display | more...

Venerable members of this group:

Noung$, mauler@+, legbagede, The Debutante@, aneurin, Voodoo Chile, tinymurmur, CloudStrife, Tlachtga, Kalkin, bishopred1, bookw56, Velox, Haschel47, McCart42, QuietLight, Tiefling, KGBNick, Domin, Zibblsnrt, pylon, Diabolic, Halcyonide, Two Sheds, gitm, LeoDV, Asphodel, Palpz, phiz, tokki, The Lush, Aerobe, MCX, Bakeroo, Mercuryblues, Nadine_2, Gorgonzola, Lila, futilelord, Auduster, per ou, dragon rage, yudabioye, TerribleAspect, corvus, Nzen, mcd
This group of 47 members is led by Noung$

The Roman notion of personhood, the persona, had a long development, ultimately culminating at the height of the classical Roman law in a sophisticated set of rules, usages and institutions that regulated everything from status in civil society to familial relationships.  For the Roman, the person and his or her function within the extended family was pivotal to the entire system of law that Rome bequeathed to the Western and to a large extent also the Middle Eastern World.  It must be remembered that the family included also slaves of the household, which (as is explained elsewhere in Slaves as things) category of persons was very important within the Roman system of not only family life, but also commerce and industry.  This node does not deal with the notion of personhood in respect of slaves.

Only people, i.e. homo sapiens were regarded as personae by Romans.  Classical Roman law never developed the idea of a company or corporation that can function in the commercial reality as an individual legal entity.  In the post classical period certain organisations or bodies were vested with rights and obligations as entities outside of the individual persona, but not in the sense we moderns understand it.1

The persona originated at birth of the individual, and ceased to exist at death.  From the moment the child was born, it was vested with legal capacity but as discussed elsewhere in Suing for prenatal injuries, legal capacity could be conferred upon the unborn in instances where it would be to the advantage of the unborn child, on the express understanding that the child must eventually be born and live (even if only for a moment).

The status or condicio (= place, standing in society) of an individual was determined with reference to the totality of rights and capacities vested in the individual.  In other words, a Roman individual was not necessarily vested with all the rights and capacities available.  The more rights and capacities an individual had, the higher his or her status or condicio.  The most important factors that influenced status in Rome were liberty or bondage, citizen or not and family.

All persons in Rome were classified as free (liberi) or slaves (servi).  A person became a slave in various ways, the most important being by virtue of birth (from a mother in bondage) or imprisonment (usually prisoners of war, although for certain offences loss of freedom was the prescribed punishment).  In principle a slave had no capacity in the legal sense of the word, and effectively the only thing a slave was legally capable of doing, was to accumulate a peculium, being the money he received from his or her master or other persons and which his or her master allowed him or her to keep.  A slave could be freed by his or her master, in which case he or she obtained status of his or her own, but not necessarily citizenship.

In order to be born free (= ingenui, free born as opposed to freed = libertus, libertinus) for purposes of Roman law, both a child’s parents had to be Roman citizens who had the ius conubii (= right to conclude a Roman marriage).  This right was not exclusive to citizens, but could under certain circumstances be obtained by foreigners (peregrini).  It was not also required that the parents be married to one another.  A child born out of wedlock to parents not married, was still free, provided the one or both parents were free citizens or if either was not a citizen, had received the ius conubii

Being free and a citizen gave the person the following rights in Roman law:

·        The ius suffragii or right to vote in the popular assemblies (limited to men in most instances, although in all probability women were allowed to vote on certain (limited) issues in certain assemblies).

·        The ius honorum or right to be elected to civic office (again only men).

·        The right to enter the army and serve as an officer (men only again).

·        The ius conubii or right to conclude a Roman marriage.

·        The right to litigate in the law courts.

·        The ius commercii or right to commercial activity, e.g. conclude contracts and other acts necessary to engage in trade or business.

Age also influenced personhood.  Infants (infantes) had no capacity to act, older children had limited capacity, and only after puberty (fourteen for boys and twelve for girls) did the person acquire full legal capacity.  Women were limited in their capacity, initially severely so if they were under the manus ( = hand, i.e. the power) of their husbands, but during the principate women were granted much more freedom and independence, to such extent that marriages cum manu disappeared in the post classical period.

Insanity had much the same effect on status as in our modern society, and insanes or furiosi were divested of their capacity to the degree of their affliction.

