Talk:Grunwald Swords

To do

• Battle of Grunwld  Done
• From war trophy to royal insignia  Done
• Salvation and loss  Done
• Modern symbolism

Gift Intended to Mock the Poles?

In a letter written shortly after the battle, it was claimed that the two swords were given as a gift in order to mock and demoralize the Poles. The swords were given so that the Poles would "have something to fight with." This would be an excellent detail to include in this article, as well as in the article about the battle. My source is The Letters of Jan Hus. Translated from the Latin and the Czech by Matthew Spinka. Manchester: Manchester University Press; [Totowa, N.J.] Rowman and Littlefield, 1972. 233p. Based on critical edition of letters published in 1920 by Vaclav Novotny. This book is a collection of letters written by the Bohemian reformer Jan Hus, and includes a letter written by him in the year 1410 to King Władysław II Jagiełło. The letter even details what the Teutonics had to give the Poles as concessions after the battle. Should I use this as a resource to help expand the articles? --Dulcimerist (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. However, I found a different translation of Hus's letters here, but there is only one letter to Ladislaus here, dated 10 June 1412 (not 1410). In it, Hus mentions Ladislaus's agreement with Sigismund and then goes on to rant about simony, but I see no mention of the Battle of Grunwald here, let alone of the swords. I would be glad to read the letter you're referring to. Is is available somewhere online? Or can you at least provide a quote related to the Grunwald swords? — Kpalion^(talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that it's available online. I actually spent $80 on this book because it's so rare and I like Jan Hus so much. When I get time, I will type up excerpts and post them in this discussion. Actually, I just grabbed the book, and there are a couple of letters which discuss the battle. Here it goes:

To the Polish King, Władysław

Written by Jan Hus in Prague, February-March 1411

(Refers to the great victory of King Władysław over the Knights of the Teutonic Order at the battle of Grünwald, 15 July 1410. The armistace was concluded on 10 December 1410.)

... When the emissary of Your Majesty, Oneś of Huorka, brought the definite news of victory and the praiseworthy armistace, it caused me great joy in my heart, which no pen can describe nor my voice express as is fitting. I know, however, most Christian king, that it was not Your Majesty's power, but the power of the Supreme peace-loving king, the Lord Jesus Christ, which humiliated you honour's proud rivals and emulators. He has 'deposed the mighty from their seats of pride and exalted them of low degree (Luke 1:52),' that both, having before their eyes the power of the peace-loving King himself, would tremble and invoke His aid in their necessities and would know that thereis no victory except from Him, whom no man can conquer and who alone gives victory to the humble and exalts them finally on account of humility. He has often taught, saying, 'Everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself, shall be exalted. (Luke 14:11)' Both are fulfilled.

Where, then, are the two swords of the enemies? They were indeed cut down with those swords with which they tried to terrify the humble! Behold, they sent you two swords, the swords of violence and of pride, and have lost many thousands of them, having been utterly defeated. Where are the swords, where the caparisoned horses, where the mail-clad warriors in whom they trusted? Where are the innumerable ducats or treasures?

Indeed, all that disappointed them! In their pride they did not believe that into the gates of the just only the humble can enter. They were disappointed because they did not trust the Lord Jesus! Therefore, most illustrious prince, considering that, in the wisdom of your mind guard humility, because it exalts. Follow the King, the peace-loving king Lord Jesus Christ. Aim at peace with the illustrious King Sigismund (of Hungary), and if he should desire to gain something with similar arrogance - which, God willing, he will not do - let Your Majesty still hold on to moderate humility; thus Christian blood would not again be shed and a great danger to souls would not arise...

(The footnotes state, "The grandmaster of the Order had sent to the Polish camp two swords -- so they would have something to fight with!")

