Misplaced Pages

Battle of Grunwald: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:32, 2 September 2011 editZaabaawaa (talk | contribs)15 editsm Correction added.← Previous edit Revision as of 17:24, 2 September 2011 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers286,385 edits Fix referencesNext edit →
Line 30: Line 30:
==Names and sources== ==Names and sources==
===Names=== ===Names===
The battle was fought in the territory of the ], on the plains between three villages: Grünfelde (]) to the west, Tannenberg (]) to the northeast, and Ludwigsdorf (], Ludwikowice) to the south. Jogaila referred to the site in Latin as ''in loco conflictus nostri, quem cum Cruciferis de Prusia habuimus, dicto Grunenvelt''.<ref name=ek175>{{harvnb|Ekdahl|2008|p=175}}</ref> Later Polish chroniclers interpreted the word ''Grunenvelt'' as ''Grünwald'', meaning "green forest" in German. The Lithuanians followed suit and translated the name as ''Žalgiris''. The Germans named the battle after Tannenberg ("fir hill" in German). Thus there are three commonly used names for the battle: {{lang-de|Schlacht bei Tannenberg}}, {{lang-pl|Bitwa pod Grunwaldem}}, {{lang-lt|Žalgirio mūšis}}. Its names in the languages of other involved peoples include {{lang-be|Дубровенская бітва}}, {{lang-uk|Грюнвальдська битва}}, {{lang-ru|Грюнвальдская битва}}, {{lang-cs|Bitva u Grunvaldu}}, {{lang-ro|Bătălia de la Grünwald}}. The battle was fought in the territory of the ], on the plains between three villages: Grünfelde (]) to the west, Tannenberg (]) to the northeast, and Ludwigsdorf (], Ludwikowice) to the south. Jogaila referred to the site in Latin as ''in loco conflictus nostri, quem cum Cruciferis de Prusia habuimus, dicto Grunenvelt''.<ref name="ek175"/> Later Polish chroniclers interpreted the word ''Grunenvelt'' as ''Grünwald'', meaning "green forest" in German. The Lithuanians followed suit and translated the name as ''Žalgiris''. The Germans named the battle after Tannenberg ("fir hill" in German). Thus there are three commonly used names for the battle: {{lang-de|Schlacht bei Tannenberg}}, {{lang-pl|Bitwa pod Grunwaldem}}, {{lang-lt|Žalgirio mūšis}}. Its names in the languages of other involved peoples include {{lang-be|Дубровенская бітва}}, {{lang-uk|Грюнвальдська битва}}, {{lang-ru|Грюнвальдская битва}}, {{lang-cs|Bitva u Grunvaldu}}, {{lang-ro|Bătălia de la Grünwald}}.


===Sources=== ===Sources===
] ]
] ]
There are few contemporary and reliable sources about the battle, and most are produced by Poles. The most important and trustworthy source is ''Cronica conflictus Wladislai regis Poloniae cum Cruciferis anno Christi 1410'', which was written within a year of the battle by an eyewitness.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=8}}</ref> Its authorship is uncertain but candidates have been proposed: Polish ] ] and Jogaila's secretary ].<ref name=jucas9>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=9}}</ref> While the original ''Cronica conflictus'' did not survive, a short summary was preserved from the 16th century. Another pivotal source is ''Historiae Polonicae'' by Polish historian ] (1415–1480).<ref name=jucas9/> It is a comprehensive and detailed account written several decades after the battle. The reliability of this source suffers not only from the long gap between the events and the chronicle, but also Długosz's biases against the Lithuanians.<ref name=jucas10>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=10}}</ref> '']'' is a mid-15th century manuscript with images and Latin descriptions of the Teutonic battle flags captured during the battle and displayed in ]. Other Polish sources include two letters written by Jogaila to his wife ] and ] ] and letters sent by Jastrzębiec to Poles in the ].<ref name=jucas10/> German sources include a concise account in the chronicle of ]. An anonymous letter, written between 1411 and 1413, was discovered by Swedish historian ] and provided important details on Lithuanian maneuvers.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=11}}</ref><ref name=ekdahl1963/> There are few contemporary and reliable sources about the battle, and most are produced by Poles. The most important and trustworthy source is ''Cronica conflictus Wladislai regis Poloniae cum Cruciferis anno Christi 1410'', which was written within a year of the battle by an eyewitness.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=8}}</ref> Its authorship is uncertain but candidates have been proposed: Polish ] ] and Jogaila's secretary ].<ref name="jucas9"/> While the original ''Cronica conflictus'' did not survive, a short summary was preserved from the 16th century. Another pivotal source is ''Historiae Polonicae'' by Polish historian ] (1415–1480).<ref name=jucas9/> It is a comprehensive and detailed account written several decades after the battle. The reliability of this source suffers not only from the long gap between the events and the chronicle, but also Długosz's biases against the Lithuanians.<ref name="jucas10"/> '']'' is a mid-15th century manuscript with images and Latin descriptions of the Teutonic battle flags captured during the battle and displayed in ]. Other Polish sources include two letters written by Jogaila to his wife ] and ] ] and letters sent by Jastrzębiec to Poles in the ].<ref name=jucas10/> German sources include a concise account in the chronicle of ]. An anonymous letter, written between 1411 and 1413, was discovered by Swedish historian ] and provided important details on Lithuanian maneuvers.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=11}}</ref><ref name=ekdahl1963/>


==Historical background== ==Historical background==
Line 44: Line 44:
] between 1260 and 1410; the locations and dates of major battles, including the Battle of Grunwald, are indicated by crossed red swords]] ] between 1260 and 1410; the locations and dates of major battles, including the Battle of Grunwald, are indicated by crossed red swords]]


In 1385 Grand Duke ] agreed to marry reigning Queen ] in the ]. Jogaila converted to Christianity and was crowned as the King of Poland thus creating a ] between the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The official ] removed the religious rationale for the Order's activities in the area.<ref name=stone16/> Its Grand Master, ], supported by the Hungarian king ], responded by publicly contesting the sincerity of Jogaila's conversion, bringing the charge to a ].<ref name=stone16>{{harvnb|Stone|2001|p=16}}</ref> The territorial disputes continued over Samogitia, which was in Teutonic hands since the ] of 1404. Poland also had territorial claims against the Knights in ] and Danzig (]), but the two states were largely at peace since the ].<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=132}}</ref> The conflict was also motivated by trade considerations: the Knights controlled lower reaches of the three largest rivers (], ] and ]) in Poland and Lithuania.<ref>{{harvnb|Kiaupa|2000|p=137}}</ref> In 1385 Grand Duke ] agreed to marry reigning Queen ] in the ]. Jogaila converted to Christianity and was crowned as the King of Poland thus creating a ] between the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The official ] removed the religious rationale for the Order's activities in the area.<ref name=stone16/> Its Grand Master, ], supported by the Hungarian king ], responded by publicly contesting the sincerity of Jogaila's conversion, bringing the charge to a ].<ref name="stone16"/> The territorial disputes continued over Samogitia, which was in Teutonic hands since the ] of 1404. Poland also had territorial claims against the Knights in ] and Danzig (]), but the two states were largely at peace since the ].<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=132}}</ref> The conflict was also motivated by trade considerations: the Knights controlled lower reaches of the three largest rivers (], ] and ]) in Poland and Lithuania.<ref>{{harvnb|Kiaupa|2000|p=137}}</ref>


===War, truce, and preparations=== ===War, truce, and preparations===
In May 1409 an ] started. Lithuania supported the uprising and the Knights threatened to invade. Poland announced its support for the Lithuanian cause and threatened to invade Prussia in return. As Prussian troops evacuated Samogitia, the Teutonic Grand Master ] declared war on the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania on 6 August 1409.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=20}}</ref> The Knights hoped to defeat Poland and Lithuania separately and began by invading ] and ], catching the Poles by surprise.<ref name=ivin336>{{harvnb|Ivinskis|1978|p=336}}</ref> The Knights burned the castle at Dobrin (]), captured ] after a fourteen-day siege, conquered ] (Bromberg), and sacked several towns.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=130}}</ref> The Poles organized counterattacks and recaptured Bydgoszcz.<ref>{{harvnb|Kuczynski|1960|p=614}}</ref> The Samogitians attacked Memel (]).<ref name=ivin336/> However, neither side was ready for a full-scale war. In May 1409 an ] started. Lithuania supported the uprising and the Knights threatened to invade. Poland announced its support for the Lithuanian cause and threatened to invade Prussia in return. As Prussian troops evacuated Samogitia, the Teutonic Grand Master ] declared war on the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania on 6 August 1409.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=20}}</ref> The Knights hoped to defeat Poland and Lithuania separately and began by invading ] and ], catching the Poles by surprise.<ref name="ivin336"/> The Knights burned the castle at Dobrin (]), captured ] after a fourteen-day siege, conquered ] (Bromberg), and sacked several towns.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=130}}</ref> The Poles organized counterattacks and recaptured Bydgoszcz.<ref>{{harvnb|Kuczynski|1960|p=614}}</ref> The Samogitians attacked Memel (]).<ref name=ivin336/> However, neither side was ready for a full-scale war.
] fighting with Teutonic Knights (]).]] ] fighting with Teutonic Knights (]).]]