Roman citizenship or the lack thereof determined in the first instance whether, and in the second, how much, of the capacities an individual had.  In principle, a citizen had full capacity after puberty (subject to other factors, e.g. sex or class).  This is dealt with in another node.

Familial relationship was another strong factor which determined the capacity of an individual.  The head of the family was the paterfamilias, usually the eldest male who in principle wielded great power over all the members of his family (including slaves) who fell under his patriapotestas (patriarchal power).  These would usually be his wife in the case of a marriage cum manu, their children and their issue, inclusive of adopted children and also children born out of wedlock, slaves and all other persons who were in some relationship of dependence to the paterfamilias.  Effectively, everything belonged to the paterfamilias, who was vested with the ius vitae necisque, the right of life and death in respect of all his family.  This right entailed that he could kill any member of his household, or even sell any of them into slavery trans Tiberim(= across the river Tiber where the slave markets were – slaves could for religious reasons not be sold inside of the city of Rome).  Practically such drastic measures would normally only be taken after the paterfamilias had consulted his adult male family members (or consilium domesticum).

While no person under the patriapotestas could legally own his or her own assets, the sons (filiifamilias) were also allowed to accumulate a private fund, much like the peculium of a trusted slave.  In the same vein, the paterfamilias was liable for the delicts (torts) committed by his family members, although later the filiusfamilias was held personally liable.

Lastly, status was influenced by an occurrence peculiar to Roman law, called capitis deminutio, literally the lessening of the head.  Three forms were recognised, being maxima, media and minimaCapitis deminutio maxima occurred when a Roman was deprived of his or her citizenship, which also entailed the loss of all capacities and rights citizenship brought.  This could be the result of being found guilty of treason, or some other serious crime against the state.  When a citizen lost his or her freedom (e.g. through being sold into slavery to pay a debt), it was called capitis deminutio media, while a change in family relationship was called capitis deminutio minima (e.g. adoption or marriage).

1 See Kaser, Das Römische Privatrecht, vol II (1975) 112.

A call to faith. The Salafi way of thought.

Salafi is a term used to describe fundamentalist Islamic thought. The followers of such practice imitate early Muslims. The historical context of the word actually refers to someone who died within the first four hundred years after the Prophet Allah. The term later was revived as a slogan and movement. Do to the nature of reverting back to the old ways, they are ultra conservative, they want to return to the Golden Age of Islam.

Although the reverting back to the Golden Age of Islam refers to the Prophet Allah’s time, fundamentally Salafi believe the Islamic tenet of purity from the start of the first human being, Adam. They even go so far as to call him the first prophet, as I’m sure many religions do (Christianity for one). That’s how Islam separated itself from Christianity and Judaism, calling them corrupt, and reverting back to purity.

The Movement
Salafi is the name of a group of Muslims who imitate the Blessed Prophet in every aspect of life. This is a return to shari’a-minded orthodoxy, purifying Islam from unwarranted accretions. “The politicization of Salafi movements was a response to colonialism, intended to exert pressure to end foreign domination.” (clogic) This sort of movement is about one hundred years old, thirteen centuries after Allah. Their basic premise is that religion can’t truly be understood like it was back then during the Prophet’s era. They value Tawhid, singling out Allah in all acts of worship. This puts weight on punishment over mercy for most, making them somewhat of an extremist group. But like all Islamic or Muslim religions and groups, this is not synonymous with terrorism or violence. It just means they follow doctrine with tight parameters.

”The "fundamentalism" of the Salaf, then, is a simple reaction to "the loss of roots," the result of capitalism's deterritorialization, which, according to Zizek "undermines every fixed social identity," such as the status of the believing Muslim. The recourse to Salafism, like to that of nationalism, emerges in order to protect the group from the traumatic disorientation of the processes of globalization, from the loss of ground caused by the disintegration of the really existing ummah.” “Muslim longing for the past became even more crucial to Muslim identity after the Balkanization of the Middle East and its subsequent psychic splitting.” (Maryam El-Shall)

Chapters of Salafi in the United States have been on the decline post 9/11, with barely a handful of them remaining. One factor, besides the apparent, is that the eastern Salafi believers did not care for the western. Looking to the premise of the movement, “only Muslims from Allah’s era can really understand,” and you can see why westerners would be even further off the mark. Additionally isolationism is to blame.

