Recently, traveling with friends in Lithuania. Vilensky tour guide talked a lot about the Grunwald victory, as noted its 600th anniversary. We heard that the crucial role played in the battle of the Lithuanian army of Vytautas. I had noticed that it was still not the Lithuanian army, and the army is ON, and ask how many there were Lithuanian, Belarusian and how many regiments? About the dispute, but to be honest, we did not have arguments. Could you clarify?
Vladimir, a physics
Mozhna argue about the total number of soldiers who took part in the Battle of the Teutonic Order and the part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish Crown. Encyclopedia of the History of Belarus, for example, reports that the Crusaders lost 40,000 killed and 15,000 taken prisoner, although most modern scholars believe that the entire army exposed the Order was unlikely to be more than 30,000.
You can debate who had the better weapons. You can have a debate on the topic: Who led the combined forces of Lithuania (in the historical understanding of this name) and Poland? Jagiello, as traditionally believed, or Vytautas, in favor of which there is also strong evidence? You can sneer at some Tatar authors who claim that Khan's cavalry, Jalal al-Din was not part of Vitovtova army, and, averaging 15,000 soldiers (the figure is absolutely fabulous), was an independent army.
Some historians even question the historical significance of the defeat of the Teutons.
But there are facts that are hard to dispute.
Historical sources mention not just "the Lithuanian army," and concrete poles, banners, which led to the Grunwald (Dubrovensky or, as they called her our records) Vytautas battle. By the way, 30 of them were on the flags, "Chase" and 10 — "Kolyumny" another state symbol of the Grand Duchy.
XV century Polish chronicler Jan Dlugosz wrote that the position on the field of battle took banners: Brest, Volkovysk, Vilna, Vitebsk, Grodno, Drogichin, Kiev, Kovno, Kremenetskiy Lida, Medininkayskaya, Melnitskaya, Novogrudskaya, Pinsk, Polotsk, Smolensk, Starodubskaya, Trotsky and others.
Kiev and the Ukrainian Kremenetskiy came from space.
As for the ethnically Lithuanian (in this sense) of land, the Chronicle Dlugosz — the main source for the study of these events — called only Kovno banner. In Vilnius, Medininkayskaya and Trotsky believed our historians, dominated NOT ancestors of Lithuanians and Slavs. But even if admit that it is not so, the overall picture all the same does not require any extra comments.
Is that a word about so-called "Three Russian Smolensk cloth" (the definition of Russian historiography), which won the battle almost alone. It is probably about Mstislavskys, Orsha and Smolensk itself banners of the Smolensk land, which at that time was already part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. These banners left Vytautas to cover the right flank of the Poles, really showed extraordinary courage and almost died.
The issue of ethnic composition troops ON emerged recently and one of the scientific conference dedicated to the 600th anniversary of Grunwald. In response to the list sounded banners of the Belarusian lands one of the Lithuanian historians put the original kontrargument, saying that at the time the army did not collect on the ethnic principle. But who was then living in Polotsk, Vitebsk, Minsk, Orsha, Pinsk, Grodno, Navahrudak? ..
If you will, the namesake, to argue with the Lithuanians on this topic Next time, ask your opponents to call Grunwald stick of the their ethnic lands. But note that there is no shame for the Lithuanians in the ratio of Slavonic and Baltic banners in the army ON, of course not. The fact is that in times of Vytautas the Baltic States should land occupied only about 1/15 of his country.
And best of all with the neighbors NOT chubitstsa and drink for the overall victory of our ancestors' Suktsinisu "or our" Bialowieza. "