectively wiped out.
 * The Knights Templar and the Teutonic Knights are two distinct, separate, and unrelated orders. --Dulcimerist (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Where was the battle fought?
The battle was fought in a plain betwwen the villages of Grunwald, Stebark/Tannenberg and Lodwigowo. -- cc 06:49, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Grunwald?
Is it Grunwald, or Gr&uuml;newald? JHK

In Polish it is certainly Grunwald. And it is in middle of Poland now, so that should be a default spelling on Wikipedia. Not to mention that its simpler (On the other hand this is etymologically clearly a German word.). If German spelling is Gr&uuml;newald or whatever you can add a note about this spelling. --Taw


 * Taw, here's my take in it -- if the battle took place when the area had a German name, then the German name is the one most English-speakers would use. In the case of all of those Baltic ex-German places that now have Russian or Polish names, I think we should go by the current name -- the difference is that cities are living things, so to speak -- our point of reference is now, and then we trace back through history to see other names.   For a battle or other event, like the Defenestration of Prague (not Praha), we default to the most normally used (in current English) name.  Does that make sense?  I'm still not sure about the name, though -- does Grunwald mean Green Forest in Polish?  or is it a Polanization of a German name?  I'll try to look up the Battle in English and see what the norm is. JHK

I believe it should be "Grunwald" - apart from the current name of the Polish location, this name is most common. Currently, the re-enacting groups are inviting to the battle of Grunwald, not Grünewald (and such is the name on roadmapes). Searching in Google, I've found 722 entries of "battle of Grunwald" and only 21 "battle of Grünewald". So, most speakers don't use it. There are also 477 entries of "battle of Tannenberg" 1410. This battle is not known in Poland as battle of Tannneberg at all. Therefore, I think, that there should be a redirect from battle of Tannenberg (1410) to battle of Grunwald, and the later should be supplemented with info: "also known as the battle of Tanneberg (1410)" Pibwl 12:35, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In my opinion the preferred term is Battle of Grunwald as it is commonly known. The alternative name is Battle of Tannenberg(Stebark). Please note that there was another battle of Tannenberg in 1914 during WWI -- cc, 21:56, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I added merge boilerplates. For the record this Battle is called Battle of Tannenberg in Encyclopedia Britannica Online Przepla 19:22, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Duplicate articles
The text from Battle of Tannenberg seems to be the same:

This article should be merged with Battle of Grunwald.

1410 -- The Battle of Tannenberg or Battle of Grünwald (called also Battle of Zalgiris by Lithuanians) occurred July 15 1410.

It was a battle between two alliances. On the one hand, the Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenian and Tatar forces under the command of the Lithuanian-Polish king Wladyslaw Jagiello (about 39,000 troops). On the other hand, forces of the Teutonic Knights and their allies from various parts of Europe (about 27,000 troops) under the Great Master of the Teutonic Order Ulrich von Jungingen.

The Battle was won by Jagiello's forces. Ulrich von Jungingen died in battle. After this battle the Teutonic Knights never regained its previous power.

Other battles at the same location: Battle of Tannenberg (1914).

See History -- Military history -- List of battles -- History of Poland -- History of Prussia -- History of Lithuania

Tannenberg
I see this has been discussed already, but I thought I would mention (as someone who lives nowhere near the site of the battles) that both the 1410 one and the 1914 one are known as Tannenberg, to me. I'm not sure if it matters that it called Grunwald in Poland, since this is in English...we've had this debate over other things on the Wikipedia today, too. Ah well, I suppose Grunwald is acceptable...as long as it's not at Zalgris :) Adam Bishop 06:42, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Grunwald-žalgiris, Grünfelde-?
Grunwald does mean "green forest" but in german not in polish and zalgiris(should be žalgiris) means the same in lithuanian, simply a translation :) --Vytautas 14:55, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)


 * A translation of a mistake, as the place was called Grünfelde, green field(s), until 1945. What would that be in Lithuanian? -- Matthead Discuß   04:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Commander
Hmmm.. call me a nitpicker, but why is Vytautas/Witold/ always mentioned first? It gives an impression that it was him, not Jagie&#322;&#322;o/Jogaila who commanded the joint forces. Halibutt 21:25, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

And why is he called Vytautas, and not Vitaut (&#1042;&#1110;&#1090;&#1072;&#1118;&#1090;)? ;) rydel 22:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because he himself was still not Ruthenised. Halibutt 08:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Give a reason why he should be.

Vytautas was a more experienced commander, and is generally credited as the leader of the battle. During the Polish-Lithuanian rift of the past century each country has taken to idolizing their side's commander as the chief one though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.194.168.193 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

References and peer review
This needs references. And I think the lists need to go to separate article. Any other ideas for improvement before I submit this to Peer review and eventually Featured article candidates? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

no good/i don't like it
The article refered by the first external link is better then the wikipedian. For one main reason. It is not so inclined towards one point of view.

Dlugosz is the only source, no german sources, no letters, no good.

There are some interesting places.

--- "The battle of Grunwald is regarded as one of the most important battles in the Polish history. In Poland               there is commonly known a symbol of two swords, which were supposedly given to king Jagiello before the battle by the Teutonic envoys to "raise Polish desire for battle"."

It was one of the most important battles in Order, Polish and Lithuanian history. That is in history of all together, each two, and each one of mentioned above.

Two swords for one man? Interesting. AFAIK the two unsheathed swords were for Vytautas & Jogaila, just the former was busy. Jogaila took them both but they were not both for him. This should be mentioned.

The story about "The commonly known symbol" was written down in some primary source(s) and now translated into other languages, including lithuanian. The story is actually known to all that study this matter, but in Lithuania it is in the school program, so we may say it is "commonly known" here also.

So it is not "in the Polish", "In Poland" and not "to raise Polish desire".

Union of Krevo
"In 1385 the Union of Krevo joined the crowns "

"of his cousin Vytautas the Great (to whom Jagie&#322;&#322;o had ceded power in Lithuania in the wake of his marriage to the Polish queen)"

Lithuania had no crown at the time and joining of smthing else then bloodshed before the end of internal conflicts in 1392 is questionable.