Offbeat Perceptions
While researching Salafi I found a lot of western literature criticizing them as a terrorist organization promoting violence. Although even al-Qaeda identifies themselves as Salafi. (Global security) But from my own assessment, however, it seems like they were scapegoated post 9/11 just like any other Islam group. But what struck me oddly was what a Muslim might say about a Salafi believer, “Mention the word ‘Salafi’ to a Muslim what often comes to mind is a criminal who marries several times.” (Umarless) However, that was a rare clip.

I do believe Salafi are both peaceful and violent in nature. Islam is a peaceful message, yet it must also defend itself and spread at the same time… “Salafi projects therefore rely on memories of Islam's early battles in order to fight contemporary wars and reinvoke questions of survival and oneness in order to posit grounds for jihad against innocents.” (Clogic)

The Salafi envisioned society is utopian based precisely for its impossibility, for its purely imaginative status, according to Maryam El-Shall. (clogic) Shall calls the Golden Age of Islam a complete fantasy, a product of select memory even. “The Golden Age of Islam is remembered as the period of "pure Islam," when, because Muslims practiced their faith perfectly, God rained down His blessings on them, ensuring their military and economic success and as well as their cultural dominance.7 Not accidentally, this period also coincides with the West's Dark Ages.8 It was a utopic moment in the history of Islam precisely because it never really existed, except in the contemporary Salafi imagination.” (clogic) He summarizes the Salfi movement as one of “subjective unity,” using that phrase based on Freud’s definition of obsession with the past as a group.

”Part of the Salafi project, then, is not destruction of current Western hegemonic culture in the Muslim world and beyond, but an actual reconstruction of the past in the present for the creation of a kind of utopian future. In this way, then, the Salaf, like the Utopian, straddles two separate set of moments alternately. He looks to the past to correct the present and yet uses the present to create a future based dramatically on the ethos of a mythical past.” (Maryam El-Shall)

Salafism is another generic term used similarly, as a Sunni Islamic school of thought.


See also, Salafiyyah, an Islam movement.

Ahenobarbus was a cognomen used in ancient Rome meaning "gold beard." Its use seems to have been reserved exclusively for men of the Domitii gens (family), who may have received it in the early years of the Roman Republic. For those unfamiliar with the Roman system of naming, most men had three names: the praenomen, which was the equivalent of a first name; the nomen, which was the equivalent of a modern surname (which described the aforementioned gens); and a cognomen, which was something like a more specific surname either given to or adopted by one member of a certain gens for the purposes of differentiation. For example, the gens Junii was one of the oldest in Rome (with ties to the Etruscan kings), and had many branches. One member, Lucius Junius, was ironically given the cognomen "Brutus," which meant "simple" or "stupid," in recognition of his legendary shrewdness (think of huge tough guys being given the nickname "Tiny"). His direct descendants were thus both Junii and Brutii, including his famous descendant Marcus Junius Brutus.

The men of the Domitii who were from the Ahenobarbus branch were all given one of two praenomina: Gnaeus and Lucius. The reasons for this are somewhat obscure, but one story seems to have it that the first distinguished members of the branch lived during the early to middle Republican era and were either two brothers or a father and son with those respective names. Either way, the pattern was firmly and irrevocably established by the second century BC and all Ahenobarbi after this point are demonstrably named Lucius or Gnaeus. The first known Ahenobarbus of consular rank was a Gnaeus, who served in that position in 192 BC, apparently against the opposition of Scipio Africanus, who was at that time the first man in Rome given his nation-saving defeat of Hannibal in the Second Punic War. This makes his election all the more impressive and improbable; a comparable hypothetical upset would have been Michael Dukakis defeating George Bush in the presidential election of 1988. The Ahenobarbi had officially arrived as players in the Roman political scene.

This Gnaeus' grandson, also named Gnaeus, was elected consul in 122 BC and received a triumph (the highest military honor of ancient Rome) for his successes in Gaul. His son of the same name was to date the most accomplished member of the family, having held the offices of Tribune of the plebs, pontifex maximus (chief priest), consul (96 BC), and finally censor, the most senior office of the Republic. The consuls had all the executive authority, but it was the censors who were responsible for maintaining public morality and carrying out the census. This is significant because the Roman census did not just record residency, it recorded class. A patrician who fell out of favor with a given censor could find himself demoted to the rank of equestrian or even plebeian or could be kicked out of the Roman Senate for engaging in poor public behavior (for example, Cato removed a man from the Senate for kissing his wife on the cheek in public!). This Gnaeus' brother, Lucius, was consul for the year 94 BC.

