Talk:War against Sigismund

Gyllenstierna brothers and their father

• Johan Nilsson Gyllenstierna was a Sigismund's loyalist, admiral of Sweden and Poland (Jan Gyllenstjern), father of Sigismund Gyllenstierna (Zygmunt Gyllenstjern), later, Polish senator and kasztellan of Gdánsk.

• From w:sv:Göran Nilsson Gyllenstierna (Johan’s brother)

Liksom brodern Johan höll sig Göran i början till Sigismunds parti, men övergick omsider till hertig Karl och utnämndes till riksråd 1602.

Rougly: Like his brother John did, Göran stood by Sigismund at the beginning, but eventually fled to Duke Karl and was appointed senator in 1602.

Note: His father, Nils Göransson, was the Governor or Commander of Stockholm at first as we will see, but he was 72 in 1598, so his son Goran Nilsson become in charge of the office. Like in Poland those titles were not hereditary “de juris”, but many times they did were hereditary “de facto”. The Swedish “storman” were like the Polish “magnate”, (lords properly), and the Swedish “fralse” were like the common Polish “szlachcic”, (similar to petty-nobles).

• From w:sv:Nils Göransson Gyllenstierna (Johan’s father)

Hertig Karl förordnade Gyllenstierna till ståthållare i Stockholm 1593.

Rougly: Duke Karl appointed Gyllenstierna as Governor of Stockholm in 1593.

--Gustavo (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents

@Gvssy Please explain how this is a drastic change Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it removes one of the main belligerents, it's like completely removing part of the article without explanation. As for Poland's participation, on p.285 of Sveriges krig 1448–1630 by Ulf Sundberg, he claims that the war was against "Sigismund (Polen)" and thus he is claiming that Poland, i.e the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, fought in the war, this is also quite evident by the fact that Sigismund took an army from the Commonwealth to invade Sweden. Poland's participation is also corroborated in a previous book by Sundberg where on p.89 of Svenska krig 1521–1814 he claims that the war was against "Sigismund Vasa (Polen).

Furthermore, clear Polish–Lithuanian participation is also spoken about in Mats Adolfsson's Fogdemakt och Bondevrede where, on one occassion, he claim that Jan Zamoyski wanted to send "the entire Polish army" for an invasion into Sweden. Gvssy (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You did not state in any way that he had an army from Poland just did not understand (Polen) that he was Polish? And how you know that he took it is your guess already (if it is written somewhere in the article you can show it)

As for your second point, it is only written by Mats Adolfsson that Zamoyski wanted to do it, this does not mean that he did it Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems that you don't know what "Polen" means, it quite literally just means "Poland". Not that he "was Polish". Furthermore, Mats Adolfsson says on p.190 "Bara 4 000 man från det polska riket skulle landstiga. Han satsade på att få svenskt folkligt stöd." As said, men from the Polish Kingdom, i.e Poles, commanded by the Polish king, invading a foreign country which had recently rebelled against the Polish king.

In addition, I never said that he must have actually gone through with it, my point is that Poland was very much a belligerent considering one of its higher ranking people wished to make a massive invasion of Sweden using the entire Polish army. Gvssy (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Mats Adolfsson doesn't say that Poland took part in the war, how do you know that those 4,000 were not mercenaries? You highlight ‘Polish king’ what about the fact that he was a Polish king? The fact that he had such a title means nothing. Frost writing about mercenaries in this war.

In addition, I never said that he must have actually gone through with it, my point is that Poland was very much a belligerent considering one of its higher ranking people wished to make a massive invasion of Sweden using the entire Polish army. These sentences are your conjecture already, you accuse me of this yourself and now you are dreaming up theories, wikipedia is not the place for this Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"Mats Adolfsson doesn't say that Poland took part in the war, how do you know that those 4,000 were not mercenaries?" Because he doesn't call them mercenaries, he says that they were "From the Polish kingdom" i.e most likely Polish, even if they were not Polish, this doesn't matter, the fact that they were apart of the Polish army is more than enough.

"You highlight ‘Polish king’ what about the fact that he was a Polish king?" I highlighted it because it strengthens the case of Poland being a belligerent, if the Polish king himself decides to lead a Polish army to invade a foreign country, that is obviously a Polish belligerency. The Polish participation is, again, supported by Ulf Sundberg.

"you accuse me of this yourself and now you are dreaming up theories, wikipedia is not the place for this" When you broke WP:OR, it was when you said something that was never claimed by either source. What I am saying is indirectly claimed by the source, simply put, a high ranking Pole would not demand Poland to invade using its entire army unless Poland was an active belligerent. Gvssy (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

None of the authors calls this army ‘most likely Polish’ this is already a guess, the whole text is filled with similar statements except the last one.

