Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Polish Winged Hussars?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1314151617 19>
Poll Question: Were the Winged Hussars the best cavalry untis in the time period?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
73 [60.33%]
14 [11.57%]
30 [24.79%]
4 [3.31%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Polish Winged Hussars?
    Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 17:28
They won Gniew and Kletsk

Edited by Count Belisarius - 04-Feb-2009 at 17:39


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 17:51
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

They won Gniew and Kletsk
 
They weren't defeated at Gniew. It's not the same. The Poles also weren't defeated at Gniew. It was a drawn.
Kłeck - the Swedes lost 500 killed, while the Poles 70. Who won Smile?
 
About Kircholm - it's from Frost's book 'The Northern Wars 1558-1721':
 
'the 8,368 [Swedish] infantry formed fifty companies, of which eighteen (36 per cent) were foreign mercenaries, under two experienced western commanders.'
 
'Together with the western mercenaries in the cavalry, they [foreign mercenaries] outnumbered Jan Karol Chodkiewicz's entire army'
 
'At least 3,350 of the infantry were armed with piks or halberds, virtually the size of the whole Lithuanian army'


Edited by ataman - 04-Feb-2009 at 17:52
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810 		  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 17:57
Originally posted by ataman

 
Nothing is invicible. Hussars too. I pointed out that there were more pikemen at Kircholm than hussars. And you confirm it. But maybe indeed most of them were Swedish not German (I have to check it).


Well, I'd just like to point out that the Swedish army at Kircholm (and during the whole war for that matter) was quite worthless, in tactics, training and equipment. The too common glorification of the hussars using that battle as an example is not really objective. The Russian rabble excuse of an army at Klushino was even worse. When the Poles started getting decent opposition their record changed dramatically. This is aimed not at you but mainly at other posters in this and other thread.

But yes, you are correct, there were around 3,500 pikemen in the Swedish army, ie at least twice as many as hussars.

Originally posted by ataman


Swedish infantry protected by caltrops Smile. They were caltrops which stopped hussars. Even Swedish general Vellingk stated that hussars withstood Swedish salvo in a good order.

Granted. The hussars had lost much of their lances as well. Smile

 
Originally posted by ataman

On the other hand I can give you examples, when unprotected by obstacles Gustaw's infantry didn't stop hussars - battle of Mitawa 1622 and battle of Riga 1621. Either piks or muskets didn't stop hussars in these battles.
BTW, the battle of Mitawa is also the example that a ditch was able to stop hussars. After a defeat of part of Swedish pike-shot infantry in the open field, the rest infantrymen hid behind a ditch. And hussars weren't able to charge them in this situation.

Their use was discontinued since they were deemed not worth the hazzle to carry around. Can't give you any specific examples though.





Edited by Styrbiorn - 04-Feb-2009 at 17:59
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 18:52
Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Well, I'd just like to point out that the Swedish army at Kircholm (and during the whole war for that matter) was quite worthless, in tactics, training and equipment. The too common glorification of the hussars using that battle as an example is not really objective. The Russian rabble excuse of an army at Klushino was even worse.
 
Although most of Swedish army at Kircholm and Russian army at Kłuszyn wasn't so good, the professional parts (mercenary foreigners) of Swedish army at Kircholm and Russian army at Kłuszyn were more numerous than whole Polish and Lithuanian army. So I can't agree that hussars won these battles because they met rabbles.
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn


When the Poles started getting decent opposition their record changed dramatically.
 
The things changed dramatically, when Swedish army began to use obstacles (in 1620's) and when Polish army lost its professionalism (in 1650's). Few people remember that when Sweden attacked Poland from third side (PLC waged already 2 wars - vs Cossacks and Russians), 80% of Polish army consisted almost worthless common levy.


Edited by ataman - 04-Feb-2009 at 18:53
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 19:17
whenever reading this or similar threads, one big question comes to mind: if Hussars were so good, why did Poland-Lithuania even bother having other cavalry than Hussars and even infantry?
Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109 		  Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 19:22

The Hussars made up eighty five percent of the army


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810 		  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 19:24
Originally posted by ataman

 
Although most of Swedish army at Kircholm and Russian army at Kłuszyn wasn't so good, the professional parts (mercenary foreigners) of Swedish army at Kircholm and Russian army at Kłuszyn were more numerous than whole Polish and Lithuanian army. So I can't agree that hussars won these battles because they met rabbles.