The Ahenobarbi, like the rest of the Roman aristocracy, were forced to choose sides in the civil war between Gaius Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in the first century BC. A certain Lucius (consul 54 BC) and his son Gnaeus (consul 32 BC) supported Pompey against Caesar, the former going so far as to command a Pompeian legion at the Battle of Pharsalus and dying there in 48 BC. His son abandoned Pompey and threw his lot in with Caesar, who won the war. After Caesar's assassination, Gnaeus allied himself with the Liberatores, (i.e. his cousin Brutus and Gaius Longinus Cassius), but later switched sides and joined Marcus Antonius and the forces of the Second Triumvirate. When Antonius and Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, the grand nephew and adopted son of Julius Caesar, came to blows, Gnaeus joined Octavian but died in 31 BC shortly after the conclusion of the war. Gnaeus' son, Lucius, was consul in the year 16 BC, and earned a reputation for bizarre and vexatious behavior that disgusted many of his contemporaries (but not, apparently, the Emperor Augustus, who named him in his will). Lucius' son, Gnaeus, was consul in 32 AD, and was married to Agrippina the Younger, the sister of the future Emperor Caligula. His reputation is similar to that of his father's, known as he was for his spitefulness and indolence.

The most famous Ahenobarbus is Lucius, the son of the most recently mentioned Gnaeus and his wife Agrippina, although history does not remember him by that name. Gnaeus died in 40 AD and his brother-in-law, the Emperor, was killed the following year. Caligula was succeeded by his uncle Claudius, who was a competent administrator but a horrible judge of character with a weakness for manipulative women. After a series of failed marriages, Claudius was seduced by his niece Agrippina, who eventually convinced him to adopt her son (his grand nephew) Lucius as his chief beneficiary (and primary successor) over his own biological son. Claudius, drunk with lust, relented and following Roman adoption convetions, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus became known as Nero Claudius Caesar Germanicus, usually known just by the name Nero. Nero succeeded Claudius after his mother allegedly poisoned the latter, and was considered an acceptable candidate for the highest office in the land because of his genetic acceptability (he was one of two living male blood descendants of Augustus; the other died under mysterious circumstances). Nero, of course, is famous for arranging the murder of his mother, subjecting the Roman populace to his singing and lyre-playing, starting the first major persecution of Christians in the Empire, and coopting a third of the city of Rome's public property for his own use after the Great Fire. Nero committed suicide in 68 after a widespread rebellion exploded against him with the words "what an artist the world is losing in me!"

The Ahenobarbi do not appear in the historical record after the death of Nero. The broader Domitii gens, however, continued to be prominent in Roman politics, with the emperors Titus and Domitian being distantly related to the clan on their mother's side and the third century-era barracks emperor Aurelian being a true, blue Domitius.

The Triple Alliance was an agreement signed in 1882 by Austria-Hungary, Italy and Germany, to protect themselves in the event of an attack.
ARTICLE 1: The high contracting parties mutually promise peace and friendship, and will enter into no alliance or engagement directed against any one of their States.

ARTICLE 2: In case France should attack Italy, without direct provocation on her part, for any reason whatsoever, the two other Contracting Parties shall be bound to lend help and assistance with all their forces to the Party attacked.

This same obligation without direct provocation by France against Germany.

ARTICLE 3: If one, or two, of the High Contracting Parties, without direct provocation on their part, should chance to be attacked and engaged in a war with two or more Great Powers non-signatory to the present Treaty, the casus foederis will arise simultaneously for all the HIgh COntracting Parties

ARTICLE 4: In case a Great Power non-signatory to the present Treaty should threaten the security of the states of one of the High Contracting Parties, and the threatened Party should find itself forced on that account to make war against it, the two others bind themselves to observe towards their Ally a benevolent neutrality. Each of them reserves to itself, in this case, the right to take part in the war, if it should see fit, to make common cause with its Ally

ARTICLE 5: If the peace of any of High Contracting Parties should chance to be threatened under the circumstances foreseen by the preceding Articles, the High Contracting Parties shall take counsel together in ample time as to the military measures to be taken with a view to eventual co-operation

ARTICLE 6: The High Contracting Parties mutually promise secrecy as to the contents and existence of the present Treaty

ARTICLE 7: The present Treaty shall remain in force during the space of 5 years, dating from the day of the exchange of ratifications

ARTICLE 8: The ratifications of the present Treaty shall be exchanged at Vienna within three weeks, or sooner if may be

Done at Vienna, the twentieth day of the month of May of the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two.

