Print Page | Close Window

Polish Winged Hussars?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Early Modern & the Imperial Age
Forum Discription: World History from 1500 to the end of WW1
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=212
Printed Date: 22-Jan-2022 at 06:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Polish Winged Hussars?
Posted By: rider
Subject: Polish Winged Hussars?
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 06:10

Were Hussars the best elite cavalry units in Europe or in the world of that time period(17th, 18th century?

If you think not then say who were better.

I'd say yes, best in the world of 17th century and early 18th....




Replies:
Posted By: boody4
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 12:24
I agree also. I think they were the best, there's much military evidence to show I just don't know it that well to say it.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 12:29
battle of Vienna 1683 (hopefully) with Jan Sobieski to finish of Turks...


Posted By: Keltoi
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 14:19

I'm convinced that they were the best cavalry at any time prior to the 19th century, including the golden horde.



-------------
Cymru am Byth


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2004 at 11:52
actually, when they crushed (3,000) the Swedish army (18,000) at Kirchenholm they were masters of their skill...


Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2004 at 12:49
I said yes because I don't think any other civilizations used cavarly by 17~18th century due to the introduction of Gunpowder.

-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2004 at 22:47

I dunno if they were the best,  personally an interesting match up would be Cataphracts versus Hussar



Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 08:03

i thikn also hussars had better tactics, so i'd say hussars would win...

(and besides, hussars used guns also...)



Posted By: Lannes
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 08:45

Originally posted by demon

I said yes because I don't think any other civilizations used cavarly by 17~18th century due to the introduction of Gunpowder.

The world didn't really quit using cavalry(for all practical purposes) until the early to mid 20th Century.



-------------
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 09:43

Originally posted by rider

actually, when they crushed (3,000) the Swedish army (18,000) at Kirchenholm they were masters of their skill...

The Swedes lost about 5,500 of 11,000, which was catastrophic casualties, but this was in 1605, and soon the Polish Hussars would see an end to their glory days. If you had asked about the 16th century, I had without doubt agreed that they were among the very best, but for the 17th/18th centuries... no. Their way of fighting had become outdated by the mid 17th century, and their tactics were inferior to the combined arms their opponents used.

 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 11:57

collection of the standards

"While the hussar keeps his lance the Poles shall remain masters of the field, when the lance dies so dies Poland's virtue"

I heard no exploit of this unit in 18th century, so it should be wise to limit its foremostness around 16th and 17th century.



Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 12:15

Winged Hussars have became heavy cavalry after reforms of polish king Stephan Batory in the second half of XVI centaury. For about 50 years this formation was a king of battlefield able to crush every other or even combined formation. The best achievements were battle of Kircholm (defeat of 3xbigger Swedish army ) and battle of Klushino (defeat of 5xtimes bigger Russian army). After the reforms of Gustav Adolf western type infantry (especially Swedish) became nearly invincible for the sole cavalry action (including winged hussars). The position of the best cavalry of Europe was held however by winged hussars up to the neraly end of XVII centaury.

In XVIII centaury this formation was just obsolete and with poor morale and trainning was only a "shadow" of  XVII centaury predecessors...

So my answer is: "yes at all" for the period 1570-1620, "best in Europe" up to the 1683 and definitely "no" for the XVIII centaury...

..and I don't know how to vote      



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 12:41
They also took a good beating from Swedish horse in a sole cavalry action during the Deluge. Too bad I don't remember the name of that battle - something they took great pride in, considering the reputation the hussars still had.


Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 13:11

They also took a good beating from Swedish horse in a sole cavalry action during the Deluge. Too bad I don't remember the name of that battle - something they took great pride in, considering the reputation the hussars still had.

Battle of Warsaw 1656 (lost by Poles) - action of  800- 1000 hussars commanded by prince Polubiński crushed  copmletely the reiters of Uppland, Ostgothen and Smaland regiments (sp ?) in the first swedish line but during fierce battle with the sconfd line have been repulsed by the lateral fire of Swedish royal guards reiters and Brandenburgian infantry..The charge was not supported by next polish cavalry units.



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 13:26
Originally posted by TJK

Battle of Warsaw 1656 (lost by Poles) - action of  800- 1000 hussars commanded by prince Polubiński crushed  copmletely the reiters of Uppland, Ostgothen and Smaland regiments (sp ?) in the first swedish line but during fierce battle with the sconfd line have been repulsed by the lateral fire of Swedish royal guards reiters and Brandenburgian infantry..The charge was not supported by next polish cavalry units.

No, it was a sole cavalry battle. Warsaw I had remembered.  

I only has it from memory though, reaindg Englund's Den overvinnerlige (The Invincible, English title), dealing with with Karl X Gustav's wars in Poland and Denmark.

Uppland, Ostgothen and Smaland regiments (sp ?)

The regiments of Uppland, stergtland and Smland (or in the genitive form, Upplands, stgta & Smlands regementen - in English I'd use the first form though).



Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 13:35

No, it was a sole cavalry battle. Warsaw I had remembered.  

I only has it from memory though, reaindg Englund's Den overvinnerlige (The Invincible, English title), dealing with with Karl X Gustav's wars in Poland and Denmark.