No, you don't claim anything based on the source, you still haven't shown proof that Poland took part in the war, just because the soldiers came from Poland doesn't mean that Poland fought, or from Hungary and Germany which means that these 3 countries were at war with Sweden, no, because no author claims that, you are trying to prove that Sundberg and Adolfsson have Poland in mind, and nothing comes out of the quotes you gave. Only that these soldiers were from the Polish state Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"None of the authors calls this army ‘most likely Polish’ this is already a guess, the whole text is filled with similar statements except the last one." Yes, it is a guess, a very rightful guess, but I will admit being wrong here, Mats Adolfsson does say that Sigismund agreed to a compromise where he made sure his army did not include "too many Poles, Lithuanians, Croats, and Hungarians" Still, he says that these troops came from Poland and thus were most likely native to Poland, and not mercenary troops. Even if they were mercenaries, this does not take away from the fact that they were a part of the Polish army! I'll ask you this: Are the Swedish campaigns in Germany during the Thirty Years' War now not Swedish because a large part of the army consisted of mercenaries? No, obviously not.

"No, you don't claim anything based on the source, you still haven't shown proof that Poland took part in the war, just because the soldiers came from Poland doesn't mean that Poland fought, or from Hungary and Germany which means that these 3 countries were at war with Sweden, no, because no author claims that, you are trying to prove that Sundberg and Adolfsson have Poland in mind, and nothing comes out of the quotes you gave. Only that these soldiers were from the Polish state" I have shown proof that Poland participated, though. As I've already said, Ulf Sundberg has, on two seperate occasions in two seperate books claimed that the belligerent that fought against Sweden was "Sigismund (Polen)" to answer "just because the soldiers came from Poland doesn't mean that Poland fought, or from Hungary and Germany which means that these 3 countries were at war with Sweden, no, because no author claims that" That is a silly example, these troops were serving the Polish king, not their own, they participated in a Polish campaign, not a German or Hungarian campaign. Also, like I have said a few times before, Ulf Sundberg very very VERY bluntly says that Poland was a belligerent in the war, by literally writing "Sigismund (Polen)" which further corroborates my point that since Sigismund, the King of Poland, embarked on a campaign with an army from Poland, Poland very much participated in the war. Gvssy (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Responding to the first paragraph you agree with the assumption, this is not allowed. What about the fact that they came from Poland? The difference is that Sweden directly participated in the war by declaring war, that Poland did not do or Sweden did not do to Poland, so you cannot say that it participated as in this article Swedish expedition to Livonia. Poland was not officially in the war, so you can't say it was, if you have a source that says the opposite you can provide it.

Sundberg adds (polen) he still doesn't specify if he means the title or was from Poland since he adds ‘Poland’ Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"Responding to the first paragraph you agree with the assumption, this is not allowed. What about the fact that they came from Poland? The difference is that Sweden directly participated in the war by declaring war, that Poland did not do or Sweden did not do to Poland, so you cannot say that it participated as in this article Swedish expedition to Livonia. Poland was not officially in the war, so you can't say it was, if you have a source that says the opposite you can provide it."

• "What about the fact that they came from Poland?"

It means that they were most likely native to Poland, thus not mercenaries, as I have explained, even if they were, this does not make Poland any less of a belligerent, you are yet to even try to refute my argument, and I will repeat myself: "Are the Swedish campaigns in Germany during the Thirty Years' War now not Swedish because a large part of the army consisted of mercenaries?"

• "The difference is that Sweden directly participated in the war by declaring war, that Poland did not do or Sweden did not do to Poland, so you cannot say that it participated as in this article Swedish expedition to Livonia."

Yes I can? Being a de-facto belligerent is just as important as being a de-jure belligerent. There have been lots of wars without an official declaration of war, yet I seriously doubt that you would actually say that the countries involved were not belligerents. The Swedish expedition to Livonia saw Swedish troops attack both fortresses and cities controlled by John III and the Polish–Lithuanian Union. Even if there was no official state of war, it was fought de-facto, 1 and thus it is as much of a war as any other war.

• "Poland was not officially in the war, so you can't say it was, if you have a source that says the opposite you can provide it."

Whether or not a country declares war or not does not make the war any less of one. Even so, as you claimed "The difference is that Sweden directly participated in the war by declaring war" This would refute your own argument, in what world do the two nations need to issue declarations of war? It is only one country that needs to do such, in this case, Sweden. Also, did Poland now not participate in the Polish–Soviet War because there was no official declarations of war? No, clearly not, because that is silly.