Why did Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy sign the Triple Alliance?

Germany and Austria saw the inclusion of Italy as another element in their security as another Power had agreed assistance or neutrality in the event of them being attacked. (NB: Germany and Austria retained their separate agreement to support each other against Russia as outlined in the Dual Alliance)

Italy signed the Alliance because of its relative weakness and the recognition of its vulnerability in the event of an attack by a more powerful nation. At this point Italy saw France as its greatest threat since historically France had controlled much of Northwestern Italy and in 1881 France had 'beaten' Italy in the scramble for control of Tunisia in North Africa. Tunisia was only 90 miles from Sicily and seen by Italians as a natural point for their expansion

However, it must be noted that Italy did not take this alliance seriously. Italy later signed secret agreements with France and Russia in which Italy's obligations actually cancelled each other out. Italy would also claim that the terms of the Triple Alliance did not apply to the assassination crisis of June 1914 and thus Italy stayed neutral until 1915.




Some bright spark will realise that this looks like an essay, well, thats because it is part of one!!! !

The Battle of Grunwald (Battle of Grünfelde, Battle of Tannenberg : German, Battle of Zalgiris : Lithuanian) was fought on July 15, 1410 between the Knights of the Order of Teutonic Knights and the commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania. One of the most important battles in European history and especially in that of the eastern Baltic, the Battle of Grunwald would reshape an entire region and would help to give rise to the new Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as well as the later rise of Prussia, who, at least in name, rose from the ashes of the Teutonic Order.


The location of the battle is held as the town of Grunwald (Tannenberg) in what was once East Prussia and is now part of northeastern Poland. The Teutonic Order, originally brought into the Baltic region at the behest of the king of Poland to convert and pacify the pagan tribes of area, had permanently settled in the region and made war against most all of its neighbors. With the conversion of Lithuania to Catholicism and the subsequent unification of the Polish and Lithuanian lands under King Wladyslaw II the Order had lost their mandate to pacify the region, as no real official pagan lands were left in the area, and the stage was set towards a final showdown between the Teutonic Order and a Polish-Lithuania commonwealth that had grown to fear their northern neighbors.

The stage for the battle was actually set the previous year, when some Samogitian tribes revolted against the Order’s control. The tribes requested assistance from the Lithuanian Grand Duke Witold and, through him, the Polish king, Wladyslaw, in defending their lands from the Teutonic forces. The preliminary war lasted only a few skirmishes though, with the Teutonic Order’s Grand Master, Ulrich von Jungingen, calling for a truce until June 24th of 1410. The two sides now backed off as agreed, but both began to muster their strength and the field was set for the final showdown in between Poland and the Order, for dominance over the Baltic region.

Opening Movements

The Polish-Lithuanian forces began their 1410 offensive with a feint towards Marienburg (now Malbork). Driving towards the Dwerca River, the Polish forces had learned that the Order had arranged their forces on the other side of the river. In response to the fortified position of the Teutonic Order, the Polish led alliance’s forces (hereafter simply the alliance) moved directly north and sacked the town of Dabrowno. The alliance now moved towards the town of Grunwald, while the Order responded predictably and followed. By July 14, the two armies where camped mere kilometers away; the order stopping at Grunwald after a 20 kilometer, one day, march, the alliance in three camps near Ulnowo. The opponents were arranged and ready, and the next day would bring one of the most important battles of its time.

Troop Deployments

Between the two towns, the lay of the land contained open space, marshes and wooded areas. Both sides used at least one of these areas to their advantage as they arranged their forces. The Order stretched its lines from the Grunwald, where to town itself became the bulwark for the left flank, to Lodwigowo, where both the town itself and the nearby marshes formed another bulwark. Along their line, they deployed in several ranks, with infantry, archers and what artillery the Order had forming the front rank and the knights themselves forming two ranks behind this foot soldiers. As well, a reserve force of some 16 units was deployed near Grunwald and behind the center of the Order’s forces. Among the commanders; the left was commanded by Marshal Freidrich Wallenrod, the right by Marshal Konrad von Lichtenstein and the center by Hochmeister von Jungingen.