To an Unknown Priest

Written by Jan Hus in Prague, Spring of 1411

... The Polish king (Władysław Jagiello), because of his humility, secured a victory. The terms of peace are already agreed on (The Peace of Toruń, 1 February 1411). It is commonly said that the Prussians are to serve for all times the Polish king with three hundred lances against anyone in the kingdom of Bohemia. Also they must give him three hundred thousand marks of gold. About the land of Pomerania an edict should be made by lord (scratched out in letter); they must pay the king two (scratched out in letter), one full of gold and the other of silver. I shall write later what further I learn...

(There is also an October 1411 letter written by Hus to the people of Plzeň, which was a parish belonging to the Knights of the Teutonic Order; which is quite long and interesting. Also, that June 1412 letter that you mentioned is found later in this book.)

Anyway, those are small excerpts from the two letters which might yield some useful information to this article, and perhaps to other articles as well. Please glean what's needed for this article and related articles. These are very brief excerpts from this large book, posted here for educational purposes; so there shouldn't be a problem in leaving these permanently posted here as source material. This book contains a total of 101 letters written by Jan Hus and translated into English, and it's a shame that it's been out of print for 37 years! --Dulcimerist (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As a footnote, I just saw that Jan Žižka, who participated in this battle, was a close friend of Jan Hus and went on to help lead the Hussite Wars! I'll be spending another sleepless night on Wikipedia!  :) --Dulcimerist (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That's so interesting. Thanks a lot for your effort to retype these letters, Dulcimerist. I didn't know that Hus was corresponding with the king of Poland before. I'll see how I can use these quotes to expand the article. BTW, it's funny to read how Hus called King Ladislaus II – a pagan who only converted to become king of Poland and who privately practised ancient Lithuanian rites until his death – a "most Christian king".

There were more links between the Polish-Teutonic conflict and Hussitism than what you mentioned. After all both were among the most important political issues in Europe of that time as could be seen at the Council of Constance which not only burned Hus at stake, but was also an arena of debate on the Polish-Teutonic conflict and the rights of pagan peoples to peaceful existence between Johannes Falkenberg and Paweł Włodkowic.

One of the heroes of the Battle of Grunwald was Zbigniew Oleśnicki who saved the king's life during the battle. He was awarded with a bishopric of Krakow and went on to become one of Poland's most influential statesmen, the first Polish cardinal and a virtual regent during the underage Ladislaus III's reign. He was also a fervent Hussite-hater who killed the Hussites with his own hands after the Battle of Grotniki. Interesting that he and Žižka had fought on the same side at Grunwald! — Kpalion^(talk) 00:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like the Hus letter excerpts! From reading Hus' early letters, he really knew how to appeal to the egos of many major leaders of the day! In the above letter to the Polsih King, I believe that Hus ws being very kind with his words so that the king would hear the Gospel. Additionally, I believe that Hus' plea for peace echoed concern that additional wars would allow the Turkish Empire to spread across Europe. Turkish expansion was a huge concern and worry for Europe in the 1400s and 1500s. --Dulcimerist (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, The Ottoman expansion was everybody's concern, although strategies varied. Zbigniew Oleśnicki, whom I mentioned above, had the following strategic goals: short-term, crush the Hussites; medium-term, expel the Turks from Europe; long-term, put an end to the Eastern Schism and reunite Eastern Orthodoxy with Roman Catholicism. The key requirement to all parts of his scheme as a very strong Kingdom of Poland – under his leaderhip, of course. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to use this material in related articles, such as Peace of Thorn (1411), Battle of Grunwald, etc. Is there a place where I can funnel some of the other letters to those working on other Eastern European (especially Czech) historical articles? Thanks! --Dulcimerist (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes to include in the article

“ Your Majesty! The Grand Master Ulryk sends you and your brother (...) through us, the deputies standing here, two swords for help so that you, with him and his army, may delay less and may fight more boldly than you have shown, and also that you will not continue hiding and staying in the forest and groves, an will not postpone the battle. And if you believe that you have too little space to form your ranks, the Prussian master Ulryk, to entice you to battle, will withdraw from the plain which he took for his army, as far as you want, or you may instead choose any field of battle so that you do not postpone the battle any longer. ” — Grand Master Ulrich von Jungingen's envoys, according to Jan Długosz, Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, translated by Michael J. Mikos [1]

