Vienna 1683 - 325 anniversary of saving Europe

1. I mentioned that the role of Poles what not a question of quantity but quality. Couple thousnad of hussars were used in the most difficult moment of the battle against stronger (by quantity, enemy).

2. "Polish contribution was not fundamental" - here I would like to give a voice to German and Austrian officers after battle - there are some memmories, I recommend to read them.

And I recommend to read some memmories from the visit of the delegates of Holy Pope and Habsburgs to the king Sobieski before the battle, when they were asking Sobieski for help on their knees, for saving Christianity and Vienna. If Polish contribution was not fundamental why they did it? They were comedians or smth?

East Europe in general has been of little priority, it's only lately that general works on European history tend to include significant chapters on the east as well. Even so, few people are aware of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its golden age.

Your right, it is pur speculation. So, let us speculate.

Very important date in European history this. I'll leave it to the moralists to decide whether its a 'good' thing or not, but few can deny that it was eventually a positive effect for Europe, considering the restrictive practises of the Ottomons when the rest of Europe was entering the Enlightenment.

I have a certain 'blank period' in the 100 years up to the European Enlightenment so there is a good chance that what I said was simply factually incorrect. However, I do feel that since the epicentre of the Enlightenment was west, and not east, that an Ottomon dominance over central Europe would have been detrimental to the spread of Enlightenment ideals (Considering the tendency of large Empires to look inwards in times of international change, it would have left some of the great cultural hearts of Europe - such as Austria - at the whims of an Empire trying to maintain control of a vastly different populace. You could almost say that this nationalist struggle would have dampened creative voices in the region, as energies would have been better devoted to military rather than intellectual struggle.)

Of course, this is only guesswork, and there is no way of ever knowing.

Well, that is right. But all that situation was exactly the result of let's use this word - quality of husaria: after all night march, they faced about 8 times stronger enemy. Although tired after marching they immediatelly go to battle against that enemy, they are charging 10 times Russian and Swedish lines, crushing all lances and then using sabres. That is why Swedish started to flee from battlefield, and then Russians.

Husaria would not have been able to win that battle without significant participation of the Polish infantry - which defeated the superior in numbers Swedish infantry in fire combat and then pushed it aside from its defensive lines along the stone fence.

Only then Husaria was able to start its action and overcome the stone fence - which would have been an almost impassable obstacle even for husaria with thousands of pikes and muskets behind it.

Similar thing was during the battle of Vienna - it was Polish and German infantry which cleaned the way for cavalry (for example - covered Turkish trenches and holes) to charge down the hill.


Edited by Domen - 10-Feb-2009 at 22:40

But it was Polish infantry and artillery, not cavalry, who captured the stone fence defended by the Swedish infantry and made the way for further cavalry charge clear & safe.

and were destroyed by hussars, who in the beginning of the battle on their feet using guns prepared the battlefield.

Well..., maybe - but dismounted hussars are also infantry, not cavalry.

Fences were not made by stone but wood

Insignificant difference.


Edited by Domen - 10-Feb-2009 at 22:51

And by the way - during the battle of Warsaw in 1656, Husaria and infantry were the only Polish formations which did well during that battle, but it was infantry not Husaria who saved ass of the Polish army because was successfully covering its withdrawal against pushing forward Swedish forces.

Polish infantry with support of artillery held on bridges on the Vistula and did not allow the Swedes to capture them - and thanks to that Polish army could withdraw and was not completely defeated.

Husaria charge during that battle was also succesful, but it did not receive any support of light and medium cavalry + dragoons, so finally heavily outnumberred and almost encircled Hussars had to withdraw to avoid destruction (and - by the way - Husaria casualties during this charge were relatively very low - especcialy considering how many thousands of Swedish muskets and guns were firing to 750 charging Polish hussars).

Well. It only gives a prove about that hussars were universal formation, able to confront any opponent of that time, in any kind of fight.

But not alone.

They needed support of other formations - as every cavalry, even Husaria.

They could win battles alone, but to confront any opponent they needed support of other formations.

Especcialy Cossacs + Tatars were dangerous enemies for Husaria. Cossacs alone and Tatars alone were easy to beat, but fighting together they were very dangerous.

Unfortunately during the later period Polish army was not always able to provide this support - especcialy after Civil war of 1648 and later war with Russia - when Polish army (especcialy infantry and husaria) suffered huge casualties due to fatal decisions of Polish authorities and due to some poor commanders who lost some battles which should have been easilly won.


Edited by Domen - 10-Feb-2009 at 23:05