The alliance force’s deployments are only known in more general terms, but we do know that the Lithuanians under Grand Duke Witold were on the right flank, with the Polish forces on the left and the myriad Russian, Tatar, Bohemian and Maldavian vassal forces bridging the gap between the two forces. The Polish forces are documented to have created two or three lines of cavalry within their deployment, with two additional squads of cavalry deployed as reserves behind the left and center flanks. As well another few full units were placed in the forest behind the lines, with King Wladyslaw setting up his command between where those units were hiding and the Polish front lines.

The Armies

The strength of the two armies varies widely depending on the chronicle chosen. The Teutonic Order’s number of soldiers ranges from 18,000 to over 80,000 men, while the alliance’s force total ranges from 26,000 to over 163,000. Of the latter number for the alliance, it included an estimate that claimed 100,000 vassal Tatar forces were in the alliance army. One though has trouble believing that considering the Tatar’s role in the battle to come. Furthermore, claims state that all of the Order’s banners were captured, with numbers of banners ranging from the low 50s to the 60s.

A large part of the Order’s forces are said to have been comprised of vassals of the order and adventurers of various types. Overall the cavalry of the Order was the predominant force and their number is believed to have actually been around 20,000 men strong, a considerable force. As well the Order had 10,000 to 20,000 infantry and armed commoners, which included bowmen and is believed to have included mercenary forces. Finally, the Order is known to have possessed some significant part of its military strength in the battle represented in artillery.

Claims tend to put the alliance’s forces at or around 50,000 total troops, with about 20,000 Polish cavalry, including about 10,000 light cavalry, or retainers, and about 5,000 Polish infantry. The numbers vary for the Polish forces though and some sources place the Polish strength at significantly fewer and no more than 20,000 mounted soldiers. Among the other forces supporting the Polish were Lithuanians, Russians, Tatars and some Bohemian and Moldavian forces. Of these the Lithuanians were the most important and are said to have had about 10,000 to 15,000 cavalry. Also present were about 3,000 Tatar light cavalry and a few Russian banners from around Smolensk. Overall the infantry strength between all the banners is said to have been as high as 17,000 strong. As well the alliance forces are said to have had some small artillery presence.

Overall though, it should be noted that while the Polish side was the more numerous by whatever count is used, the Teutonic Order was a marvelous fighting force. They had some of the best commanders in the world, at the time and were heavily armored and indeed more wisely armored than their Polish counterpart. Indeed, where as those armored soldiers in the allied forces tended towards heavy plate and other such thick and very heavy protection, the Order's forces tended towards chain and mixed plate, something that offered nearly as much protection as thick plate, but was far less restrictive in the individual soldiers fighting capabilities and stamina. Whatever might happen, the common Polish or Lithuanian soldier of the alliance forces must have known that he was about to go into battle against an enemy that was in all ways more prepared and skilled in battle than they would ever be themselves. This had to be an unnerving thought for those involved on the alliances side; for indeed they were about to tangle with one of the most effective fighting forces ever seen in Europe, a fact which surely did not slip their minds.

Battle of Grunwald

The battle is said to have opened around nine am of July 15th, with some small skirmishes by both side’s light cavalry and rather insignificant bombardments by the Order’s small cannon. The first main struggle is said to have been started by the Lithuanians on the right flank, who charged the Order’s lines, heading for the cavalry and the cannons in the vicinity. Their immediate effect was spectacular as the Order’s forces fell back, losing most of their cannon and large quantities of troops. Though the initial victory is attributed to the Lithuanians, many agree that much of the damage to the order’s foot soldiers was probably caused by their own fleeing heavy cavalry.

It is not apparent whether at this time the Tatar forces under the alliance broke under battle or contrived a fake retreat, but it is known that at least one, if not many of the Tatar units fled towards their camp in the early stages of the battle, where they were pursued by some of the Order’s forces. Meanwhile, the commander of the right flank, von Wallenrod, committed his reserves against the Lithuanians and managed to steady his line and force Witold in turn to commit his own reserves to the battle. As well, the left flank of the Order’s forces now charged the opposing Polish forces, who met them in the field with their own cavalry charge. On the left flank, the fighting was said to have been relatively even.