], agreed to mediate the dispute. A truce was signed on 8 October 1409; it was set to expire on 24 June 1410.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=51}}</ref> Both sides used this time for preparations for the battle, gathering the troops and engaging in diplomatic maneuvers. Both sides sent letters and envoys accusing each other of various wrongdoings and threats to Christendom. Wenceslaus, who received a gift of 60,000 florins from the Knights, declared that Samogitia rightfully belonged to the Knights and only Dobrzyń Land should be returned to Poland.<ref name=turn21>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=21}}</ref> The Knights also paid 300,000 ]s to ], who had ambitions for the ], for his military assistance.<ref name=turn21/> Sigismund attempted to break the Polish–Lithuanian alliance by offering Vytautas a king's crown; Vytautas's acceptance of such a crown would violate the terms of the ] and create Polish-Lithuanian discord.<ref>{{harvnb|Kiaupa|2000|p=139}}</ref> At the same time Vytautas managed to obtain a truce from the ].<ref name=chris227>{{harvnb|Christiansen|1997|p=227}}</ref> ], agreed to mediate the dispute. A truce was signed on 8 October 1409; it was set to expire on 24 June 1410.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=51}}</ref> Both sides used this time for preparations for the battle, gathering the troops and engaging in diplomatic maneuvers. Both sides sent letters and envoys accusing each other of various wrongdoings and threats to Christendom. Wenceslaus, who received a gift of 60,000 florins from the Knights, declared that Samogitia rightfully belonged to the Knights and only Dobrzyń Land should be returned to Poland.<ref name="turn21"/> The Knights also paid 300,000 ]s to ], who had ambitions for the ], for his military assistance.<ref name=turn21/> Sigismund attempted to break the Polish–Lithuanian alliance by offering Vytautas a king's crown; Vytautas's acceptance of such a crown would violate the terms of the ] and create Polish-Lithuanian discord.<ref>{{harvnb|Kiaupa|2000|p=139}}</ref> At the same time Vytautas managed to obtain a truce from the ].<ref name="chris227"/>


By December 1409, Jogaila and Vytautas had agreed on a common strategy: their armies would unite into a single massive force and march together towards Marienburg (]), capital of the Teutonic Knights.<ref name=turn30>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=30}}</ref> The Knights, who took a defensive position, did not expect a joint attack and were preparing for a dual invasion – by the Poles along the ] towards Danzig (]) and by the Lithuanians along the ] towards Ragnit (]).<ref name=jucas75>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=75}}</ref> To counter this perceived threat, Ulrich von Jungingen concentrated his forces in Schwetz (]), a central location from where troops could respond to an invasion from any direction rather quickly.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=74}}</ref> Sizable garrisons were left in the eastern castles of Ragnit, Rhein (]) near Lötzen (]), and Memel (]).<ref name=jucas75/> To keep the plans secret and misguide the Knights, Jogaila and Vytautas organised several raids into border territories, thus forcing the Knights to keep their troops in place.<ref name=turn30/> By December 1409, Jogaila and Vytautas had agreed on a common strategy: their armies would unite into a single massive force and march together towards Marienburg (]), capital of the Teutonic Knights.<ref name="turn30"/> The Knights, who took a defensive position, did not expect a joint attack and were preparing for a dual invasion – by the Poles along the ] towards Danzig (]) and by the Lithuanians along the ] towards Ragnit (]).<ref name="jucas75"/> To counter this perceived threat, Ulrich von Jungingen concentrated his forces in Schwetz (]), a central location from where troops could respond to an invasion from any direction rather quickly.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=74}}</ref> Sizable garrisons were left in the eastern castles of Ragnit, Rhein (]) near Lötzen (]), and Memel (]).<ref name=jucas75/> To keep the plans secret and misguide the Knights, Jogaila and Vytautas organised several raids into border territories, thus forcing the Knights to keep their troops in place.<ref name=turn30/>


==Opposing forces== ==Opposing forces==
Line 58: Line 58:
<!-- SORTED FROM SMALLEST TOTAL TO LARGEST TOTAL TROOPS--> <!-- SORTED FROM SMALLEST TOTAL TO LARGEST TOTAL TROOPS-->
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="float:left;" {| class="wikitable sortable" style="float:left;"
|+ Various estimates of opposing forces<ref name=jucas57>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|pp=57–58}}</ref> |+ Various estimates of opposing forces<ref name="jucas57"/>
|- |-
! Historian || Polish || Lithuanian || Teutonic ! Historian || Polish || Lithuanian || Teutonic
Line 65: Line 65:
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| 16,500 || 11,000 | colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| 16,500 || 11,000
|- |-
| ]<ref name=Razin486>{{harvnb|Разин|1999|p=486}}</ref> | ]<ref name="Razin486"/>
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| 16,000–17,000 || 11,000 | colspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| 16,000–17,000 || 11,000
|- |-
Line 81: Line 81:
| ] || 15,000–18,000 || 8,000–11,000 || 19,000 | ] || 15,000–18,000 || 8,000–11,000 || 19,000
|- |-
| ]<ref name=kiaupa2002>{{harvnb|Kiaupa|2002}}</ref> || 18,000 || 11,000 || 15,000–21,000 | ]<ref name="kiaupa2002"/> || 18,000 || 11,000 || 15,000–21,000
|- |-
| ] || 19,000–20,000 || 10,000–11,000 || 21,000 | ] || 19,000–20,000 || 10,000–11,000 || 21,000
Line 91: Line 91:
|} |}


The precise number of soldiers involved has proven difficult to establish.<ref name=turn25>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=25}}</ref> None of the contemporary sources provided reliable troop counts. ] provided the number of the banners, the principal unit of each cavalry: 51 for the Knights, 50 for the Poles, and 40 for the Lithuanians.<ref name=ivin338/> However, it is unclear how many men were under each banner. The structure and number of infantry units (], ], ]men) and artillery units is unknown. Estimates, often biased by political and nationalistic considerations, were produced by various historians.<ref name=turn25/> German historians tend to present lower numbers, while Polish historians tend to use higher estimates.<ref name=jucas57/> The high-end estimates by Polish historian ] of 39,000 Polish–Lithuanian and 27,000 Teutonic men<ref name=ivin338>{{harvnb|Ivinskis|1978|p=338}}</ref> have been cited in western literature as "commonly accepted".<ref name=turn25/><ref name=davies98>{{harvnb|Davies|2005|p=98}}</ref><ref name=john43>{{harvnb|Johnson|1996|p=43}}</ref> The precise number of soldiers involved has proven difficult to establish.<ref name="turn25"/> None of the contemporary sources provided reliable troop counts. ] provided the number of the banners, the principal unit of each cavalry: 51 for the Knights, 50 for the Poles, and 40 for the Lithuanians.<ref name=ivin338/> However, it is unclear how many men were under each banner. The structure and number of infantry units (], ], ]men) and artillery units is unknown. Estimates, often biased by political and nationalistic considerations, were produced by various historians.<ref name=turn25/> German historians tend to present lower numbers, while Polish historians tend to use higher estimates.<ref name=jucas57/> The high-end estimates by Polish historian ] of 39,000 Polish–Lithuanian and 27,000 Teutonic men<ref name="ivin338"/> have been cited in western literature as "commonly accepted".<ref name=turn25/><ref name="davies98"/><ref name="john43"/>


While less numerous, the Teutonic army had advantages in discipline, military training, and superior military equipment.<ref name=Razin486/> Their heavy cavalry was one of the best in Europe. The Teutonic army was also equipped with ]s that could shoot lead and stone ].<ref name=Razin486/> While less numerous, the Teutonic army had advantages in discipline, military training, and superior military equipment.<ref name=Razin486/> Their heavy cavalry was one of the best in Europe. The Teutonic army was also equipped with ]s that could shoot lead and stone ].<ref name=Razin486/>
Both forces were composed of troops from several states and lands, including numerous mercenaries; for example, ]n mercenaries fought on each side.<ref name=turn29/> The Knights also invited guest crusaders. Twenty-two different peoples, mostly Germanic, joined the Teutonic side.<ref>{{harvnb|Разин|1999|pp=485–486}}</ref> Teutonic recruits included soldiers from ], ], ], ],<ref name=turn29>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=29}}</ref> Stettin (]).<ref name="Jučas 2009 56">{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=56}}</ref> Two Hungarian nobles, ] and ], brought 200 men for the Knights,<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=139}}</ref> but support from ] was disappointing.<ref name=chris227/> Both forces were composed of troops from several states and lands, including numerous mercenaries; for example, ]n mercenaries fought on each side.<ref name=turn29/> The Knights also invited guest crusaders. Twenty-two different peoples, mostly Germanic, joined the Teutonic side.<ref>{{harvnb|Разин|1999|pp=485–486}}</ref> Teutonic recruits included soldiers from ], ], ], ],<ref name="turn29"/> Stettin (]).<ref name="Jučas 2009 56">{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=56}}</ref> Two Hungarian nobles, ] and ], brought 200 men for the Knights,<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=139}}</ref> but support from ] was disappointing.<ref name=chris227/>


Poland brought mercenaries from ] and Bohemia. The ] produced two full banners, under command of ].<ref name=turn26>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=26}}</ref> Serving among the Czechs was ], future commander of the ] forces. ] commanded Moldavian troops.<ref name=u138>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=138}}</ref> Vytautas gathered troops from Lithuanian and ]n (modern ] and ]) lands. The Lithuanian army included three banners from ], under the command of Jogaila's brother ], and a contingent of Tatars of the ], under the command of the exiled Khan ].<ref name=turn28>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=28}}</ref> The overall commander of the joint Polish–Lithuanian forces was King Jogaila; however, he did not directly participate in the battle. The Lithuanian units were commanded directly by Grand Duke Vytautas, who was second in command and helped design the grand strategy of the campaign. Vytautas actively participated in the battle, managing both Lithuanian and Polish units.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=64}}</ref> ] stated that the low-ranking ] of the Crown ] commanded the Polish army, but that is highly doubtful.<ref name=jucas63>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=63}}</ref> More likely ] ] commanded the Polish troops in the field. Poland brought mercenaries from ] and Bohemia. The ] produced two full banners, under command of ].<ref name="turn26"/> Serving among the Czechs was ], future commander of the ] forces. ] commanded Moldavian troops.<ref name="u138"/> Vytautas gathered troops from Lithuanian and ]n (modern ] and ]) lands. The Lithuanian army included three banners from ], under the command of Jogaila's brother ], and a contingent of Tatars of the ], under the command of the exiled Khan ].<ref name="turn28"/> The overall commander of the joint Polish–Lithuanian forces was King Jogaila; however, he did not directly participate in the battle. The Lithuanian units were commanded directly by Grand Duke Vytautas, who was second in command and helped design the grand strategy of the campaign. Vytautas actively participated in the battle, managing both Lithuanian and Polish units.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=64}}</ref> ] stated that the low-ranking ] of the Crown ] commanded the Polish army, but that is highly doubtful.<ref name="jucas63"/> More likely ] ] commanded the Polish troops in the field.