Yes, Jogaila ceded power, but that should be evaluated as more or less formal act, for, actually, not ceding it he could loose it at any moment. One shouldn't write first without another and another is a separate paragraph.

I think it would look better without braces smth like.. In 1392 after internal conflict Vytautas became defacto ruler of GDL. and link.

withdrawal
"but soon the withdrawal turned into a rapid retreat towards the marshes and woods."

You forgot to cite the other polish author that states that lithuanians fled to the Vilnius itself. And still were important in the siege.

Now thats another point of view as an opposition.

Lithuanians commited a  m a n e u v e r.

Read the first external link if nothing better is available to you.

It is as probable as the fact that it was polish peasantry that killed poor Jungingen or as real are the numbers. So it should be mentioned in the similar manner. maybe more remrks later

featured article
", it was already to late for the"

If this is a grammar mistake this article is not ready to be a "featured article" candidate. And still "they were doomed" sounds so much better then "it was too late"

overestimations
There are overestimations about every great battle. The fact that chroniclers were educated enough to know how big numbers(and not only "big hosts" or "as far as the eye can see") are written does not make their estimations more important. It should be better to write some probable,believable and/or agreed upon numbers o n l y. And then links links links to sources and excerpts if you wish.Vytautas


 * Ok, one by one:
 * D&#322;ugosz and the anonymous report of the battle are the only credible sources out there (and even their credibility is somehow difficult to assess). That's why it is better to give the reader a choice, instead of supporting just one version. I believe that the Opposing forces chapter gives a pretty good insight in the matter. Could you be more specific as to what you think should be changed?
 * Also, what German sources or letters should be mentioned? Please put them down so that we could check them.
 * As to the symbol - feel free to change it. It's wikipedia, after all. It would take less time to correct that than to complain at the talk page ;)
 * As to the Union of Krevo - I believe that it is but a sidenote here. Both of us know the complexity of the matter, but IMHO it should be described in the Union of Krevo article, not here. For an average reader interested in the battle, the political background of the leaders is but a matter of secondary importance.
 * As to the retreat - again, feel free to add the Lithuanian point of view. It is not certain what actually happened, so both versions are correct. I find the Lithuanian version of the story with some sort of a strategic withdrawal slightly less credible (and especially so because of the exposed Polish flank after the Lithuanians fled the battlefield), but it is but my own oppinion. Feel free to add the other leg.
 * As to the too late/they were doomed - don't you think it's a matter of style? Halibutt 15:34, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph, possible translation errors?
The battle of Grunwald is regarded as one of the most important battles in the Polish history. In eve of WWI (1910 marking half millennium of the battle has been erected Grunwald monument in Krakow. The ceremony spawn demonstration of outraged of Polish society against aggressive politics of German Empire including forcible germanisation of Poles. Polish poet Konopnicka wrote fiercely anti-German poem Rota. About the same time Henryk Sienkiewicz wrote his anti-German book The Teutonic Knights. The book was eventually depicted in the propaganda film The Teutonic Knights (Polish: Krzyżacy) by Aleksander Ford.

Any chance we could get a rewrite of this so it flows better? I'd attempt it, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to feel comfortable changing it.--Syrthiss 13:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

1409-1411
Actually the article contains the most common error.. it's written as thought the battle was the war at the same time - but we cannot treat it in that way. BoG was a single battle of the whole war 1409-1411 (there were more battles like Koronowo for example that was also an interesting piece of warcraft). I dont know why (ok i know actually :P) but this is an example of a battle which is more important than the war. Try to imagine an article about e.g. Normandy without mentioning that it was a part of WWII... --213.199.192.226 18:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. It was mentioned in campaignbox, I added the info to the lead. Now all we need is for sb to create the article on the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War (1409-1411). PS. If you know more releavant battles, add them to the Template:Campaignbox Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War (1409-1411). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Influences on modern culture section?
The Poland and Lithuania parts are well thought out, and the German part is ok. However I'm having a hard time with the Russia / Soviet Union / Belarus parts. They sound like they are referring to the 1914 battle, not the 1410. Can anyone clear this up? --Syrthiss 21:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

In official Soviet propaganda of post-Stalin times (maybe his times too, but I've yet to aquire sources) the battle of Grunwald is described as a battle of Polish-Lithuanian-Russian forces against German (Nemets) invaders.

Question
Does anyone know who's the fellow in the chain mail halfway between Witold and Zawisza Czarny, but lower, in Matejko's painting of the battle? He's the one swinging a sword with both arms. I've seen the detail of that part of the painting somewhere on WP, but I can't find it now. Appleseed 20:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Does anyone know who's the fellow in the chain mail halfway between Witold and Zawisza Czarny, but lower, in Matejko's painting of the battle? He's the one swinging a sword with both arms. I've seen the detail of that part of the painting somewhere on WP, but I can't find it now. Appleseed 20:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)"

the guy holding this two handed sword (possibly a bartard sword) is known as Jan Żiżka z Trocnowa, Jan Zizka from/of Tracnów. Btw, its not a chain mail but a so called karacena ( http://www.husaria.jest.pl/karac.html ). he's also wearing chainmail underneath it. cheers

About Lithuania
Did you know, that Lithuania - historical name of Belarus. In past - Litva. Belarusian language was preoritable. Now "Lithuanians" has our herb and name...

And you, dear unsigned editor, sound like you've been smoking some of that herb, by logic of your above ramblings. Dr. Dan 19:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am more than sure he ment "verb"... He is actually correct, despite the mediocre english. If you look at a historic map of Europe couple of centuries before Tannenberg/Grunwald you shall see Kievan Rus, a country that was home to the ancient russians (eastern slavs). Or did you really think that Lithuania, a small country which got it's own writing in 17-18th centuries was a medieval superpower? Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, at it's peak, had 50 to 70 percent of it's population as ethnically russian (eastern slav).