By this time though, both sides had committed significant portions of their forces along almost the entire front. But, with the exception of the right flank, where Witold and von Wallenrod struggled, both sides had reserves left as well as some of their main forces actually not committed to any one area of the conflict as of yet. Indeed, even von Wallenrod had managed to hold back one of his main lines of troops, an act which would sharply shape the next period of the fighting.

When von Wallenrod committed his last set of troops to the struggle, the Lithuanian forces began to buckle under the pressure. The Lithuanian troops are said to have finally broken into an open rout and fled the field under the onslaught. Some fled towards the lake and the forest where the Polish and Russian forces where, while others are said to have fled through the screening marshes. Von Wallenrod would have had an opportunity now to smash the alliance’s right flank now, but some Russian units and a few reformed Lithuanian forces managed to stabilize the line in the area, albeit on a nearly ninety degree angle from the previous alliance line. And though one of the Russian units was completely destroyed in the action to stabilize the line, enough time was gained that Polish reinforcements could be deployed to re-invigorate the forces on the right.

While the chamberlain of Krakow was busy reinforcing the right flank though his position was stormed by the Order’s troops. Both himself and his standard bearer, Marcin of Wrocimovic, were wounded in the fighting and the standard of Krakow fell to the enemy. Being the main standard of the army, the Order believed the day had been won and surged forth en masse. Unfortunately for the Order’s troops, a unit of Polish knights also charged into the area and recovered the chamberlain, his standard bearer and the Krakow standard. Along the left front though, things were not going great for the alliance forces. The Order’s troops had been freed up to assault the left more heavily and Wladyslaw was forced to use his reinforcements. This though allowed the stabilizing of the right flank and brought some of the pressure off of the entire line.

Now though the battle was nearing an end. Both sides had committed the majority of their forces it was down to the men in the front lines as to who would eventually claim victory. Along what was once the far right flanks of the two armies, the Order’s pursuing troops finally caught up with some of the Lithuanian forces, but it was at this time that the last hidden troops of the alliance emerged. The Polish cavalry, hidden in the forest since the beginning of the battle, charged into the Order’s forces. This allowed the Lithuanian forces to stabilize and to rejoin the battle. The Order’s forces in the area were driven into the marsh and slaughtered nearly to the man. Nearly at the same as the Lithuanian and Polish knights were finally fighting back against their pursuers, Hochmeister von Jungingen deployed 16 reserve units to the right, hoping to completely destroy the alliance’s right flank.

One of the units sent in by von Jungingen managed to slide around the far side of the alliance’s forces and narrowly missed the Polish King’s own small force. It was said that only one knight of the Order’s forces manage to notice the king and the ensuing duel, supposedly happening during a lull in battle, signaled the final stage of the struggle. Though there may have indeed been a lull in battle, for both sides seem to have made some changes to their formations and prepared for a final onslaught; whatever happened, the battle was nearing its ultimate climax. Following the supposed duel, Wladyslaw was said to have send his infantry into the massed up Order cavalry. The effect was said to have been devastating to the Order’s forces. And even more so, Witold, the Lithuanian Grand Duke, is said to have been able to rally the Lithuanian forces and now launched an attack on the Order’s rear.

Whether Witold really did manage to make that decisive attack, or it was simply the end of the line for the Order’s flagging troops, along with some small fighting to the rear, the fact of the matter is that Hochmeister von Jungingen saw that his army’s position was near helpless. A controlled retreat of the Order’s forces was ordered, but coincided with the Polish forces breaking through the middle of the Order’s lines. Now instead of one fighting force, the Order was split in two, both of which were quickly surrounded. The fight quickly degenerated from there until the point where von Jungingen was pulled from his horse and killed. From that moment on, the battle was a battle no more and simply a slaughter.

When the final tallies were read, the Teutonic Order’s records claimed 18,000 of their soldiers dead and 14,000 captured to only 5,000 dead alliance soldiers and 8,000 wounded. In the days following the Battle at Grunwald most of the Order’s fortresses surrendered to the Polish forces, though Marienburg itself hung on until the Polish left the region in September of 1410. Areas of the former Order would eventually become the Grand Duchy of Prussia and pledge fealty to Poland. Even later they would join with the German state of Brandenburg to become one of the centers of a new Prussian state. Poland and Lithuania on the other hand would experience a long period of dominance in the region, following the battle, which slowly ended at the hands of Russian, Swedish and German forces, as well as bickering among the electorates.

Tannenberg, Battle of. (2006). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service
and some other sources I lost in the death of a flash drive.