I never said they won because they met rabble (though that did have a large part of it). I'm not totally sure what we are discussing in this thread, but if it is how good the hussars were in comparison with other cavalry of the same time, neither Kircholm or Klushino are good examples to use because of that very reason. In neither battle the hussars faced the proffessional forces in any ordered form. For example, at Kircholm large parts of the Swedish infantry was ridden down by their own fleeing infantry, then immidiately attacked by the pursuing Poles. The units that were not ridden down could keep their order did not succumb to the Poles, and could retreat even though being completely surrounded and attacked from all directions. The foreign troops were not more numerous than the whole PL army either.

 
Originally posted by ataman

 
The things changed dramatically, when Swedish army began to use obstacles (in 1620's) and when Polish army lost its professionalism (in 1650's).

That's an oversimplification which is not really true. As I said, the obstacles were abandoned and the tactics used to counter them were generally use of volleys interchanged with attacking cavalry and favourable terrain. We can also have a look at pure cavalry fights. For example, the German cavalry squadroons did at several occasions defeat or at least draw Polish cavalryt in head to head cavalry actions (eg at Gorzno, Trzcina, Dirschau). During this time the national Swedish cavalry regiments had much inferior equipment though, and would generally not stand against the hussars.


Edited by Styrbiorn - 04-Feb-2009 at 19:25
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 19:35
Originally posted by Temujin

whenever reading this or similar threads, one big question comes to mind: if Hussars were so good, why did Poland-Lithuania even bother having other cavalry than Hussars and even infantry?
 
How would you like to storm fortress without infantry? Dismount hussars? Yes, sometimes they fought dismounted. But it was wasting of money. Hussars were very expensive. The cost of their equipment was at least 25 higher than the cost of infantrymen' equipment.

And why lighter cavalry? Because it was cheaper than hussars. Only at the peak of Polish prosperity, Polish cavalry consisted of 80% of hussars. This is also the time of the most impressive Polish successes. But when wars exhausted Polish nobility, the number of hussars decreased dramatically. In the first year of so called 'the deluge' Polish cavalry consisted of about 2% of hussars.




Edited by ataman - 04-Feb-2009 at 19:37
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 19:53
Originally posted by Styrbiorn


I'm not totally sure what we are discussing in this thread,
 
By now it is off topic Smile. The original question was:
 
'So what does everyone think about the Hussars beating Pike and shot formations?'
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

but if it is how good the hussars were in comparison with other cavalry of the same time, neither Kircholm or Klushino are good examples to use because of that very reason. In neither battle the hussars faced the proffessional forces in any ordered form.
 
I don't agree.
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

For example, at Kircholm large parts of the Swedish infantry was ridden down by their own fleeing infantry, then immidiately attacked by the pursuing Poles. The units that were not ridden down could keep their order did not succumb to the Poles, and could retreat even though being completely surrounded and attacked from all directions.
 
We were talking about it a long time ago. And if you remember, I've quoted primary source which states that the first action in the battle of Kircholm was smashing ready to fight squardron of Swedish pike-shot infantry. They weren't ride down by own cavalry, because Swedish cavalry wasn't involved in the fight yet.
Though it is also true that second Swedish line of infantry was smashed because it was ridden down by own cavalry.
 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

The foreign troops were not more numerous than the whole PL army either.
 
R.I.Frost 'The Norther Wars' p. 64:
'Together with the western mercenaries in the cavalry, they [foreign mercenaries] outnumbered Jan Karol Chodkiewicz's entire army'


 
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

That's an oversimplification which is not really true. As I said, the obstacles were abandoned and the tactics used to counter them were generally use of volleys interchanged with attacking cavalry and favourable terrain. We can also have a look at pure cavalry fights. For example, the German cavalry squadroons did at several occasions defeat or at least draw Polish cavalryt in head to head cavalry actions (eg at Gorzno, Trzcina, Dirschau).
 
Górzno? AFAIK German cavalry didn't fight alone. There were also Swedish infantrymen. And all together they outnumbered Polish hussars very much.
Trzciana? The Swedes lost the battle.
Dirschau? What exactly do you mean with this battle?


Edited by ataman - 04-Feb-2009 at 19:54
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 20:36
Originally posted by ataman

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

That's an oversimplification which is not really true. As I said, the obstacles were abandoned and the tactics used to counter them were generally use of volleys interchanged with attacking cavalry and favourable terrain. We can also have a look at pure cavalry fights. For example, the German cavalry squadroons did at several occasions defeat or at least draw Polish cavalryt in head to head cavalry actions (eg at Gorzno, Trzcina, Dirschau).
 