 * Dear anon (you may want to register to differentiate itself from the previous one), note the difference between Ruthenian and Russian. As far as the population, do you have any sources for that? This map of 1493 gives the number of people in the 'Jagellonian realm' as: Poles - 3,25m, Lithuanians 0,5m, Ukrainians 2,5m, Belorusians 1,25m. The 1618 map, one which would show the Commonwealth at it's peak, gives the numbers: Poles, 4,5m, Lithuanians, 0,75m, Belorusians 1,5m, Prussians 0,75m, Livionians 0,5m. It sais nothing about Ukrainians, but as the country population is 11,5 and the above totla only 8, that does live 3,5m unaccounted for which I'd guess looks like a logical number for Ukrainians. Nonetheless this gives us a breakdown of 5,25m P+L vs. 5m U+B - a little less then 50%, certainly nothing to support the high 70% number.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk  15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'm more than sure he meant herb, the Polish (and Belarusian) generic word for a Coat of Arms. In that case the unsigned editor is right, the Lithuanians do not use the pillars of Gediminas as their symbol and instead they use the knight.  // Halibutt 17:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I cannot register. Halibutt, you are most likely right about the herb/gerb thing, I'm astonished how that interpretation hasn't crossed my mind. To Piotrus - the numbers were from my memory - unfortunately I was unable to locate any sorces that support the 70% as of yet, so I have to say that 50% sounds more reasonable. Ruthenians came from the same root as modern Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians - the Ancient Russians (which are obviously not the same as the modern Russians). As a matter of fact, Ukrainians refered to themselves as Russians (руський) until the early 19th century. The Jagellonian dynasty itself had some solid Ancient Russian roots. Ruthenia is latin for Russia (ie. like the element Ruthenium). In Russian Ruthenians are known as Rusins (русины).


 * Right, I just wanted to make sure we are differentiating between ancient and modern Russians. Btw, if I may ask - what stops you from registering? I know users who didn't want to register, but I have never met anybody who couldn't register. I'd be more then happy to help with any technical troubles you may be having.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your offer. The problems are not technical. I shouldn't register from workstation.
 * Not with any valuable password, no. But as long as you purge the cookies and such, it shouldn't be a problem. I log in to wiki from quite a few workstations every week - the benefits of tools like one owns talk and userpage, and the watchlist are just too good to pass by.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, but you don't have your boss watching your every step, do you :)  // Halibutt 04:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion, due to anonyms and Halibutt has one big inconsistency, that makes me laugh. If the ancient Lithuania was Ruthenia or Rus, then why it is called Lithuania? Actually, due to Mongol invasion Kievan Rus was weakened and medieval Lithuania overpovered it in 13-15 century. Some of Lithuanian rulers had been Ruthenian only in their mothers lineage, and it is just natural, in most European countries the ruling nobles married for political reasons, and you hardly find "poor blood" ruler of even the most ethnically monolithic countries of Europe. Lithuanians do use pillars of Gediminas, not as a state coat of arms (English doesn't have a word 'herb' in that meaning), but as a national symbol often. As to knight symbol, both Lithuania and Belarus are historically entitled to use it, there is no problem with the symbols repeating in different states, for example, an eagle in various forms is used in many countries and they don't argue over the ownership of it. Juraune 18:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrected the list of battle participants according to the monography 'Battle of Grunwald' by Mečislovas Jučas, but still some of the men under Vytautas, mentioned in the monography are not in the list. This list needs more work and corrections. Juraune 20:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading this section, a few months later in its entirety, is kind of funny. Two points, Juraune has very succinctly put the Heraldry issue to bed on July 18. It was what the anon meant (not verb), and somehow her comments seems to be more correct than Hal's interpretation of Lithuanian heraldry. Part of my laugh came as a result of Piotrus' interesting and revealing comment Or did you really think that Lithuania, a small country which got it's own writing in 17-18th centuries, was a medieval superpower? Very interesting comment! This is especially interesting, considering Piotrus' recent conciliatory remarks on the Jogaila talk page. The remarks that said the size and demographics of the two countries are irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, seemed rather neutral and poignant as I read them at the time. Doesn't seem to agree and concur with your above comments, does it? It's extra humorous when one takes into consideration that most historians don't equate medieval might (superpower), with literacy (got its own writing). Furthermore regarding the question of size and it's importance, in context of the discussion. Sweden did quite a number on the Rzeczpospolita during the Deluge. In other theaters, Portugal and Holland, did alright for themselves as well. Dr. Dan 20:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

About names
Why did you decide to name Grand Duke Vitovt - Vytautas? Why not to call him John? Vytautas is as close to the chronicles as John! His full name was Grand Duke Vitovt Alexander. In some chronicles you can see Vitold, but never Vytautas. Like for example here, where the page discusses the Order of Dragon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Dragon

There is a mistake though. Here the author called him Vitovd.

Wikipedia becomes a source of propoganda for small nations which want to steal other's history.


 * Obviously he is known as Vytautas today. If you're questioning the name, the proper place to discuss it would be talk:Vytautas the Great of course, not here. --Lysytalk 23:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand: "he is known as Vytautas today". In a tiny Lithuania maybe he is known as Vytautas. Nodoby argues about this. But what was his name? Vitovt Alexander. Plus, the name Vitovt is used by a much bigger number of people in Belarus, Ukraine, and even Russia. It simply a cheap lie - to flip flop names of people to satisfy your national ego --Max Kanowskitalk
 * Perhaps you will find this reading interesting: Naming conventions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am just following the rules of wikipedia: Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Max Kanowski 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I would suggest for everyone to read this rule of Wikipedia:
 * NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a predilection to one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

In the current article we can see a very good example of "Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism and regionalism" The only point of view represented here is the one of the modern day Lithuania. This country is very much different from the claimed ancestor Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which included Belarus, and some parts of Ukraine and Russia. Nowadays Lithuania was just a small part of it, which was mostly ethnically and linguistically different from the rest of the land.