==Course of the battle== ==Course of the battle==
===March into Prussia=== ===March into Prussia===
] ]
The first stage of the Grunwald campaign was gathering all Polish–Lithuanian troops at ], a designated meeting point about {{convert|80|km|abbr=on}} from the Prussian border, where the joint army crossed the ] over a ].<ref name=turn33/> This maneuver, which required precision and intense coordination among multi-ethnic forces, was accomplished in about a week from 24 June to 30 June 1410.<ref name=jucas75/> Polish soldiers from ] gathered in ] and those from ] in ]. On 24 June 1410, Jogaila and Czech mercenaries arrived in ].<ref name=jucas75/> Three days later, the Polish army was already at the meeting point. The Lithuanian army marched out from ] on 3 June and joined up with the Ruthenian regiments in ].<ref name=jucas75/> They arrived in Czerwinsk on the same day as the Poles crossed the river. After the crossing, Masovian troops under ] and ] joined the Polish–Lithuanian army.<ref name=jucas75/> The massive force began its march north towards Marienburg (]), capital of Prussia, on 3 July. The Prussian border was crossed on 9 July.<ref name=turn33>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=33}}</ref> The first stage of the Grunwald campaign was gathering all Polish–Lithuanian troops at ], a designated meeting point about {{convert|80|km|abbr=on}} from the Prussian border, where the joint army crossed the ] over a ].<ref name=turn33/> This maneuver, which required precision and intense coordination among multi-ethnic forces, was accomplished in about a week from 24 June to 30 June 1410.<ref name=jucas75/> Polish soldiers from ] gathered in ] and those from ] in ]. On 24 June 1410, Jogaila and Czech mercenaries arrived in ].<ref name=jucas75/> Three days later, the Polish army was already at the meeting point. The Lithuanian army marched out from ] on 3 June and joined up with the Ruthenian regiments in ].<ref name=jucas75/> They arrived in Czerwinsk on the same day as the Poles crossed the river. After the crossing, Masovian troops under ] and ] joined the Polish–Lithuanian army.<ref name=jucas75/> The massive force began its march north towards Marienburg (]), capital of Prussia, on 3 July. The Prussian border was crossed on 9 July.<ref name="turn33"/>


The river crossing remained secret until Hungarian envoys, who were attempting to negotiate a peace, revealed it to the Teutonic Grand Master.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=141}}</ref> As soon as Ulrich von Jungingen grasped Polish–Lithuanian intentions, he left 3,000 men at Schwetz (]) under ]<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=142}}</ref> and marched the main forces to organise a line of defence on the Drewenz River (]) near Kauernik (]).<ref name=turn35/> The river crossing was fortified with ]s.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=76}}</ref> On 11 July, after meeting with his eight-member ],<ref name=jucas63/> Jogaila decided against crossing the river at such a strong defensible position. The army would instead bypass the river crossing by turning east, towards its sources, where no other major rivers separated his army from Marienburg.<ref name=turn35>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=35}}</ref> The march continued east towards Soldau (]), although no attempt was made to capture the town.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=36}}</ref> The Teutonic army followed the Drewenz River north, crossed it near Löbau (]), and then moved east in parallel with the Polish–Lithuanian army. The latter ravaged the village of Gilgenburg (]).<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|pp=36–37}}</ref> Von Jungingen was so enraged by the atrocities that he swore to defeat the invaders in battle.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|pp=148–149}}</ref> The river crossing remained secret until Hungarian envoys, who were attempting to negotiate a peace, revealed it to the Teutonic Grand Master.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=141}}</ref> As soon as Ulrich von Jungingen grasped Polish–Lithuanian intentions, he left 3,000 men at Schwetz (]) under ]<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=142}}</ref> and marched the main forces to organise a line of defence on the Drewenz River (]) near Kauernik (]).<ref name=turn35/> The river crossing was fortified with ]s.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=76}}</ref> On 11 July, after meeting with his eight-member ],<ref name=jucas63/> Jogaila decided against crossing the river at such a strong defensible position. The army would instead bypass the river crossing by turning east, towards its sources, where no other major rivers separated his army from Marienburg.<ref name="turn35"/> The march continued east towards Soldau (]), although no attempt was made to capture the town.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=36}}</ref> The Teutonic army followed the Drewenz River north, crossed it near Löbau (]), and then moved east in parallel with the Polish–Lithuanian army. The latter ravaged the village of Gilgenburg (]).<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|pp=36–37}}</ref> Von Jungingen was so enraged by the atrocities that he swore to defeat the invaders in battle.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|pp=148–149}}</ref>


===Battle preparations=== ===Battle preparations===
{{see also|Grunwald Swords}} {{see also|Grunwald Swords}}


In the early morning of 15 July 1410, both armies met in an area covering approximately {{convert|4|km2|abbr=on}} between the villages of ], Tannenberg (]) and Ludwigsdorf (]).<ref name=jucas77>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=77}}</ref> Both armies formed opposing lines along a northeast–southwest axis. The Polish–Lithuanian army was positioned in front and east of Ludwigsdorf and Tannenberg.<ref name=turn44/> Polish heavy cavalry formed the left flank, Lithuanian light cavalry formed the right flank, while various mercenary troops formed the center. Their men were organized in three lines of wedge-shaped formations about 20 men deep.<ref name=turn44>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=44}}</ref> The Teutonic forces concentrated their elite heavy cavalry, commanded by Grand Marshal ], against the Lithuanians.<ref name=jucas77/> The Knights, who were the first to organize their army for the battle, hoped to provoke Poles or Lithuanians to attack first. Their troops, wearing heavy armor, had to stand in scorching sun for several hours waiting for an attack.<ref name=turn45>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=45}}</ref> One chronicle suggested that they had dug pits that an attacking army would fall into.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=149}}</ref> They also attempted to use ], but a light rain dampened their powder and only two cannon shots were fired.<ref name=turn45/> As Jogaila delayed, Grand Master sent messengers with two swords to "assist Jogaila and Vytautas in battle". The swords were meant as an insult and provocation.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=43}}</ref> Known as the ], they became one of the national symbols of Poland. In the early morning of 15 July 1410, both armies met in an area covering approximately {{convert|4|km2|abbr=on}} between the villages of ], Tannenberg (]) and Ludwigsdorf (]).<ref name="jucas77"/> Both armies formed opposing lines along a northeast–southwest axis. The Polish–Lithuanian army was positioned in front and east of Ludwigsdorf and Tannenberg.<ref name=turn44/> Polish heavy cavalry formed the left flank, Lithuanian light cavalry formed the right flank, while various mercenary troops formed the center. Their men were organized in three lines of wedge-shaped formations about 20 men deep.<ref name="turn44"/> The Teutonic forces concentrated their elite heavy cavalry, commanded by Grand Marshal ], against the Lithuanians.<ref name=jucas77/> The Knights, who were the first to organize their army for the battle, hoped to provoke Poles or Lithuanians to attack first. Their troops, wearing heavy armor, had to stand in scorching sun for several hours waiting for an attack.<ref name="turn45"/> One chronicle suggested that they had dug pits that an attacking army would fall into.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=149}}</ref> They also attempted to use ], but a light rain dampened their powder and only two cannon shots were fired.<ref name=turn45/> As Jogaila delayed, Grand Master sent messengers with two swords to "assist Jogaila and Vytautas in battle". The swords were meant as an insult and provocation.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=43}}</ref> Known as the ], they became one of the national symbols of Poland.


===Battle begins: Lithuanian attack and retreat=== ===Battle begins: Lithuanian attack and retreat===
Line 121: Line 121:
| caption3 = Polish heavy cavalry break-through | caption3 = Polish heavy cavalry break-through
}} }}
Vytautas, supported by a few Polish banners, started an assault on the left flank of the Teutonic forces.<ref name=turn45/> After more than an hour of heavy fighting, the Lithuanian light cavalry started a full retreat. ] described this development as a complete annihilation of the entire Lithuanian army. According to Długosz, the Knights assumed that victory was theirs, broke their formation for a disorganized pursuit of the retreating Lithuanians, and gathered much loot before returning to the battlefield to face the Polish troops.<ref name=jucas78>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=78}}</ref> He made no mention of the Lithuanians that later returned to the battlefield. Thus Długosz portrayed the battle as a single-handed Polish victory.<ref name=jucas78/> This view contradicted ''Cronica conflictus'' and has been challenged by modern historians. Starting with an article by ] in 1909, they proposed that the retreat was a planned, strategic maneuver, borrowed from the ].<ref>{{harvnb|Baranauskas|2011|p=25}}</ref> The same false retreat was used in the ] of 1399, where the Lithuanian army was dealt a crushing defeat and Vytautas himself barely escaped alive.<ref>{{harvnb|Sužiedėlis|1976|p=337}}</ref> This theory gained wider acceptance after the discovery and publication of a German letter by Swedish historian Sven Ekdahl in 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|pp=152–153}}</ref> The letter, written a couple years after the battle, cautions the new Grand Master to look out for false retreats of the kind that were used in the Great Battle.<ref name=ekdahl1963>{{harvnb|Ekdahl|1963}}</ref> Stephen Turnbull asserted that the Lithuanian retreat did not quite fit the tried formula of a false retreat. Such a retreat was usually staged by one or two units (as opposed to almost an entire army) and was swiftly followed by a counterattack (whereas the Lithuanians returned late in the battle).<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|pp=48–49}}</ref> Vytautas, supported by a few Polish banners, started an assault on the left flank of the Teutonic forces.<ref name=turn45/> After more than an hour of heavy fighting, the Lithuanian light cavalry started a full retreat. ] described this development as a complete annihilation of the entire Lithuanian army. According to Długosz, the Knights assumed that victory was theirs, broke their formation for a disorganized pursuit of the retreating Lithuanians, and gathered much loot before returning to the battlefield to face the Polish troops.<ref name="jucas78"/> He made no mention of the Lithuanians that later returned to the battlefield. Thus Długosz portrayed the battle as a single-handed Polish victory.<ref name=jucas78/> This view contradicted ''Cronica conflictus'' and has been challenged by modern historians. Starting with an article by ] in 1909, they proposed that the retreat was a planned, strategic maneuver, borrowed from the ].<ref>{{harvnb|Baranauskas|2011|p=25}}</ref> The same false retreat was used in the ] of 1399, where the Lithuanian army was dealt a crushing defeat and Vytautas himself barely escaped alive.<ref>{{harvnb|Sužiedėlis|1976|p=337}}</ref> This theory gained wider acceptance after the discovery and publication of a German letter by Swedish historian Sven Ekdahl in 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|pp=152–153}}</ref> The letter, written a couple years after the battle, cautions the new Grand Master to look out for false retreats of the kind that were used in the Great Battle.<ref name="ekdahl1963"/> Stephen Turnbull asserted that the Lithuanian retreat did not quite fit the tried formula of a false retreat. Such a retreat was usually staged by one or two units (as opposed to almost an entire army) and was swiftly followed by a counterattack (whereas the Lithuanians returned late in the battle).<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|pp=48–49}}</ref>


===Battle continues: Polish–Teutonic fight=== ===Battle continues: Polish–Teutonic fight===
Line 127: Line 127:


