# Talk:Stanisław Żółkiewski

"He was the first European invader of Russia to seize Moscow and the only one who ever captured it."
I don't really understand what this sentence is trying to say. It implies that there are invaders that have seized Moscow, but did not capture it. 'Seizure' and 'Capture' are synonyms, are they not? Maybe it means to say he besieged Moscow AND captured it, which other invaders could not accomplish. This sentence has a note attached which is also puzzling:
"In 1812 Napoleon captured Moscow but actual Russian capital was then Saint Petersburg."
It clearly states that Napoleon captured Moscow, thus Zolkiewski could not be "the only one who ever captured it." Also, the fact that Moscow was not the capital of Russia has nothing to do with anything.
This is not even addressing the fact that, at least according to the Wikipedia article on the Polish-Muskovite War, the Poles were let in by a faction of the Boyars, thus the city was no so much captured as surrendered.
Perhaps some Polish or Russian users more knowledgeable than I could clear this up, because as it stands, this boastful statement seems like something that should be corrected or pruned out altogether. D Boland (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence, I hope it is more clear now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If somebody has access to Nagielski (or another source with the info), could they clarify this sentence:
After the battle his corpse was desecrated with the head cut off and sent to Constantinople as a war trophy. His body was given to his servants to be taken to Poland.<ref name="Nagielski1995-139"/> It was later bought by his widow, together with Żółkiewski's son who was taken captive during the battle.
Did his widow buy his body from the servants? Or the head, from the Turks? Did the son chip in some money to buy whichever one, or was the son's freedom also purchased by the widow?
 Volunteer Marek  22:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: according to Pl wiki the widow bought the headless body and the son - but from the Turks, not the servants. Volunteer Marek  22:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, for this claim:
seized Moscow, a distinction Żólkiewski shares with only two other European military leaders: De la Gardie and Napoleon
Everyone knows Napoleon, but not everyone knows "De la Gardie". This should be clarified and linked. Also, which De la Gardie are we talking about here, Jacob or Pontus? I'm assuming Jacob, but in that case I'm not sure if that really counts. Volunteer Marek  22:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I won't have access to the sources till December. The widow part will need to be clarified; it is a remnant of an old version of this article. I've tried to c/e the text to make it more clear. Jacob De la Gardie linked in lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know (I might be wrong), the Russians just let De la Gardie into Moscow so he could help put down a rebellion. He was an ally of Russia at the time. I don't think he really "seized" or "captured" it. I did a quick search for "Zolkiewski seized Moscow" and lots of stuff turns up (as expected). If you do a search for "Gardie seized Moscow" nothing turns up. So unless there is a source which directly compares Zolkiewski to Bonaparte and De la Gardie here, I don't see a need for this sentence - I've removed it. Volunteer Marek  01:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll give you the De La Gardie part, but I think it is worthwile to leave the Napoleon comparison, and a note about taking Moscow, in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: [1].
From [2], p.337: . Po wtóre Żółkiewski był dla potomnych wzorem rzymskich cech prawości i męstwa, ale nie z tej racji, że dewizą była mu cnota Katonów i że wydał Swazoriie (suasoriae, tj. starozytne zachęty zawierające z mężnych przykładów pobudkę to cnoty), lecz dlatego, że te żołnierskie cnoty nieustannie praktykował przez całe swe życie. Na ostatek, bohaterska śmierć na polu bitwy, jaką zginął sędziwy hetman (miał 73 lata), zapewniła mu poczesne miejsce w polskim panteonie obrońców ojczyzny i męczenników narodowych  a do otaczającej jego postać legendy walnie przyczynił się król Jan III, polecając w 1689 r. odnowić jego sarkofag. That work also seems to discuss more examples of art (pictures, poem) dedicated to him, but it is a snippet view and thus a pain to read :( 
From [3], p.4: "Przyzwyczajono się patrzeć na Żółkiewskiego jak na bohatera i „męczennika" — tak nauczyła nas legenda, która przez wieki narosła wokół jego osoby." (snippet view again)
From [4], p.4: "Rozpamiętywały zgon Żółkiewskiego całe pokolenia, opiewali ten zgon poeci, z zadumą zatrzymywali się nad nim dziejopisowie. Z czasem legenda cecorska przesłoniła szerokiemu ogółowi inne dzieła hetmana." 
(snippet view again)
From [5]: "Bohaterska śmierć hetmana obrosła jednak legendą".
From [6]: "Legenda, która powstała wokół symbolicznej śmierci najwybitniejszego z nich – hetmana Stanisława – wpłynęła w niemałym stopniu na losy i wychowanie jego prawnuka Jana Sobieskiego."
[7] provies some interesting discussion, but I can't verify the existence of the book, so it does not appear to be a reliable source. However, I certainly believe there is plenty of sources to justify some mention of "Żółkiewski's legend". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be fine (even desirable) to mention the "legend" but it should be stated clearly (esp. the part about the "Christian knight" was confusing). Also, that first source you mention - the text is pretty close to what we had in the article which would be a close paraphrase. Volunteer Marek  23:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you add something about the legend to the article using the above sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)