Górzno? AFAIK German cavalry didn't fight alone. There were also Swedish infantrymen. And all together they outnumbered Polish hussars very much.
Trzciana? The Swedes lost the battle.
Dirschau? What exactly do you mean with this battle?


in general, within a purely european context we can say that the Polish-Lithuanian cavalry was most likely the best (not considdering Ottoman cavalry). however i wouldn't go as far as to extent that globally.

and please add some informations about those cavalry actions mentioned above.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943 		  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 13:07
Originally posted by Temujin

in general, within a purely european context we can say that the Polish-Lithuanian cavalry was most likely the best (not considdering Ottoman cavalry). however i wouldn't go as far as to extent that globally.


It raises the question of what exactly justifies their position as the best in Europe, or rather, who were their main contenders and how did these fall short compared with the Polish Hussars? The same question could be asked concerning how the Polish Hussars compared with similar types of Ottoman cavalry.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 19:19
diversity of cavalry force, numbers, rate of sucess and tactics. second in europe i would call the cavalry of the Habsburg domains. don't know why Ottomans won in some cases but certainly numbers play into this as well as the cavalry traditions particularly of auxiliary forces like the Crimean Tatars.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 19:29
Originally posted by Reginmund

Originally posted by Temujin

in general, within a purely european context we can say that the Polish-Lithuanian cavalry was most likely the best (not considdering Ottoman cavalry). however i wouldn't go as far as to extent that globally.


It raises the question of what exactly justifies their position as the best in Europe, or rather, who were their main contenders and how did these fall short compared with the Polish Hussars? The same question could be asked concerning how the Polish Hussars compared with similar types of Ottoman cavalry.
 
The only encounter between Poles and habsburg army has taken place in 1588 durin Battle of Byczyna. It was Polish victory. Considering Ottomans there were 4 main battles: 2 battles of Chocim, Battle of Vienna and Battle of Cecora. Only last of them was won by Ottomans. From what I've read Hussars considered Ottomans their toughest enemy.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 19:33

Habsburgs had a good cavalry because of their Hungarian domains. Hungarians are kind of fathers of European cavalry. 
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 19:46
Poles also lost the first day of the battle of Parkany. also Hungarian Hussars only influenced european light cavalry (except Poland). at Byczyna only a small fragment of Habsburg soldiers fought, not the main army, don't know about the Polish army. when i mentioned Habsburg domains i was also thinking of Croats, also if you want to include Spain, Spain also had considerably good cavalry.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 20:18
Originally posted by Temujin

Poles also lost the first day of the battle of Parkany. also Hungarian Hussars only influenced european light cavalry (except Poland). at Byczyna only a small fragment of Habsburg soldiers fought, not the main army, don't know about the Polish army. when i mentioned Habsburg domains i was also thinking of Croats, also if you want to include Spain, Spain also had considerably good cavalry.
 
Yes, but they also won the second day of the Battle.
At Byczyna there was also only a small part of Polish army. The forces were equal. The fact is a fact that Habsburgs lost. Archduke Maxymilian III was imprisoned. And all this in times were Poland didn't have a king.  
Hungarians and Serbs also influenced Polish Winged Hussars so they had an impact not only on light cavalry. Why do You think Hungarians didn't influence Polish light cavalry? They did influence it as well as e.g. Tartars. 
 
Croats and Spanish had good cavalry although Spanish are more famous from their excellent infantry.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 21:07
well second day Parkany was won mainly by the Imperial and princely forces, not by the Poles. in regards to Hungarian cavalry or more preciesly Hussars, in regards to all of Europe, except Poland-Lithuania, Hussars were light cavalry, only in Poland-Lithuania Hussars were heavy cavalry. and Hussars originate from Bosnia/Serbia, Hungary only adopted them like Poland and the rest of Europe eventually. European heavy cavalry other than Polish-Lithuanian was not Balkan-influenced at all. 
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 05:47
Originally posted by Temujin


and please add some informations about those cavalry actions mentioned above.


These are 3 battles of so called 'Prussian war' - the war between Poland and Sweden waged in Royal (Polish) Prussia in years 1626-1629.

There were 5 battles in this war, which involved hussars:

  • the battle of Gniew (Swedish name Mewe) 1626; it was a drawn; the battle saw a broad use of obstacles by the Swedes, which were stopping hussar charges.

