It's a different legend. According to her, modern Poland was inactive an armed power and had an undefeated army of panic in Europe.
The conflict of Chocim, erstwhile Poles defeated sixteen times as strong Turkish troops; the clash at Kłuszyn, where the Moskals succumbed despite a five-time advantage; the beating at Kircholm, which Swedes present consider the top military defeat in their history. specified examples fuel religion in what could be termed a story of Hussaria. The cognition of the borders of the erstwhile Republic of Poland, a country which in terms of its surface area, has yielded only to Russia and possibly European possessions of Turkey, besides influences imagination. If it was so great, it must have been a power in all sense – it is the reasoning of people who in past search justifications for their own pride alternatively than strict facts.
Historical phenomena, however, should not be assessed solely on the basis of contours on the map. Any Lithuanian mediterist, asked for an opinion on the subject, would callback that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had reached the summit of territorial improvement even before closer union with the Crown and before the birth of the Nobility Republic. Then the area was crumbling, and isolated (although sometimes spectacular) successes did not let the Moscow run “gathering the Russian lands”. As for the large triumphs of the Polish cavalry, there is no reason to question them. However, if you go beyond the battlefield and beyond the description of the clashes themselves, it turns out that Poles were incapable to derive far-reaching benefits from the overwhelming majority of successes. They won battles, even campaigns, but much little all wars. There were many reasons, they could be sacrificed (and sacrificed!) by oblique tomes. Here it is adequate to point out the basic issue: The noble Republic had large commanders and efficient soldiers, but never had a good army.