===Battle ends: Teutonic Knights defeated=== ===Battle ends: Teutonic Knights defeated===
At that time, the reorganized Lithuanians returned to the battle, attacking von Jungingen from the rear.<ref name=turn64/> The Teutonic forces were by then becoming outnumbered by the mass of Polish knights and the advancing Lithuanian cavalry. As von Jungingen attempted to break through the Lithuanian lines, he was killed.<ref name=turn64/> According to ''Cronica conflictus'', Dobiesław of Oleśnica thrust a lance through Grand Master's neck,<ref name=turn64>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=64}}</ref> while Długosz presented ] as the killer. Surrounded and leaderless, the Teutonic Knights began to retreat. Part of the routed units retreated towards their camp. This move backfired when the ] turned against their masters and joined the manhunt.<ref name=turn66/> The knights attempted to build a ]: the camp was surrounded by wagons serving as an improvised fortification.<ref name=turn66/> However, the defense was soon broken and the camp was ravaged. According to ''Cronica conflictus'', more Knights died there than in the battlefield.<ref name=turn66>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=66}}</ref> The battle lasted for about ten hours.<ref name=kiaupa2002/> At that time, the reorganized Lithuanians returned to the battle, attacking von Jungingen from the rear.<ref name=turn64/> The Teutonic forces were by then becoming outnumbered by the mass of Polish knights and the advancing Lithuanian cavalry. As von Jungingen attempted to break through the Lithuanian lines, he was killed.<ref name=turn64/> According to ''Cronica conflictus'', Dobiesław of Oleśnica thrust a lance through Grand Master's neck,<ref name="turn64"/> while Długosz presented ] as the killer. Surrounded and leaderless, the Teutonic Knights began to retreat. Part of the routed units retreated towards their camp. This move backfired when the ] turned against their masters and joined the manhunt.<ref name=turn66/> The knights attempted to build a ]: the camp was surrounded by wagons serving as an improvised fortification.<ref name=turn66/> However, the defense was soon broken and the camp was ravaged. According to ''Cronica conflictus'', more Knights died there than in the battlefield.<ref name="turn66"/> The battle lasted for about ten hours.<ref name=kiaupa2002/>


The Teutonic Knights attributed the defeat to treason on the part of ] (Mikołaj of Ryńsk), commander of the Culm (]) banner, and he was beheaded without a trial.<ref name=urban168/> He was the founder and leader of the ], a group of Knights sympathetic to Poland. According to the Knights, von Renys lowered his banner, which was taken as a signal of surrender and led to the panicked retreat.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=79}}</ref> The legend that the Knights were "stabbed in the back" was echoed in the post-World War I ] and preoccupied German historiography of the battle until 1945.<ref name=urban168/> The Teutonic Knights attributed the defeat to treason on the part of ] (Mikołaj of Ryńsk), commander of the Culm (]) banner, and he was beheaded without a trial.<ref name=urban168/> He was the founder and leader of the ], a group of Knights sympathetic to Poland. According to the Knights, von Renys lowered his banner, which was taken as a signal of surrender and led to the panicked retreat.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=79}}</ref> The legend that the Knights were "stabbed in the back" was echoed in the post-World War I ] and preoccupied German historiography of the battle until 1945.<ref name=urban168/>
Line 134: Line 134:
===Casualties and captives=== ===Casualties and captives===
]]] ]]]
The defeat of the Teutonic Knights was resounding. About 8,000 Teuton soldiers were killed<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=157}}</ref> and an additional 14,000 were taken captive.<ref name=turn68/> According to Teutonic payroll records, only 1,427 men reported back to Marienburg to claim their pay.<ref name=turn68/> Of 1,200 men sent from Danzig, only 300 returned.<ref name="Jučas 2009 56"/> According to different sources, some 200 or 400 brothers of the Order were killed, including much of the Teutonic leadership – Grand Master ], Grand Marshal ], Grand Komtur ], Grand Treasurer Thomas von Merheim, Marshal of Supply Forces Albrecht von Schwartzburg, and ten of the ]s.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|pp=85–86}}</ref> ], Komtur of Brandenburg (]), and Heinrich Schaumburg, ] of ], were executed by order of Vytautas after the battle.<ref name=turn68/> The bodies of von Jungingen and other high-ranking officials were transported to ] for burial on 19 July.<ref name=ju87>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=87}}</ref> Bodies of lower-ranking Teutonic officials and twelve Polish knights were buried at the church in Tannenberg.<ref name=ju87/> The rest of the dead were buried in several mass graves. The highest- ranking Teutonic official to escape the battle was Werner von Tettinger, Komtur of Elbing (]).<ref name=turn68>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=68}}</ref> The defeat of the Teutonic Knights was resounding. About 8,000 Teuton soldiers were killed<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=157}}</ref> and an additional 14,000 were taken captive.<ref name=turn68/> According to Teutonic payroll records, only 1,427 men reported back to Marienburg to claim their pay.<ref name=turn68/> Of 1,200 men sent from Danzig, only 300 returned.<ref name="Jučas 2009 56"/> According to different sources, some 200 or 400 brothers of the Order were killed, including much of the Teutonic leadership – Grand Master ], Grand Marshal ], Grand Komtur ], Grand Treasurer Thomas von Merheim, Marshal of Supply Forces Albrecht von Schwartzburg, and ten of the ]s.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|pp=85–86}}</ref> ], Komtur of Brandenburg (]), and Heinrich Schaumburg, ] of ], were executed by order of Vytautas after the battle.<ref name=turn68/> The bodies of von Jungingen and other high-ranking officials were transported to ] for burial on 19 July.<ref name="ju87"/> Bodies of lower-ranking Teutonic officials and twelve Polish knights were buried at the church in Tannenberg.<ref name=ju87/> The rest of the dead were buried in several mass graves. The highest- ranking Teutonic official to escape the battle was Werner von Tettinger, Komtur of Elbing (]).<ref name="turn68"/>


Polish and Lithuanian forces took several thousand captives. Among those taken were Dukes ] of Oels (]) and ] of ].<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=69}}</ref> Most of the commoners and mercenaries were released shortly after the battle on condition that they report to ] on 11 November 1410.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=88}}</ref> Only those that were expected to pay ransom were kept in captivity. Considerable ransoms were recorded; for example, the mercenary Holbracht von Loym had to pay ''sixty times the number of 150 ]'', amounting to more than 30 kilograms of silver.<ref>{{harvnb|Pelech|1987|pp=105–107}}</ref> Polish and Lithuanian forces took several thousand captives. Among those taken were Dukes ] of Oels (]) and ] of ].<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=69}}</ref> Most of the commoners and mercenaries were released shortly after the battle on condition that they report to ] on 11 November 1410.<ref>{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=88}}</ref> Only those that were expected to pay ransom were kept in captivity. Considerable ransoms were recorded; for example, the mercenary Holbracht von Loym had to pay ''sixty times the number of 150 ]'', amounting to more than 30 kilograms of silver.<ref>{{harvnb|Pelech|1987|pp=105–107}}</ref>
Line 143: Line 143:
After the battle, the Polish and Lithuanian forces delayed their attack on the Teutonic capital in Marienburg (]) by staying on the battlefield for three days and then marching an average of only about {{convert|15|km|abbr=on}} per day.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=162}}</ref> The main forces did not reach heavily fortified Marienburg until 26 July. This delay gave ] enough time to organize a defense. Jogaila also sent his troops to other Teutonic fortresses, which often surrendered without resistance,<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=164}}</ref> including the major cities of Danzig (]), Thorn (]), and Elbing (]).<ref>{{harvnb|Stone|2001|p=17}}</ref> Only eight castles remained in Teutonic hands.<ref>{{harvnb|Ivinskis|1978|p=342}}</ref> The besiegers of Marienburg expected a speedy capitulation and were not prepared for a long-term engagement, suffering from lack of ammunition, low morale, and an epidemic of ].<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=75}}</ref> The Knights appealed to their allies for help and ], ], and the ] promised financial aid and reinforcements.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=74}}</ref> The siege of Marienburg was lifted on September 19. The Polish–Lithuanian forces left garrisons in fortresses that were captured or surrendered and returned home. However, the Knights quickly recaptured most of the castles. By the end of October, only four Teutonic castles along the border remained in Polish hands.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=166}}</ref> Jogaila raised a fresh army and dealt another defeat to the Knights in the ] on 10 October 1410. Following other brief engagements, both sides agreed to negotiate. After the battle, the Polish and Lithuanian forces delayed their attack on the Teutonic capital in Marienburg (]) by staying on the battlefield for three days and then marching an average of only about {{convert|15|km|abbr=on}} per day.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=162}}</ref> The main forces did not reach heavily fortified Marienburg until 26 July. This delay gave ] enough time to organize a defense. Jogaila also sent his troops to other Teutonic fortresses, which often surrendered without resistance,<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=164}}</ref> including the major cities of Danzig (]), Thorn (]), and Elbing (]).<ref>{{harvnb|Stone|2001|p=17}}</ref> Only eight castles remained in Teutonic hands.<ref>{{harvnb|Ivinskis|1978|p=342}}</ref> The besiegers of Marienburg expected a speedy capitulation and were not prepared for a long-term engagement, suffering from lack of ammunition, low morale, and an epidemic of ].<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=75}}</ref> The Knights appealed to their allies for help and ], ], and the ] promised financial aid and reinforcements.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=74}}</ref> The siege of Marienburg was lifted on September 19. The Polish–Lithuanian forces left garrisons in fortresses that were captured or surrendered and returned home. However, the Knights quickly recaptured most of the castles. By the end of October, only four Teutonic castles along the border remained in Polish hands.<ref>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=166}}</ref> Jogaila raised a fresh army and dealt another defeat to the Knights in the ] on 10 October 1410. Following other brief engagements, both sides agreed to negotiate.