This article abuses national feelings of other people who comprised the state. And the issue of a fictional name of Vytautas is just an egregious lie. What can I do with this? I just name things with their own names.Max Kanowski 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I responded at the Talk:Vytautas the Great . Burann 11:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Two swords
Please note, that "two swords" emblem is a common mark for battlefield places, used tourist sign in guides and direction signs. Thank you! A.J. 21:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this raises the question of whether the more generic use of two swords symbol has been influenced by Grundwald, or is it unrelated?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The role of the two swords is not clear. Some sources state that it was custom among knights to declare battle by handing over a sword. Other sources state that the Order was desparate to get the battle started by the Poles and Lithuanians because the battlefield favoured the defender. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.13.8.14 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

you overestimate the interest of the rest of the world in this battle. a german doesnt even know it, same thing with americans french and english. in eastern europe its wellknown. but thats it.--Tresckow 17:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely it was known enough yb Germans to deliberately call the later battle in 1914 also "Tannenberg". Anyway. it's quite common thing - Swedes do not know about Kircholm, while we do not know about some battles won by them.
 * Secondly, from my discussion with German wikipedians I have impressions that treating of relations with Poland leaves much to desire in German history lessons. Szopen 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know who first brought up that non-sense that "re-naming" the battle of 1914 is anyhow connected with the battle of 1410. The press, that was unaware of any details of the battle, dubbed the battle initially the "Battle of Allenstein", but Hindenburg wanted it to be called the "Battle of Tannenberg". Why? Take a look at a map of the battle field and one can clearly see (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Tannenberg3008.jpg) that Tannenberg is much more appropriate.
 * Secondly, judging from the blatant attempts to rewrite history, I have the impression that Polish history lessons are fundamantally nationalistic. 141.13.8.14 12:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the over importance which this article lauds upon the Battle of Tannenberg. While it was a decisive defeat for the Teutonic Knights, it was just one small part of a much larger decline AND Heinrich von Plauen reversed virtually all of Poland's gains within a year. Tannenberg is really not a widely known battle outside of Poland and Lithuania.

Moldavian mercenaries ?!?
I think there is an error with that part of the text, the moldavian soldiers were certainly not merceneries, they were sent by the Moldavian Vojvode Alexander the Good (Alexandru cel Bun 1400-1432) as part of his alliance with the poles (initiated and restated in a few treaties around 1407 and 1412). Actually Alexander sent aid twice to his polish allies, during the battles of Grunwald and of Marienburg. These are well known and taught in school facts (in Romania). //Nea Draku'//

Indeed, he was basically called up like a vassal.


 * It is well recorded by outside observers that the Polish-Lithuanian forces had a very large number of mercenaries present. Cite a reputable source that anyone anywhere in Moldavia was a vassal of the Polish Crown at that time. David Lauder 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon's revert notes
An anon recently made a major edit. As it broke quite a few links and contained misspellings and such, I reverted him, nonetheless he added some info that may be useful, if wikified and verified, and I want to note this on talk for anybody who is willing to analyze his edits in more detail.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What about German banners?
Why are no German banners shown? --84.152.239.76 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for GA Delisting
This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;


 * (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors &mdash; see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 01:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Location
I found the place shown in the link at the google map, but I don't know how to put it into the text in a way it looks good: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=grunwald&ie=UTF8&z=13&ll=53.484675,20.119057&spn=0.049132,0.11673&t=h&om=1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.122.11 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

This battle took place in East Prussia and so the name of the location in this article page should be Tannenberg, regardless of what the Poles or anyone else chooses to call it. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and English cartographers down through the centuries have referred to the area of this battle as Tannenberg. David Lauder 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Feigned retreat?
The issue of a false Lithuanian retreat on the left flank has been ruled almost impossible by just about every non-Lithuanian historian of the battle. It is outrageously difficult to organize the full-scale retreat of 1/3 of a terribly multi-ethnic army; the explanation that Tatar troops counter attacked out of the retreat is completely unsupported by historical evidence. This is an era where you didn't know if your battlefield commander was dead for hours. Imagine attempting to organize the turn-around of thousands of men, many of whom are probably less keen about standing and fighting than their leaders would prefer. The left flank was basically a contest between light Eastern European forces and heavy Western men-at-arms. A retreat seems totally understandable under such circumstances though Vitautus masterfully took advantage of the Order's blind charge for glory.

Someone PLEASE go back and read Dlugosz. Notice all the DETAIL regarding the King's secretary; Zbigniew of Olesnica? "Did anyone manage to achieve anything more successful in this battle? Indeed there was nothing more brave and bold than the deed of Zbigniew." And on and on about the King wanting to knight him on the spot. Clearly (at least to me), this is taken from Zbigniew's accont. He was the King's secretary. Is it safe to assume he took notes? And bragged about his role? Those notes would probably be housed within the Church when he became Bishop of Krakow, and available to Dlugosz when Dlugosz became secretary to the Bishop of Krakow. Doesn't that stand to reason?

Now read Dlugosz again. Isn't his account almost exclusively from Zbigniew's point of view? Most of the detailed accounts are given from a location where Zbigniew would be...presumably taking notes.

Take a look at where Dlugosz mentions the Teutonic Knights (which pursued the fleeing Lithuanians) returning with captives. All of those observations appear to have been made from the conical hill, wher Zbigniew would have been located along with the King and the King's advisors discussing the battle.

It appears to me that Dlugosz' account of details regarding the Lithuanian retreat are comments from the King and his advisors recorded by Zbigniew...all eyewitnesses.

Now, find a way to explain how they completely missinterpreted what they saw. Also, PLEASE list PRIMARY sources that contradict the Lithuanian retreat as anything but a real retreat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatla (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

not NPOV
This reads as markedly in the favour of the polish/lithuanian side. 85.227.226.168 20:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Fritigern (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flaga Saint George.jpg
Image:Flaga Saint George.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flaga Saint George.jpg
Image:Flaga Saint George.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference: Hannibal Rising
Is it worth mentioning that in Hannibal Lecter canon, the Battle was commmanded by Dr. Lecter's ancestor, Hannibal the Grim? I'm not sure how to put it, but it seems relevant enough.