“ Even though (...) I do not need the swords of my enemies, as I have in my army a sufficient amount, however, in the name of God, for securing greater help, protection and defense in my just cause, I accept these two swords brought by you and sent by the enemies who desire my blood and my destruction as well as that of my army. ” — King Ladislaus II, according to Jan Długosz, Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, translated by Michael J. Mikos [2]

“ Where, then, are the two swords of the enemies? They were indeed cut down with those swords with which they tried to terrify the humble! Behold, they sent you two swords, the swords of violence and of pride, and have lost many thousands of them, having been utterly defeated. ” — Jan Hus, Letter to King Ladislaus II of 1411, translated by Matthew Spinka

Why the arms born by the heralds are relevant

In popular imagination in Poland, the swords were brought by Teutonic Knights clad in white cloaks with black crosses. See this painting by Wojciech Kossak (unfortunately, still copyrighted) for example. It is important to show that this was not the case. Ironically, the red griffin of the duke of Stettin is now the coat of arms of Poland's West Pomeranian Voivodeship. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So what? How is showing these arms relevant to the article and where is the proof they were actually wearing them? They do not pertain directly to the swords. Plus on top of that the images you are trying to use are speculative rough depictions and not necessarily correct. Gryffindor (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The swords were a gift. The identity of the givers is as important as the identity of the receivers. If it's not relevant, then what is? As for proof, all we know about how the swords were presented to Vladislaus and Vytautas comes from Długosz. We don't have any other sources. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it relevant what dress the king was wearing that day? Or what horse the heralds arrived on? Or what arms they were bearing? Gryffindor (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What the king was wearing or on what horses the heralds arrived is probably not relevant, which is why Długosz didn't write about it. He did write about the heraldic symbols they were wearing though. Because it did matter: coats of arms weren't there for decoration, they showed the allegiance of those who wore them. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why not display all the coats of arms of those who were present on that day? Why just those two? How is this in any way relevant to the swords themselves? Gryffindor (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

They're relevant because they were relevant enough for Długosz to mention them. He didn't mention any other coats of arms in the same paragraph as the swords, only these two. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

How is this really relevant to the swords themselves though? Długosz described many events on the day of the battle. Even if you still want to use the two images, there are many different versions of the image. How do you know how the arms looked like on that day? The images you provide in that case are purely speculative, as they could have looked differently in their variation by the heralds who had them. For example was the eagle one- or two-headed? Gryffindor (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a terribly big deal, but I also think this illustration is a valuable addition to the article for the reasons I mentioned above. But of course you are right that we can't know what the specific renditions of the coats of arms born by the heralds looked like. I changed the caption to reflect that. I'll be glad to know, if this is OK for you. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The CoA of Pomerania can stay since you seem very keen on it. But on the eagle you need to find out if it is a one-headed or two-headed eagle. If that is not clear from Długosz, then it needs to be taken out because that would be too much speculation. Gryffindor (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is clear from Długosz: One of them, from the Roman king, had a black eagle on a gold field in his coat of arms, and the other, from the Szczecin duke, had a red griffin on a white field. [3] In heraldry, an eagle – or any other beast – is assumed to have one head unless specified otherwise. And Długosz was quite scrupulous in his blazons, so I doubt he would have failed to mention that the eagle was double-headed if it had been so. Besides, Sigismund was only King of the Romans at that time, so was only entitled to use a single-headed eagle. The double-headed one was reserved for emperors, and Sigismund adopted it as his coat of arms when he was crowned emperor in 1433 (see Reichsadler). So, I'm reverting your last edit, but will also add a citation (Długosz) to the caption. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)