The ] was signed in February 1411. Under its terms, the Knights ceded the Dobrin Land (]) to Poland and agreed to resign their claims to ] during the lifetimes of Jogaila and Vytautas,<ref name=chris228/> although another two wars — the ] of 1414 and the ] of 1422 — would be waged before the ] permanently resolved the territorial disputes.<ref>{{harvnb|Kiaupa|2000|pp=142–144}}</ref> The Poles and Lithuanians were unable to translate the military victory into territorial or diplomatic gains. However, the Peace of Thorn imposed a heavy financial burden on the Knights from which they never recovered. They had to pay an indemnity in silver, estimated at ten times the annual income of the ], in four annual installments.<ref name=chris228>{{harvnb|Christiansen|1997|p=228}}</ref> To meet these payments, the Knights borrowed heavily, confiscated gold and silver from churches, and increased taxes. Two major Prussian cities, Danzig (]) and Thorn (]), revolted against the tax increases.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=78}}</ref> The defeat at Grunwald left the Teutonic Knights with few forces to defend their remaining territories. Since both Poland and Lithuania were now Christian countries, the Knights had difficulties recruiting new volunteer crusaders.<ref>{{harvnb|Christiansen|1997|pp=228–230}}</ref> The Grand Masters then needed to rely on mercenary troops, which proved an expensive drain on their already depleted budget. The internal conflicts, economic decline, and tax increases led to unrest and the foundation of the ], or ''Alliance against Lordship'', in 1441. This in turn led to a series of conflicts that culminated in the ] (1454).<ref>{{harvnb|Stone|2001|pp=17–19}}</ref> The ] was signed in February 1411. Under its terms, the Knights ceded the Dobrin Land (]) to Poland and agreed to resign their claims to ] during the lifetimes of Jogaila and Vytautas,<ref name=chris228/> although another two wars — the ] of 1414 and the ] of 1422 — would be waged before the ] permanently resolved the territorial disputes.<ref>{{harvnb|Kiaupa|2000|pp=142–144}}</ref> The Poles and Lithuanians were unable to translate the military victory into territorial or diplomatic gains. However, the Peace of Thorn imposed a heavy financial burden on the Knights from which they never recovered. They had to pay an indemnity in silver, estimated at ten times the annual income of the ], in four annual installments.<ref name="chris228"/> To meet these payments, the Knights borrowed heavily, confiscated gold and silver from churches, and increased taxes. Two major Prussian cities, Danzig (]) and Thorn (]), revolted against the tax increases.<ref>{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=78}}</ref> The defeat at Grunwald left the Teutonic Knights with few forces to defend their remaining territories. Since both Poland and Lithuania were now Christian countries, the Knights had difficulties recruiting new volunteer crusaders.<ref>{{harvnb|Christiansen|1997|pp=228–230}}</ref> The Grand Masters then needed to rely on mercenary troops, which proved an expensive drain on their already depleted budget. The internal conflicts, economic decline, and tax increases led to unrest and the foundation of the ], or ''Alliance against Lordship'', in 1441. This in turn led to a series of conflicts that culminated in the ] (1454).<ref>{{harvnb|Stone|2001|pp=17–19}}</ref>


==Legacy== ==Legacy==
Line 155: Line 155:
===Germany and Russia=== ===Germany and Russia===
] poster from 1920 depicts a Teutonic Knight threatened by a Pole and a socialist]] ] poster from 1920 depicts a Teutonic Knight threatened by a Pole and a socialist]]
The ] generally saw the Knights as heroic and noble men, who brought Christianity and civilization to the east.<ref name=john43/> In August 1914, during ], Germany won a battle against Russia near the site. When the Germans realized its propaganda potential, they named the 1914 battle the ].<ref>{{harvnb|Burleigh|1985|p=27}}</ref> The 1914 battle was framed as revenge for the Polish–Lithuanian victory 504 years earlier. ] later exploited the sentiment by portraying their '']'' policies as a continuation of the Knights' historical mission.<ref name=john44>{{harvnb|Johnson|1996|p=44}}</ref> The ] generally saw the Knights as heroic and noble men, who brought Christianity and civilization to the east.<ref name=john43/> In August 1914, during ], Germany won a battle against Russia near the site. When the Germans realized its propaganda potential, they named the 1914 battle the ].<ref>{{harvnb|Burleigh|1985|p=27}}</ref> The 1914 battle was framed as revenge for the Polish–Lithuanian victory 504 years earlier. ] later exploited the sentiment by portraying their '']'' policies as a continuation of the Knights' historical mission.<ref name="john44"/>


Due to the participation of the three ] regiments in the battle, Russians saw the battle as a Polish–Lithuanian–Russian coalition against invading Germans. Chronicler ] praised the Smolensk banners, who fought bravely and were the only banners from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania not to retreat. In ], the battle of Grunwald was styled as a racial struggle between ] and Germans.<ref name=davies99/> The Teutonic Knights were portrayed as the medieval forerunners of Hitler's armies, while the battle itself was seen as the medieval counterpart to the ].<ref name=john43/><ref name=davies99>{{harvnb|Davies|2005|p=99}}</ref> Due to the participation of the three ] regiments in the battle, Russians saw the battle as a Polish–Lithuanian–Russian coalition against invading Germans. Chronicler ] praised the Smolensk banners, who fought bravely and were the only banners from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania not to retreat. In ], the battle of Grunwald was styled as a racial struggle between ] and Germans.<ref name=davies99/> The Teutonic Knights were portrayed as the medieval forerunners of Hitler's armies, while the battle itself was seen as the medieval counterpart to the ].<ref name=john43/><ref name="davies99"/>


In ]'s summary, almost all accounts of the battle made before the 1960s were more influenced by romantic legends and nationalistic propaganda than by fact.<ref name=urban168>{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=168}}</ref> Historians have since made progress towards dispassionate scholarship and reconciliation of the various national accounts of the battle.<ref name=john44/> In ]'s summary, almost all accounts of the battle made before the 1960s were more influenced by romantic legends and nationalistic propaganda than by fact.<ref name="urban168"/> Historians have since made progress towards dispassionate scholarship and reconciliation of the various national accounts of the battle.<ref name=john44/>
{{clear}} {{clear}}


== CORRECTION == == CORRECTION ==
The name of Tannenberg will not be shown on any Polish map. Neither in the 1410, or today. It is a fictitious name invented by Germans, which since has spread to German-oriented circles in Sweden and also elswhere. These defend now this name "Tannenberg". All places in Poland were re named by the Germans, giving them names in German, as was the case during WW II, and you can still buy Austrian road maps with a name key placed on the back side of it with the Polish - German - Polish location key names, so some persistent Germans might still find the right location. The procedure is just as bad if one were to insist to call to days Stockholm for O'stokholmo(Italian) or Tukholmassa(Finish), in Sweden. There is no one who does this, only in each of these countries that this expression comes from, and this in its turn depends on the local language. The name Grunwald originates from the village of Grunwald, where the battle took place, which was owned by my mother's family. The House of Baron Grunwald. This name “Tannenberg” exists only in German minds, and later on have therefor been reflected in their books and other printed matter. Please therefor do not call the Battle of Grunwald for anything else then just this, because everything else is wrong. The name of Tannenberg will not be shown on any Polish map. Neither in the 1410, or today. It is a fictitious name invented by Germans, which since has spread to German-oriented circles in Sweden and also elswhere. These defend now this name "Tannenberg". All places in Poland were re named by the Germans, giving them names in German, as was the case during WW II, and you can still buy Austrian road maps with a name key placed on the back side of it with the Polish - German - Polish location key names, so some persistent Germans might still find the right location. The procedure is just as bad if one were to insist to call to days Stockholm for O'stokholmo(Italian) or Tukholmassa(Finish), in Sweden. There is no one who does this, only in each of these countries that this expression comes from, and this in its turn depends on the local language. The name Grunwald originates from the village of Grunwald, where the battle took place, which was owned by my mother's family. The House of Baron Grunwald. This name “Tannenberg” exists only in German minds, and later on have therefor been reflected in their books and other printed matter. Please therefor do not call the Battle of Grunwald for anything else then just this, because everything else is wrong.


==References== ==References==
Line 255: Line 255:
] ]
] ]

<ref name="Razin486">{{harvnb|Разин|1999|p=486}}</ref>

<ref name="chris227">{{harvnb|Christiansen|1997|p=227}}</ref>

<ref name="chris228">{{harvnb|Christiansen|1997|p=228}}</ref>

<ref name="davies98">{{harvnb|Davies|2005|p=98}}</ref>

<ref name="davies99">{{harvnb|Davies|2005|p=99}}</ref>

<ref name="ek175">{{harvnb|Ekdahl|2008|p=175}}</ref>

<ref name="ekdahl1963">{{harvnb|Ekdahl|1963}}</ref>

<ref name="ivin336">{{harvnb|Ivinskis|1978|p=336}}</ref>

<ref name="ivin338">{{harvnb|Ivinskis|1978|p=338}}</ref>

<ref name="john43">{{harvnb|Johnson|1996|p=43}}</ref>

<ref name="john44">{{harvnb|Johnson|1996|p=44}}</ref>

<ref name="ju87">{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=87}}</ref>

<ref name="jucas10">{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=10}}</ref>

<ref name="jucas57">{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|pp=57–58}}</ref>

<ref name="jucas63">{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=63}}</ref>

<ref name="jucas75">{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=75}}</ref>

<ref name="jucas77">{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=77}}</ref>

<ref name="jucas78">{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=78}}</ref>

<ref name="jucas9">{{harvnb|Jučas|2009|p=9}}</ref>

<ref name="kiaupa2002">{{harvnb|Kiaupa|2002}}</ref>

<ref name="stone16">{{harvnb|Stone|2001|p=16}}</ref>

<ref name="turn21">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=21}}</ref>

<ref name="turn25">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=25}}</ref>

<ref name="turn26">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=26}}</ref>

<ref name="turn28">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=28}}</ref>

<ref name="turn29">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=29}}</ref>

<ref name="turn30">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=30}}</ref>

<ref name="turn33">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=33}}</ref>

<ref name="turn35">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=35}}</ref>

<ref name="turn44">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=44}}</ref>

<ref name="turn45">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=45}}</ref>

<ref name="turn64">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=64}}</ref>

<ref name="turn66">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=66}}</ref>

<ref name="turn68">{{harvnb|Turnbull|2003|p=68}}</ref>

<ref name="u138">{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=138}}</ref>

<ref name="urban168">{{harvnb|Urban|2003|p=168}}</ref>

Revision as of 17:24, 2 September 2011

For the World War I battle at the same location, see Battle of Tannenberg (1914). For the painting by Jan Matejko, see Battle of Grunwald (painting). For the painting by Alfons Mucha, see The Slav Epic.
Battle of Grunwald
Part of the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War

Battle of Grunwald by Jan Matejko (1878)
Date15 July 1410
LocationBetween villages of Grunwald (Grünfelde) and Stębark (Tannenberg )53°29′10″N 20°07′29″E / 53.48611°N 20.12472°E / 53.48611; 20.12472
Result Decisive Polish–Lithuanian victory
Belligerents

Kingdom of Poland
Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Polish–Lithuanian vassals, allies and mercenaries:

Ruthenia, Masovia, Moldavia, Tatars, Czechs, Bohemia, Moravia, Wallachia		 Teutonic Order, guest crusaders, and mercenaries from western Europe
Commanders and leaders
Grandmaster Ulrich von Jungingen †
Strength
16,000–39,000 men 11,000–27,000 men
Casualties and losses
4,000–5,000 dead
8,000 wounded		 200–400 knights killed
8,000 dead
14,000 captured
Polish–Lithuanian–
Teutonic War

The Battle of Grunwald or 1st Battle of Tannenberg was fought on 15 July 1410, during the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War. The alliance of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, led respectively by King Jogaila (Władysław Jagiełło) and Grand Duke Vytautas (Witold), decisively defeated the Teutonic Knights, led by Grand Master Ulrich von Jungingen. Most of the Teutonic Knights' leadership were killed or taken prisoner. While defeated, the Teutonic Knights withstood the siege on their fortress in Marienburg (Malbork) and suffered only minimal territorial losses at the Peace of Thorn (1411) (Toruń). Territorial disputes continued until the Peace of Melno was concluded in 1422. However, the Knights never recovered their former power and the financial burden of war reparations caused internal conflicts and an economic downturn in their lands. The battle shifted the balance of power in Eastern Europe and marked the rise of the Polish–Lithuanian union as the dominant political and military force in the region.