Role of Smolensk regiments
I found a passage by Jan Dlugosh (I'm sure his name is spelled differently in Polish), the bishop of Lvov [Lwow], who was present at the battle: "In this battle only the russian warriors from the Smolensk lands, in three regiments, stood their ground fighting the enemies and didn't take part in the retreat. This way they earned undying glory. And even if one of the regiments was brutally cut down, and even it's banner lowered to the ground, the other two regiments, fighting valiantly, prevailed over all men and knights they encountered in melee until they [russian regiments] were joined by polish banners." Since I wasn't able to find Dlugoshes work in print (it was partially translated into russian and published in 1962), I would really appreciate if someone more familiar with his work would help me find a way to include this in the article. With respect, Ko Soi IX 16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not have any works by Jan Dlugosz, but on this page I came across description of the battle, based on Dlugosz's work, whose father fought in the battle. Basically, it confirms what is already included in the article and what Ko Soi IX quoted. Here is the translation: "Under pressure of the heavy cavalry of the Teutonic Knights, a large part of units of the right wing was forced to retreat and flee. Only three banners from Smolensk - led by Jogaila’s brother, Prince Semen-Lingwen Olgierdowicz (don’t know Russian spelling), did not give way and after fighting their way across enemy’s units, they joined Polish forces". Regards Tymek 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is well referenced interpretation, that Lengwen (or rather Lengvenis) was commander of elite Lithuanian forces, who did tame Smolenks upraisal few years prior to the battle. If you're interested i can find references that support that view. Anyway, these units were fighting under Lithuanian banners, not Muscovits.--Lokyz 19:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were. But as you are no doubt aware, at that time more Russians lived in Lithuania, than in Muscovy - and that in Lithuania Russian population was an overwhelming majority - actually, history of the medieval Lithuanian state is far more a history of Russians than it is a history of Lithuanians. With respect, Ko Soi IX —Preceding comment was added at 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbers
Where do all these incredibly high estimates in numbers come from? Even the lowest estimate gives the number of heavy cavalry on the order's side as being more than 10.000. I have never heard of any other force of chivalric chavalry as huge as this, and therefore gravely doubt these numbers. I'm sure Jerzy Dąbrowski war a great engineer, but I really have a hard time believing these numbers. Can somebody comment? Trigaranus 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing
This battle (first Tannenberg or Grünewald, as I, a former historian, think it's generally known in English) is among the most noted in late mediaeval history. But the article is embarrassingly poorly written! First, it seems to have been cobbled together by writers more interested in promoting narrow nationalism than in reaching the truth. Second, the English is so inferior -- from "500-year anniversary" instead of "five-hundredth anniversary" (doesn't everyone know that "anniversary" means "yearly commemoration"?) to syntax so shattered yet turgid as to be well-nigh incomprehensible even to a native speaker of English -- that both meaning and insight, if any, are all but lost. I wish I had the time to spruce the article up, but I don't. Does any knowledgeable, unbiased, literate Wikipedian have an interest in doing so? I hope someone does. Firstorm (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What's "Old Polish"?
"it was also called Zielone Pole ("Green Field") in Old Polish" The Polish language is much more conservative than German so why is "Old Polish" listed together with "German" without "Old"? "Zielone Pole" is a perfect expression even in today's Polish, there is nothing "old" or archaic in it (except that it's not used as an alternative name for Grunwald). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.41.190 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed Russians
There was no Russian Empire fighting on the field, it is old Soviet propaganda claim. --Molobo (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC) And the novgorodians in the lithuanian army? Novgorod was sovereign duchy, only lithuanian vassal. Doncsecz (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the battle still taught at school in Russia as the Polish-Lithuanian-Russian victory as the article claims? I certainly remember it was the case in my time: I actually had to give a presentation about it myself at school, but is it still the case now? I remember the emphasis at that time was not so much on Smolensk, but the fact that most lands of the GDL were the Soviet Union at that time. I would be surprised if the battle is presented the same way now, as before —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.161.89 (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Strength of the Teutonic Knights
I read in Chris McNab's Military Disasters (Published by Amber Books)that the total strength of the Teutonic (of course including the hundreds of English and Swiss Mercenaries present at the battle) that they had an army of 80,000 and 100 cannons which created an artilley unit. However, nobody seems to agree with me and I am hoping you can either correct my wrong our back it up as this source looks quite accurate.--Knerlo 16:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=battle_grunwald

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Battle_of_Tannenberg.htm

http://www.realmcollections.com/history.asp

http://grunwald.iatp.by/eng1.htm

Numbers vary, as is somewhat common in accounts of battles from this time period, but none support a Teutonic Army of upwards of 50,000 men. One book's claims should not reflect on an important matter such as numbers for the entire article. Also, you really should add the book in as a citation if you're going to keep asserting it is legitimate info. I'm also not saying you're wrong, I'm far from certain on the numbers myself, however, from everything I have read and seen on the internet, Teutonic armies were much smaller than what your info claims. MagicBear (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as I have Stone out... The army of the the Teutonic Knights numbered 16,000 cavalry supported by 5,000 infantry. German, Slavic, and Prussian subjects of the Order fought in both the cavalry and the infantry. A heavily armed group of 500 Knights of the Cross, supplemented with a moderate number of foreign guests from as far as Burgundy, provided a powerful, professional shock force that had won many battles for the Order in previous decades.
 * That the Order mustered a force of 80,000 at Grunwald appears to be grossly overstated, along with the presence of English and Swiss mercenaries. —PētersV (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Vytis?
The name Vytis is created only in 1845, therefore it's ahistorical use this name for the battle that occuried in 1410. 82.135.217.240 (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There were no name "Belarusians" also in 1410 :). In 13th-18th centuries Belarusians were mostly known under the name of Rusins (Ruthenians) or Litvins (Lithuanians). Orionus (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is not what was the selfname of ancestors of modern Belarusians. The question is not who were in majority either. The question is why Lithuanians use term created in 1845 for event that was happened in 1410? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.80.224.242 (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed leftovers from Soviet propaganda
I removed leftovers from Soviet propaganda not supported by anything in the text. Also its way to early to speak about Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians in that timeperiod.--Molobo (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What i wrote, this not ground of the soviet propaganda. Novgorod is a free state, what vassal of Lithuania, alike Moldavia. Doncsecz (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Participants
Molobo removes any mention of Russian participation despite sources are given Turnbull, "Tannenberg 1410: Disaster for the Teutonic Knights", ISBN 9781841765617, published by Osprey, says right on its cover:
 * "In June 1410 King Wladislaw Jagiello of Poland invaded the Order’s territory with a powerful allied army including all the enemies of the Teutonic Knights – Poles, Lithuanians, Russians, Bohemians, Hungarians, Tartars and Cossacks."

