Last edited:
Reading many posts here and seeing admiration of some members of this forum for Teutonic Knights I decided to start this discussion. Many people here seems to think that Teutonic Knights were great, strong fearless knights who didnt have equal opponents on the battlefields because were so skilled in fighting and killing. Its a myth. Probably young knights who were joining the order were good fighters but soon they were becoming commanders and even more often administrators of their Prussian state. Most of them was rather becoming fat and didnt have time for practicing combat.
A good example is their greatest defeat, the battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg in year 1410. From about 250 Teutonic knights who took part in the battle about 200 were killed. Two (Marquard von Salzbach and Heinrich von Schaumburg) were executed by order of Vytautas after the battle because he was negotiating with them possibility of betraying Polish king and was afraid that when captured they will talk about it.
But only one duel between Polish and Teutonic knights is known and not because Teutonic knight did fight so well but because it was Grand Master of the Order who was killed by (terrible name for English speakers)Mszczuj of Skrzynno.
There was no single epic duel to describe by the chroniclers during the battle in which Teutonic knight was defeated or in which he has defeated Polish knight.
Someone may ask why. There were 3 theories
1. The Knights died at the hands of people outside of knighthood (eg. the peasant infantry);
2.The knights were killed after the battle in violation of the customs of chivalry;
3. The performance of the knigths on the battlefield was much worse than their fame.
1. The theory about significant number of paesant infantry was highly propagated by authorities in communist Poland however today most of the historians agree that there was no such infantry on the battlefield which was mostly horse battle.
2. If Polish side would break chivlary rules to such extent the Knights would be first to point it but no single Teutonic Chronicler has write about it.
3. The last hypothesis is based on the fact that Brothers were considered as excellent warriors and best fencers, which came from their activities at the beginning of the conquest of Prussia, and that later the Teutonic Knights fought incidentally personally (therefore no one can verify this legend ). The knights who were only about 250 people had to manage the whole country which prevented them from frequent and lengthy exercises. During the battle Poles and Lithuanians were still beliving in the story of unparalleled swordsmen and were attacking them showing their best skills. As a result of the attack, which could have been repulsed by a trained knight and which usually wouldnt be deadly, it was mortal to a senior official.
Most of the Teutonic Knights who survived the battle were younger monks, who have not yet received administrative functions.
In this case Polish chroniclers did not want to downplay their victory and omitted in the chronicles descriptions of their duels and deaths.
A good example is their greatest defeat, the battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg in year 1410. From about 250 Teutonic knights who took part in the battle about 200 were killed. Two (Marquard von Salzbach and Heinrich von Schaumburg) were executed by order of Vytautas after the battle because he was negotiating with them possibility of betraying Polish king and was afraid that when captured they will talk about it.
But only one duel between Polish and Teutonic knights is known and not because Teutonic knight did fight so well but because it was Grand Master of the Order who was killed by (terrible name for English speakers)Mszczuj of Skrzynno.
There was no single epic duel to describe by the chroniclers during the battle in which Teutonic knight was defeated or in which he has defeated Polish knight.
Someone may ask why. There were 3 theories
1. The Knights died at the hands of people outside of knighthood (eg. the peasant infantry);
2.The knights were killed after the battle in violation of the customs of chivalry;
3. The performance of the knigths on the battlefield was much worse than their fame.
1. The theory about significant number of paesant infantry was highly propagated by authorities in communist Poland however today most of the historians agree that there was no such infantry on the battlefield which was mostly horse battle.
2. If Polish side would break chivlary rules to such extent the Knights would be first to point it but no single Teutonic Chronicler has write about it.
3. The last hypothesis is based on the fact that Brothers were considered as excellent warriors and best fencers, which came from their activities at the beginning of the conquest of Prussia, and that later the Teutonic Knights fought incidentally personally (therefore no one can verify this legend ). The knights who were only about 250 people had to manage the whole country which prevented them from frequent and lengthy exercises. During the battle Poles and Lithuanians were still beliving in the story of unparalleled swordsmen and were attacking them showing their best skills. As a result of the attack, which could have been repulsed by a trained knight and which usually wouldnt be deadly, it was mortal to a senior official.
Most of the Teutonic Knights who survived the battle were younger monks, who have not yet received administrative functions.
In this case Polish chroniclers did not want to downplay their victory and omitted in the chronicles descriptions of their duels and deaths.