The battle was one of the largest battles in Medieval Europe and is regarded as the most important victory in the history of Poland and Lithuania. It was surrounded by romantic legends and nationalistic propaganda, becoming a larger symbol of struggle against invaders and a source of national pride. During the 20th century, the battle was used in Nazi and Soviet propaganda campaigns. Only in recent decades have historians made progress towards a dispassionate, scholarly assessment of the battle reconciling the previous narratives, which differed widely by nation.

Names and sources

Names

The battle was fought in the territory of the Monastic state of the Teutonic Order, on the plains between three villages: Grünfelde (Grunwald) to the west, Tannenberg (Stębark) to the northeast, and Ludwigsdorf (Łodwigowo, Ludwikowice) to the south. Jogaila referred to the site in Latin as in loco conflictus nostri, quem cum Cruciferis de Prusia habuimus, dicto Grunenvelt. Later Polish chroniclers interpreted the word Grunenvelt as Grünwald, meaning "green forest" in German. The Lithuanians followed suit and translated the name as Žalgiris. The Germans named the battle after Tannenberg ("fir hill" in German). Thus there are three commonly used names for the battle: Template:Lang-de, Template:Lang-pl, Template:Lang-lt. Its names in the languages of other involved peoples include Template:Lang-be, Template:Lang-uk, Template:Lang-ru, Template:Lang-cs, Template:Lang-ro.

Sources

An anonymous letter concerning the Great Battle (dated between 1411 and 1413) is among few remaining contemporary sources
Most important source about Battle of Grunwald is Cronica conflictus Wladislai Regis Poloniae cum cruciferis anno Christi

There are few contemporary and reliable sources about the battle, and most are produced by Poles. The most important and trustworthy source is Cronica conflictus Wladislai regis Poloniae cum Cruciferis anno Christi 1410, which was written within a year of the battle by an eyewitness. Its authorship is uncertain but candidates have been proposed: Polish deputy chancellor Mikołaj Trąba and Jogaila's secretary Zbigniew Oleśnicki. While the original Cronica conflictus did not survive, a short summary was preserved from the 16th century. Another pivotal source is Historiae Polonicae by Polish historian Jan Długosz (1415–1480). It is a comprehensive and detailed account written several decades after the battle. The reliability of this source suffers not only from the long gap between the events and the chronicle, but also Długosz's biases against the Lithuanians. Banderia Prutenorum is a mid-15th century manuscript with images and Latin descriptions of the Teutonic battle flags captured during the battle and displayed in Wawel Cathedral. Other Polish sources include two letters written by Jogaila to his wife Anne of Cilli and Bishop of Poznań Wojciech Jastrzębiec and letters sent by Jastrzębiec to Poles in the Holy See. German sources include a concise account in the chronicle of Johann von Posilge. An anonymous letter, written between 1411 and 1413, was discovered by Swedish historian Sven Ekdahl and provided important details on Lithuanian maneuvers.

Historical background

Lithuanian Crusade and Polish–Lithuanian union

Main article: Northern Crusades

In 1230, the Teutonic Knights, a crusading military order, moved to Kulmerland and launched the Prussian Crusade against the pagan Prussian clans. With support from the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor, the Teutons conquered and converted the Prussians by 1280s and shifted their attention to the pagan Grand Duchy of Lithuania. For about a hundred years the Knights raided the Lithuanian lands, particularly Samogitia as it separated the Knights in Prussia from their branch in Livonia. The border regions became uninhabited wilderness, but the Knights gained very little territory. The Lithuanians first gave up Samogitia during the Lithuanian Civil War (1381–1384) in the Treaty of Dubysa. The territory was used as a bargaining chip to ensure Teutonic support for one of the sides in the internal power struggle.

Territory of the State of the Teutonic Order between 1260 and 1410; the locations and dates of major battles, including the Battle of Grunwald, are indicated by crossed red swords

In 1385 Grand Duke Jogaila of Lithuania agreed to marry reigning Queen Jadwiga of Poland in the Union of Kreva. Jogaila converted to Christianity and was crowned as the King of Poland thus creating a personal union between the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The official Lithuanian conversion to Christianity removed the religious rationale for the Order's activities in the area. Its Grand Master, Conrad Zöllner von Rothenstein, supported by the Hungarian king Sigismund of Luxemburg, responded by publicly contesting the sincerity of Jogaila's conversion, bringing the charge to a papal court. The territorial disputes continued over Samogitia, which was in Teutonic hands since the Peace of Raciąż of 1404. Poland also had territorial claims against the Knights in Dobrzyń Land and Danzig (Gdańsk), but the two states were largely at peace since the Treaty of Kalisz (1343). The conflict was also motivated by trade considerations: the Knights controlled lower reaches of the three largest rivers (Neman, Vistula and Daugava) in Poland and Lithuania.

War, truce, and preparations

In May 1409 an uprising in Teutonic-held Samogitia started. Lithuania supported the uprising and the Knights threatened to invade. Poland announced its support for the Lithuanian cause and threatened to invade Prussia in return. As Prussian troops evacuated Samogitia, the Teutonic Grand Master Ulrich von Jungingen declared war on the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania on 6 August 1409. The Knights hoped to defeat Poland and Lithuania separately and began by invading Greater Poland and Kuyavia, catching the Poles by surprise. The Knights burned the castle at Dobrin (Dobrzyń nad Wisłą), captured Bobrowniki after a fourteen-day siege, conquered Bydgoszcz (Bromberg), and sacked several towns. The Poles organized counterattacks and recaptured Bydgoszcz. The Samogitians attacked Memel (Klaipėda). However, neither side was ready for a full-scale war.

Lithuanians fighting with Teutonic Knights (Bas-Relief).

Wenceslaus, King of the Romans, agreed to mediate the dispute. A truce was signed on 8 October 1409; it was set to expire on 24 June 1410. Both sides used this time for preparations for the battle, gathering the troops and engaging in diplomatic maneuvers. Both sides sent letters and envoys accusing each other of various wrongdoings and threats to Christendom. Wenceslaus, who received a gift of 60,000 florins from the Knights, declared that Samogitia rightfully belonged to the Knights and only Dobrzyń Land should be returned to Poland. The Knights also paid 300,000 ducats to Sigismund of Hungary, who had ambitions for the principality of Moldova, for his military assistance. Sigismund attempted to break the Polish–Lithuanian alliance by offering Vytautas a king's crown; Vytautas's acceptance of such a crown would violate the terms of the Ostrów Agreement and create Polish-Lithuanian discord. At the same time Vytautas managed to obtain a truce from the Livonian Order.

By December 1409, Jogaila and Vytautas had agreed on a common strategy: their armies would unite into a single massive force and march together towards Marienburg (Malbork), capital of the Teutonic Knights. The Knights, who took a defensive position, did not expect a joint attack and were preparing for a dual invasion – by the Poles along the Vistula River towards Danzig (Gdańsk) and by the Lithuanians along the Neman River towards Ragnit (Neman). To counter this perceived threat, Ulrich von Jungingen concentrated his forces in Schwetz (Świecie), a central location from where troops could respond to an invasion from any direction rather quickly. Sizable garrisons were left in the eastern castles of Ragnit, Rhein (Ryn) near Lötzen (Giżycko), and Memel (Klaipėda). To keep the plans secret and misguide the Knights, Jogaila and Vytautas organised several raids into border territories, thus forcing the Knights to keep their troops in place.

Opposing forces

See also: Battle of Grunwald (banners)
Various estimates of opposing forces
Historian Polish Lithuanian Teutonic
Karl Heveker and
Hans Delbrück 		16,500 11,000
Eugene Razin 16,000–17,000 11,000
Max Oehler 23,000 15,000
Jerzy Ochmański 22,000–27,000 12,000
Sven Ekdahl 20,000–25,000 12,000–15,000
Andrzej Nadolski 20,000 10,000 15,000
Jan Dąbrowski 15,000–18,000 8,000–11,000 19,000
Zigmantas Kiaupa 18,000 11,000 15,000–21,000
Marian Biskup 19,000–20,000 10,000–11,000 21,000
Daniel Stone 27,000 11,000 21,000
Stefan Kuczyński 39,000 27,000

The precise number of soldiers involved has proven difficult to establish. None of the contemporary sources provided reliable troop counts. Jan Długosz provided the number of the banners, the principal unit of each cavalry: 51 for the Knights, 50 for the Poles, and 40 for the Lithuanians. However, it is unclear how many men were under each banner. The structure and number of infantry units (pikemen, archers, crossbowmen) and artillery units is unknown. Estimates, often biased by political and nationalistic considerations, were produced by various historians. German historians tend to present lower numbers, while Polish historians tend to use higher estimates. The high-end estimates by Polish historian Stefan Kuczyński of 39,000 Polish–Lithuanian and 27,000 Teutonic men have been cited in western literature as "commonly accepted".

While less numerous, the Teutonic army had advantages in discipline, military training, and superior military equipment. Their heavy cavalry was one of the best in Europe. The Teutonic army was also equipped with bombards that could shoot lead and stone projectiles. Both forces were composed of troops from several states and lands, including numerous mercenaries; for example, Bohemian mercenaries fought on each side. The Knights also invited guest crusaders. Twenty-two different peoples, mostly Germanic, joined the Teutonic side. Teutonic recruits included soldiers from Westphalia, Frisia, Austria, Swabia, Stettin (Szczecin). Two Hungarian nobles, Nicholas II Garay and Stibor of Stiboricz, brought 200 men for the Knights, but support from Sigismund of Hungary was disappointing.

Poland brought mercenaries from Moravia and Bohemia. The Czechs produced two full banners, under command of Jan Sokol of Lamberk. Serving among the Czechs was Jan Žižka, future commander of the Hussite forces. Alexander the Good commanded Moldavian troops. Vytautas gathered troops from Lithuanian and Ruthenian (modern Belarus and Ukraine) lands. The Lithuanian army included three banners from Smolensk, under the command of Jogaila's brother Lengvenis, and a contingent of Tatars of the Golden Horde, under the command of the exiled Khan Jalal ad-Din. The overall commander of the joint Polish–Lithuanian forces was King Jogaila; however, he did not directly participate in the battle. The Lithuanian units were commanded directly by Grand Duke Vytautas, who was second in command and helped design the grand strategy of the campaign. Vytautas actively participated in the battle, managing both Lithuanian and Polish units. Jan Długosz stated that the low-ranking Sword Bearer of the Crown Zyndram of Maszkowice commanded the Polish army, but that is highly doubtful. More likely Marshal of the Crown Zbigniew of Brzezie commanded the Polish troops in the field.