This info is being spinned as Soviet propaganda and other nonsense. I marked the article as disputed until Molobo quits this disruption. --Irpen 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be more detailed. It is important to know whether the Russian (and Bohemian, and Hungarian, and Tatar, and Cossack) participation was independent or whether they were vassals of one of the participating powers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Best (English-language) reference on Poland-Lituania (Daniel Stone's history) states Lithuanians and Ruthenians, along with Tartars, fought under the Lithuanian flag. Stone indicates a participation of those groups, not those groups as representatives of any city-state. Hope this helps. —PētersV (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is the version I am familiar with. There were Ruthenians (not Russians) involved in the battle, under command of the Lithuanians. I hope we can eventually expand on that. Currently Novogrod is mentioned in the banners of Lithuania section, and possibility of Smolensk units is included. While Smolensk was a part of GDL, it appears Novogrod wasn't, and it would be interesting to expand on that. A possible hint comes from Novgorod_Republic: "In 1397, a critical conflict took place between Muscovy and Novgorod... Resisting the Muscovite oppression, the government of Novgorod sought an alliance with Poland-Lithuania." It is very brief, but would explain why the Novogrodian units aided the Lithuanians. That said, I am not sure if they shouldn't be moved from Lithuanian banners to auxiliary units (and shouldn't auxiliary be in a separate section, not in a Lithuanian subsection)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

- a list of GDL units.Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that where the article unit table is from? If it is then I think it has to go because a Civilisation forum is not a reliable source by any stretch of imagination. To me it looks like someone took a map and said, right, a "regiment" from each dot on the map :)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a forum is not a reliable source (unless the poster there cites his sources).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox suggestion
First, we should not add everything we find in all the sources, there are various terms and typologies out there (for example, Ruthenians/Muscovites/etc. is more correct than Russians for that period). I suggest expanding numbers, where we could list for example 10,000 Poles, 10,000 Lithuanians, 1,000 Novogradians, 500 Moldavians and so on. As for participants and flags, vassals should be marked as such, and we should avoid errors - for example Smolensk was part of GDL and does not merit a separate entry, Novogrod should probably be mentioned (once we find out more info about it). Pskov (which also wasn't a part of GDL and around that time was likely allied to Lithuania), Tatars, Cossacks - we need more info on those, passing mention in one book is hardly enough to add them all to the infobox, which should summarize information in the article (note that the article has no mention of Pskov, for example, nor of Cossacks). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, even if you were an accomplished historian IRL, when you edit under your Wikipedia username you are in no position to say you are more correct than Turnbull published by Osprey. And note, we are not arguing any inferences and opinions, we are arguing facts here, --Irpen 20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, even currently the article lists the Novgorodian Banner which you would have noticed if you scrolled down. Anyway, I've got to expand some info now. --Irpen 20:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'd care to read the discussion, you'd see I've discussed the Novgoradian Banner above. There is evidence to include Novgoradians in the infobox, but so far I see nothing for Cossacks, Pskov or - most controversial - Russians.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, if "Russians" is controversial, pls first take it to Turnbull and Osprey. As long as WP agrees with respected sources on basic facts you are fighting it in the wrong web-site. --Irpen 21:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see note above on Stone's list of participants. No evidence of "official" participation by Novgorod. What would be characterized as Russian participants were explicitly under Lithuanian banner. —PētersV (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as I explained above, Novogrod was not part of GDL, but its independent ally (and if Pskov banners were there - I cannot find any refs for that - this would be the same case). That, however, needs much better refs than one sentence from one book.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See Lengvenis.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's more on Grunwald in Stone's text, I'll post some more info when I have a chance. —PētersV (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Before I accept Osprey's stories about Eastern Europe, I would check Slavic sources.Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Why are there Russians and no Ukrainians and Belarusians ? Especially since it was there lands that Poland and Lithuanian possesed rather then Russian ones. Also we do not mention every ethnicity that took part in the battle but states. If no confirmation of states is made then I see no need to list every possible ethnic background of 30,000 or so people fighting on the battlefield. --Molobo (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, as explained to you numerous times, please take it to the author of a source and his publisher. As long as we stick to sources whose scholarly credentials are not questioned, you are fighting this battle at the wrong field. --Irpen 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Irpen, please provide requested quotations. So far most of your claims are not referenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are not a lot of references to sources in the vast majority of the article's content. When this was created, did the author take note of the instructions:

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
 * To experiment, please use the sandbox.
 * As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted.

From Stone: ''In 1410, warfare finally decided who would control the Baltic coast. The more numerous but more lightly armed Polish-Lithuanian force brought the war into Prussian territory. King Jagiełło commanded a Polish army of 20,000 mounted nobles, 15,000 armed commoners, and 2,000 professional cavalry, mostly hired from Bohemia. The Lithuanian army, commanded by Vytautas but under Jagiełło' overall command, consisted of about 11,000 light cavalry forces drawn from both the Lithuanian and Ruthenian areas of the Grand Duchy; Tartars also fought under the Lithuanian flag.'' ... Stone then goes into detail on the forces of the Teutonic Order and the culmination of the conflict in the decisive battle at the Prussian village of Grunwald, reviewing the order of battle in some detail as well as its impact and aftermath. The only alliances at work Stone mentions are: both as allies of the Order, diplomatically supporting the Order and allowing it to raise troops. (Note that Bohemian mercenaries actually fought against the Order at Grunwald.) I would take Stone's version, that is, no formal alliances involving Russian territories, as the most likely scenario, especially as he does make note of alliances with the Order. It's common to describe participants in conflicts in terms of peoples/ethnicities, I don't see any need to make the leap to characterize those as signifying city-states, principalities, or kingdoms. Nor do I see any reason to delete the peoples/ethnicities involved. —PētersV (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Vaclav IV in Bohemia and
 * Sigismund of Hungary,

