Could Potockii win Chmelnitski?

[zhuk]

although it is more phantasy than real history?
But what are the opinions on the following?
Could Hetman Potocki win a battle of Korsun (Spring 1648) if he was a more defencive?
Had he not to send his young and heroic son Stefan Potocki and uniting his forces with Count Jeremia Wishniewetski???.

Should he retreat with his army to Biala Cerkva, or to Kiev?
Had he any chances to win?
he would sure to win Chmelnitsky alone, but what about combined forces of late one with tartars of Tuhaj-bey.
What should be done in that circumstances?

[Zbyszek]

Hello Zhuk, nice to notice your voice again. My reply will be short this time. Hetman Potocki was an experienced commander but he apparently had a bad day because he drank heavily a night before. He was very conceited. You have to realize that the Polish Crown had a skilled army which used to fight enemies outnumbering it many times. They were real professionals and performed really well. Rzeczpospolita had permanent budget deficit so it was impossible to post a big army. Potocki just made light of the Cossack manpower and he was severely punished. His brave son, left to die by a proud father was betrayed by his original Cossack allies in Zhovte Vody. He was a young man without military experience. Zhuk, the tragdy of Khmeynitski rebellion was an unhappy coincidence of many factors. The death of a wise King of Rzeczpospolita, Vladislaus the Fourth,who probably could persuade Khmyelntski to stop (there were secret talks between them) was of major importance.
And without Tartar help, Khmyelnitski would be nothing.

[zhuk]

Thank you, Zbyszek, for your reply. I doubt, you are really interested in the name of the thread, and you reply is just an act of politeness to me.
I would like to concentrate on the military aspects and politic situation on Ukraine or Western borders of the RP.
The young Stefan Potockii, although being unexperienced, behaved at his best. A more skilled warrior could not succeed any better.
The young commander succeeded a long siege of almost 21 days.
He was besieged and outnumbered at least 7 to one. (Including tartars alliences of the cossacks).
The polish squad had beated back several attacks and only several facts of treachery lead to they defeat.
1. The most scilled and experienced commanders (or Tovarischy) were seized while negotiations. So they had no chance to take part in the battle.
2. Then the treachery of cossacks, who had obeyed to stay loyal to RP just a few days before.
3. then Polish squad was promised to make free path home, if they will give all the cannons or artilerry to the cossacks- so they believed that and gave out all the artilerry.
Those 3 fact lead to the squad of Stephan potockii to be defeated, while retreating almost defenceless (without main commanders and artillerry).
So Stephan Potockii could not be blamed for the defeat.
The second and main defeat was Of Nickolay Potockii the senior.
What could he do, how could he behave, on receiving of the news of the death of his heroic son?
I could hardly believe a person could manage his duties the first days on the death of the beloved son.
So the old hetman really drunk more than often. But we could not blame him for that.
Polniy hetman Kalinovski proposed to fight cossacks near the camp, while wise Potockii preferred retreat.
the tragedy could not be escaped near the Korsun. I was on that field many times.

The most interesting for me, is that if Potockii had nod devided his army in two parts in the april 1648, if he had not sent his own son ahead to death.
He had a chance to consolidate his forces, trying to unite with an army of count Jeremii Wishiowetski. If all the loyal forces could meet near well fortified castle Bialaya Cerkva. I am sure, they could defeat the rebels.
Chmelnitski would be raised high on the heigh of a tree, some other trees would be decorated with several other traitors.
Millions of civilians would be saved from death.
And could have a strong and united europe in the late 17th cent.

[Zbyszek]

I would like to explain one aspect of our discussion which is obvious to me and Zhuk but, weirdly, not considered by many Polish and as many Ukrainian people.
Ukraine could head for independence without Khmyelnitski. Ukraine's attachment to Rzeczpospolita did not need to be declared forever. The Union of Hadziacz 1658 showed the proper path, promoted by Adam Kysil and Ivan Wyhowski. Ukraine would have stayed as a WHOLE within Rzeczpospolita borders, but it would have had the same degree of independence as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Needless to say that Ukraine/Ruthenia would have been different, stronger and more independent state now. And, the most important, it would have been INTEGRATED.

Khmyelnitski ruined that concept. He finally had a regret of what he had done but then it was too late. His last years mark one defeat after another together with his moral decline (mind what he did to his beloved wife!!!!!!!!! do you know this story?).

Rulers have to be assessed according to the cumulative outcome of their rule. His score was just disastrous in every aspect: moral, humane, cultural and political.

[Edited by Zbyszek on 6th February 2003 at 09:17]

[Zbyszek]

On March 16, 1650 Yirij Gavrilhovich Pushkin leading the Muscovy mission to Rzeczpospolita, crossed Vistula river.
It was after the first stage of Chmielnicki rebellion when the treaty of Zborov(1649) was declared and Russians initially refuted the begging of Chmielnicki for help. Instead, they tried to provoke Rzeczpospolita sending a cheeky Pushkin.
Pushkin was a typical arrogant and crude Muscovy diplomat.
His voice was hysteric, his manners boorish and his language like in a Damascus fair (yarmark).
He demanded:
1. Burning the books printed in Gdansk(Poland) and containing ▒bezchestya▓ (offences) against the Tzar . What was so arrogant inside?: the noble Dad of Tsar Alexy was quoted without the title: Tzar and Great Knyaz, at least three times no ▒God rest his soul▓ was printed!, and at least once ▒Hospodar Vyelikiy▓ was missing! Pushkin▓s demands were ridiculous: Gdansk printers should be slagged(knutted) to death.
2. The Ruthenian Prince Vishnieviecki who had sent offensive letters should be beheaded or impaled!
3. Even if the above mentioned conditions are fulfilled The Tzar will not be appeased, so Smolensk should be given back unconditionally and half a million zloties for contribution are to be paid immediately. Otherwise √ WAR!
I would like to add that Russian envoys were received with full honour and courtesy both by Lithuanians and Poles.
It was just one typical example of Muscovian diplomacy in the XVIIth century.
What happened about the Gdansk books and their printers????? Maybe someone else will give an answer.
I will only tell that those books were immediately resold and became best-sellers ⌠yak Polska dluga e sheroka■.

In the meantime, Chmielnicki prepared a group of Al-Kaida like paid agents who were sent to all regions of Rzeczpospolita and, disguised as soldiers, persuaded Polish peasants to kill their oppressive lords without mercy. Then, strange things happened at that time: butchers like Kostka-Napierski in Podhale(mountainous region of Poland) appeared as if from heaven.
In some history books in People▓s Poland agents acquired a better name ⌠emissaries■. Nice euphemism, is not it? Some communist historians tried to make a hero of Napierski but they finally gave up when it turned out what amount of Judas money he got from Chmiel.