Course of the battle

March into Prussia

Map of the army movements in the Grunwald campaign

The first stage of the Grunwald campaign was gathering all Polish–Lithuanian troops at Czerwinsk, a designated meeting point about 80 km (50 mi) from the Prussian border, where the joint army crossed the Vistula over a pontoon bridge. This maneuver, which required precision and intense coordination among multi-ethnic forces, was accomplished in about a week from 24 June to 30 June 1410. Polish soldiers from Greater Poland gathered in Poznań and those from Lesser Poland in Wolbórz. On 24 June 1410, Jogaila and Czech mercenaries arrived in Wolbórz. Three days later, the Polish army was already at the meeting point. The Lithuanian army marched out from Vilnius on 3 June and joined up with the Ruthenian regiments in Hrodna. They arrived in Czerwinsk on the same day as the Poles crossed the river. After the crossing, Masovian troops under Siemowit IV and Janusz I joined the Polish–Lithuanian army. The massive force began its march north towards Marienburg (Malbork), capital of Prussia, on 3 July. The Prussian border was crossed on 9 July.

The river crossing remained secret until Hungarian envoys, who were attempting to negotiate a peace, revealed it to the Teutonic Grand Master. As soon as Ulrich von Jungingen grasped Polish–Lithuanian intentions, he left 3,000 men at Schwetz (Świecie) under Heinrich von Plauen and marched the main forces to organise a line of defence on the Drewenz River (Drwęca) near Kauernik (Kurzętnik). The river crossing was fortified with stockades. On 11 July, after meeting with his eight-member war council, Jogaila decided against crossing the river at such a strong defensible position. The army would instead bypass the river crossing by turning east, towards its sources, where no other major rivers separated his army from Marienburg. The march continued east towards Soldau (Działdowo), although no attempt was made to capture the town. The Teutonic army followed the Drewenz River north, crossed it near Löbau (Lubawa), and then moved east in parallel with the Polish–Lithuanian army. The latter ravaged the village of Gilgenburg (Dąbrówno). Von Jungingen was so enraged by the atrocities that he swore to defeat the invaders in battle.

Battle preparations

See also: Grunwald Swords

In the early morning of 15 July 1410, both armies met in an area covering approximately 4 km (1.5 sq mi) between the villages of Grunwald, Tannenberg (Stębark) and Ludwigsdorf (Łodwigowo). Both armies formed opposing lines along a northeast–southwest axis. The Polish–Lithuanian army was positioned in front and east of Ludwigsdorf and Tannenberg. Polish heavy cavalry formed the left flank, Lithuanian light cavalry formed the right flank, while various mercenary troops formed the center. Their men were organized in three lines of wedge-shaped formations about 20 men deep. The Teutonic forces concentrated their elite heavy cavalry, commanded by Grand Marshal Frederic von Wallenrode, against the Lithuanians. The Knights, who were the first to organize their army for the battle, hoped to provoke Poles or Lithuanians to attack first. Their troops, wearing heavy armor, had to stand in scorching sun for several hours waiting for an attack. One chronicle suggested that they had dug pits that an attacking army would fall into. They also attempted to use field artillery, but a light rain dampened their powder and only two cannon shots were fired. As Jogaila delayed, Grand Master sent messengers with two swords to "assist Jogaila and Vytautas in battle". The swords were meant as an insult and provocation. Known as the Grunwald Swords, they became one of the national symbols of Poland.

Battle begins: Lithuanian attack and retreat

Retreat of Lithuanian light cavalryRight-flank Polish–Lithuanian assaultPolish heavy cavalry break-through

Vytautas, supported by a few Polish banners, started an assault on the left flank of the Teutonic forces. After more than an hour of heavy fighting, the Lithuanian light cavalry started a full retreat. Jan Długosz described this development as a complete annihilation of the entire Lithuanian army. According to Długosz, the Knights assumed that victory was theirs, broke their formation for a disorganized pursuit of the retreating Lithuanians, and gathered much loot before returning to the battlefield to face the Polish troops. He made no mention of the Lithuanians that later returned to the battlefield. Thus Długosz portrayed the battle as a single-handed Polish victory. This view contradicted Cronica conflictus and has been challenged by modern historians. Starting with an article by Vaclaw Lastowski in 1909, they proposed that the retreat was a planned, strategic maneuver, borrowed from the Golden Horde. The same false retreat was used in the Battle of the Vorskla River of 1399, where the Lithuanian army was dealt a crushing defeat and Vytautas himself barely escaped alive. This theory gained wider acceptance after the discovery and publication of a German letter by Swedish historian Sven Ekdahl in 1963. The letter, written a couple years after the battle, cautions the new Grand Master to look out for false retreats of the kind that were used in the Great Battle. Stephen Turnbull asserted that the Lithuanian retreat did not quite fit the tried formula of a false retreat. Such a retreat was usually staged by one or two units (as opposed to almost an entire army) and was swiftly followed by a counterattack (whereas the Lithuanians returned late in the battle).

Battle continues: Polish–Teutonic fight

While the Lithuanians were retreating, heavy fighting began between Polish and Teutonic forces. Teutonic forces, commanded by Grand Komtur Kuno von Lichtenstein, concentrated on the Polish right flank. Six of the von Walenrode banners did not pursue the retreating Lithuanians and joined the attack on the right flank. A particularly high-value target was the royal banner of Kraków. It seemed that the Knights were gaining the upper hand and at one point the royal standard-bearer Marcin of Wrocimowice lost the Kraków banner. However, it was soon recaptured and fighting continued. Jogaila deployed his reserves – the second line of his army. Grand Master Ulrich von Jungingen then personally led 16 banners, almost a third of the original Teutonic strength, to the right Polish flank and Jogaila deployed his last reserves, the third line of his army. The melee reached the Polish command and one Knight, identified as Lupold or Diepold of Kökeritz, charged directly against King Jogaila. Jogaila's secretary, Zbigniew Oleśnicki, saved the king's life, gaining royal favor and becoming one of the most influential people in Poland.

Battle ends: Teutonic Knights defeated

At that time, the reorganized Lithuanians returned to the battle, attacking von Jungingen from the rear. The Teutonic forces were by then becoming outnumbered by the mass of Polish knights and the advancing Lithuanian cavalry. As von Jungingen attempted to break through the Lithuanian lines, he was killed. According to Cronica conflictus, Dobiesław of Oleśnica thrust a lance through Grand Master's neck, while Długosz presented Mszczuj of Skrzynno as the killer. Surrounded and leaderless, the Teutonic Knights began to retreat. Part of the routed units retreated towards their camp. This move backfired when the camp followers turned against their masters and joined the manhunt. The knights attempted to build a wagon fort: the camp was surrounded by wagons serving as an improvised fortification. However, the defense was soon broken and the camp was ravaged. According to Cronica conflictus, more Knights died there than in the battlefield. The battle lasted for about ten hours.

The Teutonic Knights attributed the defeat to treason on the part of Nikolaus von Renys (Mikołaj of Ryńsk), commander of the Culm (Chełmno) banner, and he was beheaded without a trial. He was the founder and leader of the Lizard Union, a group of Knights sympathetic to Poland. According to the Knights, von Renys lowered his banner, which was taken as a signal of surrender and led to the panicked retreat. The legend that the Knights were "stabbed in the back" was echoed in the post-World War I stab-in-the-back legend and preoccupied German historiography of the battle until 1945.

Aftermath

Casualties and captives

The battle as depicted in the Berner Chronik of Diebold Schilling

The defeat of the Teutonic Knights was resounding. About 8,000 Teuton soldiers were killed and an additional 14,000 were taken captive. According to Teutonic payroll records, only 1,427 men reported back to Marienburg to claim their pay. Of 1,200 men sent from Danzig, only 300 returned. According to different sources, some 200 or 400 brothers of the Order were killed, including much of the Teutonic leadership – Grand Master Ulrich von Jungingen, Grand Marshal Friedrich von Wallenrode, Grand Komtur Kuno von Lichtenstein, Grand Treasurer Thomas von Merheim, Marshal of Supply Forces Albrecht von Schwartzburg, and ten of the komturs. Markward von Salzbach, Komtur of Brandenburg (Ushakovo), and Heinrich Schaumburg, voigt of Sambia, were executed by order of Vytautas after the battle. The bodies of von Jungingen and other high-ranking officials were transported to Marienburg Castle for burial on 19 July. Bodies of lower-ranking Teutonic officials and twelve Polish knights were buried at the church in Tannenberg. The rest of the dead were buried in several mass graves. The highest- ranking Teutonic official to escape the battle was Werner von Tettinger, Komtur of Elbing (Elbląg).

Polish and Lithuanian forces took several thousand captives. Among those taken were Dukes Konrad VII of Oels (Oleśnica) and Casimir V of Pomerania. Most of the commoners and mercenaries were released shortly after the battle on condition that they report to Kraków on 11 November 1410. Only those that were expected to pay ransom were kept in captivity. Considerable ransoms were recorded; for example, the mercenary Holbracht von Loym had to pay sixty times the number of 150 Prague groschen, amounting to more than 30 kilograms of silver.

Further campaign and peace

Main articles: Siege of Marienburg (1410) and Peace of Thorn (1411)
After the battle, the Castle of Marienburg, which served as the Teutonic Knights's capital, was unsuccessfully besieged for two months by the Polish–Lithuanian forces

After the battle, the Polish and Lithuanian forces delayed their attack on the Teutonic capital in Marienburg (Malbork) by staying on the battlefield for three days and then marching an average of only about 15 km (9.3 mi) per day. The main forces did not reach heavily fortified Marienburg until 26 July. This delay gave Heinrich von Plauen enough time to organize a defense. Jogaila also sent his troops to other Teutonic fortresses, which often surrendered without resistance, including the major cities of Danzig (Gdańsk), Thorn (Toruń), and Elbing (Elbląg). Only eight castles remained in Teutonic hands. The besiegers of Marienburg expected a speedy capitulation and were not prepared for a long-term engagement, suffering from lack of ammunition, low morale, and an epidemic of dysentery. The Knights appealed to their allies for help and Sigismund of Hungary, Wenceslaus, King of the Romans, and the Livonian Order promised financial aid and reinforcements. The siege of Marienburg was lifted on September 19. The Polish–Lithuanian forces left garrisons in fortresses that were captured or surrendered and returned home. However, the Knights quickly recaptured most of the castles. By the end of October, only four Teutonic castles along the border remained in Polish hands. Jogaila raised a fresh army and dealt another defeat to the Knights in the Battle of Koronowo on 10 October 1410. Following other brief engagements, both sides agreed to negotiate.