• "Sundberg adds (polen) he still doesn't specify if he means the title or was from Poland since he adds ‘Poland’"

Why would he be saying that Sigismund was from Poland? That makes zero sense, "Sigismund (Polen)" is literally situated in the page that goes over the wars belligerents and its result, not Sigismunds nationality? Insanely silly way in an attempt to disregard a source that refutes you. Gvssy (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This text is your conjecture, please show the source which says that Poland and Lithuania took part in the war, not making up arguments which are not understandable.

In addition, you yourself in conversations with others as I have seen you used such a text ‘If the Royal Regiments did not play a crucial/important role in the rebellion’ (here [1]) Then why give Poland if it did not play a role at all, and after this conversation you decided to change it to de facto.

Yes because according to the infobox rules it is considered that it should be in the infobox in this Polish-Bolshevik war the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. This, however, was not present in the war against Sigmund, as most do not specify who these men were and Frost calls them mercenaries

and in answering the last one he still doesn't specify what he meant so don't cast conjecture Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This text is your conjecture, please show the source which says that Poland and Lithuania took part in the war, not making up arguments which are not understandable.

In addition, you yourself in conversations with others as I have seen you used such a text ‘If the Royal Regiments did not play a crucial/important role in the rebellion’ (here [1]) Then why give Poland if it did not play a role at all, and after this conversation you decided to change it to de facto.

Yes because according to the infobox rules it is considered that it should be in the infobox in this Polish-Bolshevik war the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. This, however, was not present in the war against Sigmund, as most do not specify who these men were and Frost calls them mercenaries

and in answering the last one he still doesn't specify what he meant so don't cast conjecture

• "This text is your conjecture, please show the source which says that Poland and Lithuania took part in the war, not making up arguments which are not understandable."

Again, Sundberg, in two books, states that the belligerent that Sweden was fighting against was "Sigismund (Polen)" and, on p.426 of "Svenska krig 1521-1814, he very clearly calls this a "War against Poland".

• In addition, you yourself in conversations with others as I have seen you used such a text ‘If the Royal Regiments did not play a crucial/important role in the rebellion’ (here [1]) Then why give Poland if it did not play a role at all, and after this conversation you decided to change it to de facto

Are you listening to my arguments? The participation of "Royal Regiments" is by no means comparable to the participation of Poland? You cannot ignore sources, as you are currently by saying "Then why give Poland if it did not play a role at all" I can't tell if you're talking about the Swedish expedition to Livonia, if you are, I'm not sure why. De-facto is just a shortened version of the previous note.

• Yes because according to the infobox rules it is considered that it should be in the infobox in this Polish-Bolshevik war the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. This, however, was not present in the war against Sigmund, as most do not specify who these men were and Frost calls them mercenaries

"it is considered important to include the parties involved in the conflict in the infobox for the Polish-Bolshevik War." Good, so we agree? The parties involved in this war is Poland and Sweden, as said by Sundberg.

I'm not sure what the rest of your argument is supposed to refute, there were no other groups that participated? As said, even IF this invasion army was not Polish, that doesn't make it any less of a Polish war. I'd still like you to answer whether or not the Swedish campaigns during the Thirty Years' War were actually Swedish campaigns, since, according to you, they aren't, because a large portion of the army were mercenaries.

• "and in answering the last one he still doesn't specify what he meant so don't cast conjecture"

But he does specify? Can you explain logically why the hell it would be referring to his nationality? What does that have to do with the belligerency? Nothing. He is saying that Poland participated, it is not "conjecture" to say so.

Gvssy (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I ask again, do you have a source that says Poland took part in what this means clearly another guess? In addition, I point out to you that what you are doing here is sheer hypocrisy because you point out things to others and you do it yourself.

And how do you know this you have no idea about the Bar Confederation at all nothing and you have shown it there, instead of inviting someone to talk yourself a person like Kolya Muratov, you are the one to solve the topic without knowing anything. Mediawistyczny Polak (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• "I ask again, do you have a source that says Poland took part in what this means clearly another guess? In addition, I point out to you that what you are doing here is sheer hypocrisy because you point out things to others and you do it yourself."

Yes? Like I said: "on p.426 of "Svenska krig 1521-1814, he very clearly calls this a 'War against Poland.' " + What part of my arguments are hypocritical?

• "And how do you know this you have no idea about the Bar Confederation at all nothing and you have shown it there, instead of inviting someone to talk yourself a person like Kolya Muratov, you are the one to solve the topic without knowing anything."

Very bold to accuse me of "not knowing anything", no ad-hominems please. Anyway, my argument on the Bar Confederation was that neither the article or any source calls it a "Russo-Polish victory" simple as that.

I'd like you to actually respond to the arguments I make, instead of such a weak response, it really just makes the debate pointless, don't you agree? Gvssy (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)