P.S. I see Stone as a more precise and accurate version of Turnbull's account. Clearly, with phrases like "invaded the Order’s territory with a powerful allied army including all the enemies of the Teutonic Knights ", my emphasis, he was also striving for impact in telling a story. And, as mentioned, Bohemia was actually allied to the Order, it was only mercenaries that fought for Jagiełło. —PētersV (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This seems a more detailed and trustworthy account that one short sentence discussed earlier.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a long paragraph in Czech Wikipedia, according to which the TK paied bohemians twice as much as Poles, but didn't recompense looses. So the word mercenaries isn't reserved to the Polish/Lithuanian side.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, alas Wikipedias are not a reliable source.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Czech article quotes a number of Czech language books.Xx236 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would any items of interest to us be accompanied by inline citations? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

On Russians and Ruthenians
Instead of citing cover of a book, let's take a look at the insides. Stephen Turnbull has a chapter dedicated to opposing forces and their compositions. On p.27 and p.28 he writes both about Russians and Ruthenians, but with one important difference: the word Russians is attributed to Posilge (in a direct quotation) and Turnbull himself writes of "Ruthenians (whose lands corresponded to modern Ukraine)". I hope there will be no more attempts to replace Ruthenians with Russians - at least not "referencing Turnbull" (and particularly, the cover of his book - it is a standard procedure that the cover blurbs are written by the publisher, who skips over historical details in order to make a marketable ad).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pioturs, may I ask you what "Ruthenians" of Smolensk you are talking about? Or Novgorod? --Irpen 02:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * People of Smolensk and Novgorod didn't consider themselves Russians in the modern sense of the word. The modern Russian nation was not formed at that time - it would be the same as describing people from Pinsk as Byelorusians. They were still one people, and the ethnonym "Russians" refers to the modern Russian nation as opposed to Ruthenians, which designates people of Rus, which they were. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hillock, are you saying that there were no "Russians" yet at the time and that people of Smolensk, Novgorod and Lviv were yet one people in the 15th century? --Irpen 05:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the modern sense of the etnonym Russians - of course not. We are talking about their name in English. If we say that at the time of Smolensk there were no Byolorusians and Ukrainins, surely there were no modern Russians as well. They were all Ruthenians or people of the Rus, irrespective of how it sounded in the native language. Modern etnonym Russian designates in English the modern Russian nation, not the ancient people, who inhabited Smolensk, Novgorov and Lviv in the 15th century. --Hillock65 (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny so Novgorod and Smolensk people are not ethnic Russians. Surely that would make the Zaporozhian Cossacks not ethnic Ukrainians per same definition? Well they never called themselves Ukrainians for one. --Kuban Cossack 08:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both articles on Russians and Ruthenians need expansion and good referencing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A technical question: did Novgorod have a banner, or were they included in one of Lithuanian banners? If they did, then this should be shown, and shown separately under "Russians", "Novgorodians", "Russian principalities" or whatever, certainly not Ruthenians since they were not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaidash (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Moldavia
Why it in the article the moldavian soldiers sent by Alexander ruler of Moldavia. But then Moldavia alike belligerent state, or no? Doncsecz (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To determine that, we need references.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (Transplanted) At the time, Hungary and Poland were fighting for control of Moldavia and Galicia. A century later, Poland was losing influence to the Ottoman Empire. A century later there was still fighting between Poland and the Ottomans. Although Stone's text doesn't mention Moldavians participating at Grunwald, it does mention Poland's later campaign into Moldavia which ended in failure and the signing of a treaty which recognized Poland and Moldavia as equals instead of Moldavia as a "feudal dependent", which would confirm some form of hierarchal dependency prior. Ottoman incursions and enforcement of Turkish suzerainty came shortly thereafter, Moldavia becoming a vassal of the Ottomans. —PētersV (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now i was place a source. Doncsecz (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the Greatest Battles of Medieval Europe
I've never heard this battle referred to in those terms before, could someone direct me to the source (presumably a book) of such a statement?Fritigern (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

NOT NPOV
This article is definitely not NPOV, but written in favour of the polish/lithuanian side.

Image copyright problem with Image:Krzyzac3.jpg
The image Image:Krzyzac3.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lithuanian retreat maneouvre theory
"According to Swedish historian Sven Ekdahl, the Lithuanian retreat was a maneuver, planned ahead of time by Vytautas the Great, with an intent to disperse and annihilate the pursuing Teutonic forces. This hypothesis is confirmed by the behavior of the Czech mercenaries of Jan Žižka fighting on the side of the Polish-Lithuanian forces. Initially the Czechs, situated behind the Lithuanian lines, moved back to the nearby forest, opening the route for the Lithuanian retreat, only to return later and to surround the pursuing Teutonic knights, on the opposite side from the regrouped Lithuanians"

This is only another unverified theory, not supported by any solid sources. It should not be placed into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornicki (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also "unverified" theory that Vytautas tried to stop retreat and that some of the forces "fled" back to Lithuania. From the course of the battle it's obvious that it was a maneuver, otherwise why on earth scared (assuming that they fled) troops would return right at the time when mightiest troops (assuming that general's body guards are mightiest) moved to the battle? Tautvydas


 * I'm willing to buy that this is a plausible theory, particularly since it was a tactic often employed by Tatars or Mongols with which the Lithuanians would've been familiar from previous encounters with them. It'd be nice to get some specific, referenced and inlined citations here though.radek (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read of the theory elsewhere, as I recall it did appear in a subsequent historical account, I believe it's worth mentioning. PetersV     TALK 00:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Worth of Silver
I have checked the present value of 30kg pure silver (www.kitco.com). I have found on the net that now (December 2008) a kilogramm of pure silver costs around 270 EURO or less. That makes the present value of 30 kg silver equal to around 8100-8200 EUR. This is NOT a high amount today, as of western standards, and the due section of the article is to be ammended. Nevertheless, it is worth an inquiry what roughly 1 kg of silver was worth in the early 15th cenury in east europe (horses, grain, land, bread, armour, etc). csb. arcunum9bajc@t-online.hu

in therefore I propose that the 5th stance of Aftermath section is to be ammended as forth:

For instance, one of the mercenaries named Holbracht von Loym had to pay sixty times (German: Schock) the number of 150 Prague groschen, that is almost 30 kilograms of pure silver, that is around 8200 EUR as of 2008 prices. It is worthwile to uderstand that the then present price of such a huge amount of silver is equal to ... x horses, y warhorses, z kg of grains, l meter of silk, etc ... AND HERE SHOULD COME THE FIGURES OF COMPARISON.