The Peace of Thorn was signed in February 1411. Under its terms, the Knights ceded the Dobrin Land (Dobrzyń Land) to Poland and agreed to resign their claims to Samogitia during the lifetimes of Jogaila and Vytautas, although another two wars — the Hunger War of 1414 and the Gollub War of 1422 — would be waged before the Treaty of Melno permanently resolved the territorial disputes. The Poles and Lithuanians were unable to translate the military victory into territorial or diplomatic gains. However, the Peace of Thorn imposed a heavy financial burden on the Knights from which they never recovered. They had to pay an indemnity in silver, estimated at ten times the annual income of the King of England, in four annual installments. To meet these payments, the Knights borrowed heavily, confiscated gold and silver from churches, and increased taxes. Two major Prussian cities, Danzig (Gdańsk) and Thorn (Toruń), revolted against the tax increases. The defeat at Grunwald left the Teutonic Knights with few forces to defend their remaining territories. Since both Poland and Lithuania were now Christian countries, the Knights had difficulties recruiting new volunteer crusaders. The Grand Masters then needed to rely on mercenary troops, which proved an expensive drain on their already depleted budget. The internal conflicts, economic decline, and tax increases led to unrest and the foundation of the Prussian Confederation, or Alliance against Lordship, in 1441. This in turn led to a series of conflicts that culminated in the Thirteen Years' War (1454).

Legacy

Poland, Lithuania and Belarus

A Battle of Grunwald monument was erected in Kraków for the battle's 500th anniversary. It was destroyed during World War II by the Germans and rebuilt in 1976.

The battle of Grunwald is regarded as one of the most important battles in Polish, Lithuanian history. In Lithuania, the victory at the Battle of Grunwald is synonymous with the Grand Duchy's political and military peak. It was a source of national pride during the age of Romantic nationalism and inspired resistance to the Germanization and Russification policies of the German and Russian Empires. The Knights were portrayed as bloodthirsty invaders and Grunwald as a just victory achieved by a small oppressed nation. In 1910, to mark the 500th anniversary of the battle, a monument by Antoni Wiwulski was unveiled in Kraków during a three-day celebration, attended by some 150,000 people. About 60 other towns and villages in Galicia erected Grunwald monuments for the anniversary. About the same time, Nobel Prize winner Henryk Sienkiewicz wrote the novel The Knights of the Cross (Polish: Krzyżacy), prominently featuring the battle in one of the chapters. In 1960, Polish filmmaker Aleksander Ford used the book as the basis for his film, Knights of the Teutonic Order. A museum, monuments, and memorials were constructed at the battlefield in 1960. The battle has lent its name to military decorations (Cross of Grunwald), sport teams (BC Žalgiris, FK Žalgiris), and various organizations.

King Jogaila in a 2003 reenactment of the battle

An annual battle reenactment takes place on 15 July. A pageant was held in 2010 reenacting the event and commemorating the battle's 600th anniversary. It attracted 200,000 spectators who watched 2,200 participants playing the role of knights in a reenactment of the battle. An additional 3,800 participants played peasants and camp-followers. The pageant's organisers believe that the event has become the largest reenactment of medieval combat in Europe.

Germany and Russia

A German National People's Party poster from 1920 depicts a Teutonic Knight threatened by a Pole and a socialist

The Germans generally saw the Knights as heroic and noble men, who brought Christianity and civilization to the east. In August 1914, during World War I, Germany won a battle against Russia near the site. When the Germans realized its propaganda potential, they named the 1914 battle the Battle of Tannenberg. The 1914 battle was framed as revenge for the Polish–Lithuanian victory 504 years earlier. Nazi Germany later exploited the sentiment by portraying their Lebensraum policies as a continuation of the Knights' historical mission.

Due to the participation of the three Smolensk regiments in the battle, Russians saw the battle as a Polish–Lithuanian–Russian coalition against invading Germans. Chronicler Jan Długosz praised the Smolensk banners, who fought bravely and were the only banners from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania not to retreat. In Soviet historiography, the battle of Grunwald was styled as a racial struggle between Slavs and Germans. The Teutonic Knights were portrayed as the medieval forerunners of Hitler's armies, while the battle itself was seen as the medieval counterpart to the Battle of Stalingrad.

In William Urban's summary, almost all accounts of the battle made before the 1960s were more influenced by romantic legends and nationalistic propaganda than by fact. Historians have since made progress towards dispassionate scholarship and reconciliation of the various national accounts of the battle.

CORRECTION

The name of Tannenberg will not be shown on any Polish map. Neither in the 1410, or today. It is a fictitious name invented by Germans, which since has spread to German-oriented circles in Sweden and also elswhere. These defend now this name "Tannenberg". All places in Poland were re named by the Germans, giving them names in German, as was the case during WW II, and you can still buy Austrian road maps with a name key placed on the back side of it with the Polish - German - Polish location key names, so some persistent Germans might still find the right location. The procedure is just as bad if one were to insist to call to days Stockholm for O'stokholmo(Italian) or Tukholmassa(Finish), in Sweden. There is no one who does this, only in each of these countries that this expression comes from, and this in its turn depends on the local language. The name Grunwald originates from the village of Grunwald, where the battle took place, which was owned by my mother's family. The House of Baron Grunwald. This name “Tannenberg” exists only in German minds, and later on have therefor been reflected in their books and other printed matter. Please therefor do not call the Battle of Grunwald for anything else then just this, because everything else is wrong.

References

Notes
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn26 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn28 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference jucas75 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference u138 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn25 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference davies98 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference jucas57 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. Turnbull 2003, p. 73
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference ek175 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. Turnbull 2003, p. 92
  11. Jučas 2009, p. 8
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference jucas9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference jucas10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. Jučas 2009, p. 11
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference ekdahl1963 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference stone16 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. Urban 2003, p. 132
  18. Kiaupa 2000, p. 137
  19. Turnbull 2003, p. 20
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference ivin336 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. Urban 2003, p. 130
  22. Kuczynski 1960, p. 614
  23. Jučas 2009, p. 51
  24. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn21 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  25. Kiaupa 2000, p. 139
  26. ^ Cite error: The named reference chris227 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  27. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn30 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  28. Jučas 2009, p. 74
  29. ^ Cite error: The named reference Razin486 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  30. ^ Cite error: The named reference kiaupa2002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  31. ^ Cite error: The named reference ivin338 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  32. ^ Cite error: The named reference john43 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  33. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn29 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  34. Разин 1999, pp. 485–486
  35. ^ Jučas 2009, p. 56
  36. Urban 2003, p. 139
  37. Jučas 2009, p. 64
  38. ^ Cite error: The named reference jucas63 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  39. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn33 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  40. Urban 2003, p. 141
  41. Urban 2003, p. 142
  42. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn35 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  43. Jučas 2009, p. 76
  44. Turnbull 2003, p. 36
  45. Turnbull 2003, pp. 36–37
  46. Urban 2003, pp. 148–149
  47. ^ Cite error: The named reference jucas77 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  48. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn44 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  49. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn45 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  50. Urban 2003, p. 149
  51. Turnbull 2003, p. 43
  52. ^ Cite error: The named reference jucas78 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  53. Baranauskas 2011, p. 25
  54. Sužiedėlis 1976, p. 337
  55. Urban 2003, pp. 152–153
  56. Turnbull 2003, pp. 48–49
  57. Jučas 2009, p. 83
  58. Turnbull 2003, p. 53
  59. Turnbull 2003, p. 61
  60. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn64 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  61. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn66 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  62. ^ Cite error: The named reference urban168 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  63. Turnbull 2003, p. 79
  64. Urban 2003, p. 157
  65. ^ Cite error: The named reference turn68 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  66. Jučas 2009, pp. 85–86
  67. ^ Cite error: The named reference ju87 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  68. Turnbull 2003, p. 69
  69. Jučas 2009, p. 88
  70. Pelech 1987, pp. 105–107
  71. Urban 2003, p. 162
  72. Urban 2003, p. 164
  73. Stone 2001, p. 17
  74. Ivinskis 1978, p. 342
  75. Turnbull 2003, p. 75
  76. Turnbull 2003, p. 74
  77. Urban 2003, p. 166
  78. ^ Cite error: The named reference chris228 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  79. Kiaupa 2000, pp. 142–144
  80. Turnbull 2003, p. 78
  81. Christiansen 1997, pp. 228–230
  82. Stone 2001, pp. 17–19
  83. Dabrowski 2004, pp. 164–165
  84. Ekdahl 2008, p. 179
  85. Ekdahl 2008, p. 186
  86. Fowler 2010
  87. Burleigh 1985, p. 27
  88. ^ Cite error: The named reference john44 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  89. ^ Cite error: The named reference davies99 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Bibliography

External links

Polish wars and conflicts
General and related


Piast Poland
Mongol invasions
Jagiellon Poland
Polish–Teutonic wars
Commonwealth
Polish–Swedish wars
Polish–Ottoman wars
Poland partitioned
Second Republic
World War II in Poland
Ghetto uprisings
People's Republic
Third Republic

Template:Link FA Template:Link FA

  1. Разин 1999, p. 486
  2. Christiansen 1997, p. 227
  3. Christiansen 1997, p. 228
  4. Davies 2005, p. 98
  5. Davies 2005, p. 99
  6. Ekdahl 2008, p. 175
  7. Ekdahl 1963
  8. Ivinskis 1978, p. 336
  9. Ivinskis 1978, p. 338
  10. Johnson 1996, p. 43
  11. Johnson 1996, p. 44
  12. Jučas 2009, p. 87
  13. Jučas 2009, p. 10
  14. Jučas 2009, pp. 57–58
  15. Jučas 2009, p. 63
  16. Jučas 2009, p. 75
  17. Jučas 2009, p. 77
  18. Jučas 2009, p. 78
  19. Jučas 2009, p. 9
  20. Kiaupa 2002
  21. Stone 2001, p. 16
  22. Turnbull 2003, p. 21
  23. Turnbull 2003, p. 25
  24. Turnbull 2003, p. 26
  25. Turnbull 2003, p. 28
  26. Turnbull 2003, p. 29
  27. Turnbull 2003, p. 30
  28. Turnbull 2003, p. 33
  29. Turnbull 2003, p. 35
  30. Turnbull 2003, p. 44
  31. Turnbull 2003, p. 45
  32. Turnbull 2003, p. 64
  33. Turnbull 2003, p. 66
  34. Turnbull 2003, p. 68
  35. Urban 2003, p. 138
  36. Urban 2003, p. 168
Categories:
Battle of Grunwald: Difference between revisions Add topic