More like... if Bernadotte lost his position in France, and decided to regain it by pushing the Swedes into wars against France.
WI Crimean Khanate destroyed in 17th century
You may agree or disagree with whatever you wish. In OTL the PLC armies had problems even with operating in Moldavia and did not risk any serious campaign against the Crimea.
Yeah, sure. These boats would be extremely useful while marching across the waterless steppe.
An army most of which was raised on the ad-hoc basis (you can easily find out the size of the standing PLC army) was not as well organized as the regular army of the 1730s. This applies both to the army itself and to organization of its baggage train.
Wladislav was planning to raise a much greater Cossack army and the cadres for such an army could come only from the same source as for Khmelnitsky’s armies: serfs fleeing from their Polish masters. As for the rest, surely the nobility killed the project not out of the excessive love to the Cossacks.
Yes. While Bernadotte, being a Catholic, declared that deep inside he was actually a Protestant, this one held to his beliefs.
Beaten to death.
Really? How disappointing
Plot twist aticking to one's beliets is bad
Rip
You know, in case of sieges, Batory didn't even want to capture Pskov in the first place. The whole point of his campaign was to simply cut off the russian forces in Livonia. After he succeeded in that and achieved his goals, he just went back home, so it's a poor example. As for Smolensk, Sigismund was simply an idiot. Not just in sieges, but also in an open field, like when he decided to personally lead the polish-lithuanian forces against Gustav II Adolf in the battle of Gniew, before he realised that it would be better to give the command to a much more skilled Stanisław Koniecpolski.
Check out basic geography to realise in which direction the Dnieper River is going.
Are we talking about the military campaign, or is this another "Poles bad"?
No kidding. He was storming the city just for the fun of it. Three assaults (September 8, October 24, November 2), mining of the walls, massive bombardment hardly support your statement.
And the military council was almost unanimous that this can b achieved by capture of Pskov.
He went home when the siege failed and he run out of money.
Does the same apply to his generals as well? Including Stanisław Żółkiewski who was in charge?
Check the basic geography to realise where the Crimea and Perekop are located.
Did I say this?
Last edited:
Was he a king of France? Or did he use the Swedes to became, again, a marshal of the French Empire? Your analogies are rather “creative”.
Last edited:
And he does considerably well in your TL as well which really is all that matter
Well, the one who had Poland-Hungary was named Louis, Sigismund (not that Sigismund, he was that Sigismund great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandad) was his son-in-law,but he only managed to become King of Hungary.
In charge, but not uncontested.
Anyway, Twenty years later Russians spent 9 months besieging Smolensk, and didnt capture it eventually
Does not speak well about the besuegers.
Yes, but this is not a relevant argument: the subject was Polish siegecraft, not Russian, which was undeniably quite low at that time and continued to be so all the way to the early stages of the GNW. Not that the Russian field tactics at that time was effective either. And the field commander, Shein, while being a good in defense (he was in charge when Sigizmund besieged the city) was quite inept as a field commander.
Actually, in the case you mentioned, the siege ended as a catastrophe for Tsardom’s army due to the actions of the Polish field army. Sigizmund did not have this issue because the main Russian forces had been staying passive well away from Smolemsk.
How does any of the above promotes the scenario of Wladislav's army easily taking the Ottoman fortresses? BTW, in 1618 Wladislav failed to take ill-defended Moscow while having Chodkiewicz and Sahaidachny as the generals. Which was as good as it gets.
Sorry, usually I’m quite willing to acknowledge when I wrote something potentially offensive but this time I don’t see what caused your remark. The statement that I commented upon was, factually, a very confusing analogy which did not make any sense to me: Bernadotte asking Swedes to restore his position in France. Can you explain its meaning? I could not. That’s why I found it “creative”. What’s wrong with that?
But his “Check out basic geography to realise in which direction the Dnieper River is going.” was plain impolite, to put it mildly, and you found it OK.
If you think someone broke the rules you hit the report button. You do NOT double down.
Have you really not seen the word "if"? If Bernadotte pushed the Swedes into wars against France, it would be like when Sigismund III Vasa pushed the PLC into wars against Sweden. Aluma asked for historical context, so I provided it. And I find as odd that you mock me alone for expanding someone else's comparison.