 * After the discovery of America, and of large amounts of Silver and Gold there, the value of these precious metals dropped. -- Matthead Discuß   05:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Banners of the Teutonic Knights
Did they have any? They are missing from the list, see Talk:Battle_of_Grunwald_(banners).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They had some before the battle, and fewer after. For the difference, see this recent work. Upload to Commons and Latin Wikisource would be helpful. -- Matthead Discuß   00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could do it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to Battle of Tannenberg
Battle of Tannenberg (1410) is the name used by international scholars in English. "Grunwald" is just an error by Longinus who misunderstood the German Grünfelde (in Latin Grunenvelt or so), turning a field into a wood, thus creating what is probably the first and only battlewood or battleforest the world has ever seen. Repeating that century-old mistake might not be embarrassing to Poles, but echoing it in English and other languages is, isn't it? The use of post-1945 Polish place names is anything but proper. -- Matthead Discuß   01:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: On 16 September ... the Polish King made his intentions clear in a letter to the bishop of Pomesania to have a Brigittine cloister and church built on the battlefield at Grünfelde, literally in loco conflictus nostri, quem cum Cruciferis de Prusia habuimus, dicto Grunenvelt. - Sven Ekdahl : The Battle of Tannenberg-Grunwald-Žalgiris (1410) as reflected in Twentieth-Century monuments, S. 175ff, in: Victor Mallia-Milanes, Malcolm Barber et. al.: The Military Orders Volume 3: History and Heritage, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2008 ISBN 075466290X 9780754662907 So Grunenvelt was given as location by the king himself. One wonders why Poles did not follow their king, and invent something else instead? And why should English use echo Polish misuse? There was Grünfelde, but no place called Grunwald until 1945, even though Norman Davies speaks of "Grunwald in Prussia", which is as odd as "Kaliningrad in Prussia", but the latter is at least given properly as Königsberg (modern Kaliningrad) in Prussia. -- Matthead Discuß   04:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Update: So Grunenvelt was given as location by the king himself. One wonders why Poles did not follow their king, and invent something else instead?. Actually what one wonders is why Matthead asks this rhetorical question in the first place. Maybe it's for the same reason that "Poles" (all the millions of them throughout the centuries since 1410, apparently) don't use words like "loco" or "conflictus" or "nostri". All the above establishes is that the Latin name of the place was Grunenvelt. Which is a lot closer to "Grunwald" than "Tannenberg", in case this matters.radek (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Update to Response to Update: The claim that no place called Grunwald until 1945 is also plainly false. Again, the internet is a very useful tool and a quick check of Google Books turns up a plethora of publications - not just English language, but English language written by folks with English names - that use the word "Grunwald" for the place: . It helps to do some homework first.radek (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (also - I am aware that some of the hits on Google Books (but not all) refer to individuals named Grunwald rather than the place. However, since these individuals were most likely named after their, or their ancestors, place of residence, this is additional evidence for widespread use of the word Grunwald prior to 1945)radek (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not true, as a quick search of Google Books shows. "Grunwald" is generally used for this battle, by "international scholars in English". "Tannenberg" is probably generally used for the 1914 WWI battle.radek (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats a quick and general answer. Please back it up with detailed search results, in English, for the 1410, not the 1914 event, preferably by listing the titles of works covering this very battle, not just counting all mentions somewhere. -- Matthead Discuß   01:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I would support move from this title to Battle of Tannenberg (1410) as well, even G search yields that Tannenverg is more popular compered to opposite. . M.K. (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that as I pointed out above there are two battles here. And usually sources which talk about the 1914 Battle of Tannenberg mention that another battle, this one, occurred in 1410. Hence the Google search "Battle of Tannenberg 1410" picks up a good number of hits that are about the 1914 battle and also happen to have 1410 in there somewhere. But the opposite case (works on Grunwald talking about the 1914 battle) is not true. Given this the fact that "Grunwald" and "Tannenberg" and "1410" are so close in # of hits means that Grunwald is the commonly used term for this particular battle. Note also that many of the hits from Google scholars are only tenuously, if at all, actually related to this topic (and again, the # of hits is pretty close).radek (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly: when we control for the year both name are as popular. I vote keep on current name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know we don't always care for E.B., but to quote from (searching for battle of Grunwald), we get...


 * Battle of Tannenberg (Europe [1410]) (July 15, 1410), battle fought at Tannenberg (Polish: Stębark) in northeastern Poland (formerly East Prussia) that was a major Polish-Lithuanian victory over the Knights of the Teutonic Order. The battle marked the end of the order’s expansion along the southeastern coast of the Baltic Sea and the beginning of the decline of its power.  Forces from Poland and Lithuania, which had recently united politically, were proceeding toward the order’s stronghold at Marienburg when they were met by the order’s army, in one of the largest cavalry battles of the age, between the villages of Grünfelde (Polish: Grunwald) and Tannenberg. ...


 * I don't have any stake in either, but this and some other searches do appear to favor Tannenberg in English references. PetersV     TALK 03:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Battle of Stębark. LOL. Yet another great victory for Britannica :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that there's discussion above and this proposal has been discussed above and at best there was no consensus (if not a clear consensus at keeping it here).radek (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Editwarring
Historians used to believe that the battle ended almost 600 years ago. -- Matthead Discuß   01:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you be clearer and more precise in what you mean by that?radek (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)