  • the battle of Czarne (Hammerstein) 1627; won by the Poles

  • the battle of Tczew (Dirschau) 1627; won by the Poles

  • the battle of Górzno 1629; won by the Swedes

  • the battle of Trzciana (Honigfeld) 1629; won by the Poles

There was also Grudziąc 1628, where both armies met, but Gustaw Adolf didn't want to leave fortified position, while Stanisław Koniecpolski didn't want to attack Swedish earthworks, so both armies dispersed without a battle.


The battle of Górzno happened in winter (on the 12th of February, 1629). The Polish army was in the worse shape in this war. Its real strength was only 30% of its theoretical strength. Unfortunately most of Polish commanders weren't present too (including main commander – Polish hetman Stanisław Koniecpolski, who left the army and went to proceedings of Sejm to 'fight' for money for his army), what led to a big confusion in the army.


All in all, there were less than 4000 Polish soldiers in the battle (but not less than 2300). Swedish army had 6200 soldiers.

This was an exceptional battle, because the Swedes, knowing fatal conditions of Polish army, risked the open field battle.


The action mentioned by Styrbiorn took place close to Zaborowo village (look at the map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Battle_of_Gorzno1629.jpg). First of all, Teuffel's squadron of Swedish musketeers shot to Polish cavalry, which provoked a charge of some hussars (their number was lower than 200). Hussars smashed this squadron of musketeers and with partially broken lances involved themselves in the fight against Wrangel's and Streiff's squadrons of cavalry. During the fight, both sides were supported by next units. But total number of Polish cavalrymen didn't exceed 300 (including 200 hussars and at most 100 cossacks).

The rest of Polish army stayed away and tried to make an order in units but the lack of presence of the bulk of commanders made it impossible. Polish army was so confused that Polish artillery (4 pieces) was shooting to Polish soldiers. So the only ones who (in this phase of the battle; there were some encounters between infantry earlier that day) really fought vs entire Swedish army was this small group of at most 300 cavalrymen. They finally withdraw. The rest of Polish army also withdraw without any fight. Polish casualties: 80 killed cavalrymen and 700 captured infantrymen.



About the battle of Trzciana 1629 – look at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trzciana

Unfortunately there are number of errors in this description. For example both Polish and Swedish armies were smaller; Polish casualties were smaller too (there were not 300 killed, but 250 wounded and killed), etc.



Originally posted by Temujin

well second day Parkany was won mainly by the Imperial and princely forces, not by the Poles.

It was won by allied forces (like the battle of Vienna). Polish cavalry (the same which was smashed in the first day of the battle) fought really hard and effectively.


As far as enemies of Polish cavalry are concerned. Apart from the battle of Cecora 1620, Chocim 1621, Chocim 1673, Vienna 1683 and Parkany 1683, Polish cavalry also fought vs Ottoman cavalry at Kamieniec Podolski (in 1633) and at Bojan (in 1685). Both big battles were won by the Poles. There was also some contingent of Polish cavalry, which supported Hungarians in the battle of Mohacs 1526 (Ottoman victory).


Polish cavalry fought also vs:

  • Hungarian cavalry (from Transylvania) – at Humienne in 1619 (Polish victory).

  • French, English and Flemish cavalry – at Kłuszyn in 1610 (Polish victory).


There were of course numerous battles vs Tartar, Wallahian, Moldavian, Cossack, Russian and Swedish cavalry.


Generally Hapsburgs in 16-17th c. were Polish allies, so apart from the battle of Byczyna 1588, I don't know any other battle where Polish and imperial cavalry fought against each other.

Anyway, Polish lisowczyks supported Emperor during TYW, and participated in a couple of battles in that time.


I don't know about any fight between Polish and Spanish cavalrymen in 16-17th c. Although I know some plan which is relevant to this subject. Spain wanted to hire Polish cavalry (including hussars) in 1639-1640. There were some negotiations, but finally the plan failed.



Edited by ataman - 06-Feb-2009 at 09:26
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810 		  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 06:56
Originally posted by ataman

About the battle of Trzciana 1629 – look at this link:


I mentioned the wrong battle LOL  Don't remember which I meant, and I'm at work now, so I can't contribute more anyway.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 19:45
Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Originally posted by ataman

About the battle of Trzciana 1629 – look at this link:


I mentioned the wrong battle LOL  Don't remember which I meant, and I'm at work now, so I can't contribute more anyway.
 
 
I will lend You a hand. Did You meant Battle of Tczew (Dirschau)?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1314151617 19>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.