Don't know if this is within forum rules so please bear with me. Recently I posted images of a Knight figure found in Potenza Picena and was wondering why a knight was chosen and constructed as a symbol during this event at Monte Cassino. As mentioned earlier "it was built and/or supervised by 2nd Lt. (ppor) Mieczyslaw Bialkiewicz". Later the regiment's commander Col. Ignacy Kowalczewski evoked an old tradition where during chivalric meetings stories of battle & victory were told next to a large bonfire after which the names of the fallen were read out. After each name those present would say "Fell on the field of honor".
Aside from the obvious significance of an "armoured warrior" I have been unable to find and absolute explanation as to why the regiment chose this symbol. The emblem of a knight's armoured arm brandishing a sword was first seen in Poland's armoured formations in the mid 1930's and draws its symbolism from the 13th to17th century. I think it's the symbolism of the figure that is central with its spirit of honor & elite brotherhood with its qualities of camaraderie & equality.
A few quotes from an introduction to heraldry & nobility by Michael Subritzky- Kusza Ct, PNA, pp. on Polish nobility at http://www.pgsa.org/Heraldry/herldintro.php. gives some perspective to this idea:
"By the time feudal knighthood reached Poland in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century Poland had long since implemented her own system of both heraldry and nobility.... Poland possessed no "fountain of honour". The nobility was an exclusive class in which all members were considered equal. Membership into this elite group was attained through either "valorous deeds on the field of honour" - or by adoption.... (Herb Polski)."
"In Polish nobility all knights (szlachta) were equal, all nobles were knights, and all knights were noble.... A coat of arms was exactly what the name implied - the symbol borne on a knight's surcoat and shield in defense of the fatherland."
"Unlike western knights the Polish knight swore no fealty to an overlord but regarded himself rather as the defender of the Commonwealth, its people, and also Christendom."
Is my thinking correct or along the right lines? Any information or enlightenment would be appreciated.