Probably what you mean is Battle of Warka 7.04 1656 - Lubomirski&Czarniecki (6800 cavalry) vs margraf Frederick of Baden 2500-3000 cavalry+dragoons) 



Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 15:01
Well, in the war for Estonia between Sweden and Poland the batte of Kirholm wasnt just a single swedish disaster. The whole campaign was going bad for swedes. I think Charles IX was a poor military commander and his army in Estonia was suffering many defeats from the outnumbered Polish-Lithuanian army. In 1601 Swedes lost at Kokenhausen. In 1604 again Chodkiewicz at the battle of Weissenstein defeated Swedish army, lost only 200 soldiers and slaughtered half of the Swedes and the same did about year later at Kirholm. The fact the campaign ended and that Swedes were not repelled from Livonia was only due to fact that polish parliament decided to not give anymore monay for the continuation of the war. Important was also rebelion of Zebrzydowski against king of Poland. Most of the polish victories in the 17th century were wasted in this way. Usually after defeating enemy in the field polish armies had to retreat to take part in the civil wars. Just like later when for example Lubomirski defeated Russian armies and went back to lead his troops against king John Casimir. Many battles were won while all the wars were lost. If Poland had more centralised goverment, if the king wouldnt have to beg the parliament for each coin, if the parliament was more patriotic and interested in defending borders the history would have look completelly different and Poland could have had 10 x much bigger army than it had. But polish nobles were interested only in harvests and didnt even cared when the enemy was stealing lands somewhere far away from them. All this has to end as it ended, in the partitions of Poland in 18th century. Noone likes taxes but even for modern Poles it is hard to understand our ancestors from the past who didnt want to pay monay for their own defence and who treated their own kings like rubbish.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2004 at 08:46
i know, they were weird but cool...and few divisions that dukes and marshals had wasnt just enough. Still, maybe Hussars hoped after the battle, if they die, they'll fly into heaven with the wings.


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2004 at 13:22

Originally posted by rider

i know, they were weird but cool...and few divisions that dukes and marshals had wasnt just enough. Still, maybe Hussars hoped after the battle, if they die, they'll fly into heaven with the wings.

 

Oh yes, i think you described them well. Weird but cool LoL! Part of this mentality is still in our polish veins. We are anarchic, proud, we still are individualist's always ready to go against the main stream and always prefer more to fight against our own countrymen than against foreigners

Even on AE boards

I remember Daniel Dafoe (the one who wrote Robinson Crusoe) wrote about polish mercenary officer in England who murdered one english gentleman. Before execution the english offered him the priest and he refused saying that "he dont need any priest or confession because he is a polish nobleman so God will show him respect when he will arrive to heaven" LoL. And in fact that foolish and unlimited pride was the reason why Poland was lost. These guys were the troublemakers who didnt respect anything and anyone. But yes i agree with you that they were weird and cool. And the only thing which they really loved was their "golden freedom". The only thing which i dislike in them was that contempt which they were showing to everyone else. In their opinion they were elite of all the worlds nations and all the others were obviously worse than they.



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2004 at 17:34
"Winged" Hussars? Did they each have a Pegasus of their own?

-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2004 at 17:59


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2004 at 18:03
Cool, any explanation for the wings or purely decor? as in what's the  history behind it.

-------------


Posted By: Keltoi
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2004 at 20:25

The wings made a noise that scared the opponent, and the wings blocked blows from behind.

*spelling mistake



-------------
Cymru am Byth


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 05:12

look at this page - http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm - http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/high_price_of_glory.htm - http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/high_price_of_glory.htm



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 07:14
Lol, probably compleetly unrealted, but did the wings make a "husssssing" noise?

-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 09:25

you think were the name comes... from ukranian Huszar - nobles who gathered to defend homeland



Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 11:34
The name hussars (or polish Husarz) derived form serbian word "usar" or "gusar" means knight. The first hussars in Poland apper in 1500 - and their name are specified in tresaury register from Cracow " Regestrum in quo diversi computi"


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 12:44
well, i dont know that much latin!!!

-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 13:38

Originally posted by TJK

The name hussars (or polish Husarz) derived form serbian word "usar" or "gusar" means knight. The first hussars in Poland apper in 1500 - and their name are specified in tresaury register from Cracow " Regestrum in quo diversi computi"

BTW TJK, do you remember the site and discussion about cavalry, it was japanese and had very cool colour pictures of many famous cavalry units trough history, our AE members were trying to name all the units? There was a picture of the rider whose horse was covered by lionskin? You said that it is 15th century Serb or hungarian hussar?

Accidentally i found what was that. It was Dalmatian rider (maybe even Serb Usar) but in the Venetian serivce. They were called "stratori" or somthing like that.



Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 14:10

Yep, I remember this topic (damn Proboards ) the guy had a typical early-hussars cup and was equipped with nadziak..

It could be that some Serbs together with Albanians and Greeks have formed this light cavalry formation, the mode for using the lions or tigers skin they have copied from thier opponents (as hussars did) - Ottomans delis

website about stradioti:

http://www.shsu.edu/%7Ehis_ncp/Stradioti.html - http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Stradioti.html



Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2004 at 13:17
did polish make huszar regiments as the mercenaries also...

-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2004 at 16:20

Originally posted by rider

did polish make huszar regiments as the mercenaries also...

I dont think so. I have never heard about any polish mercenary hussar unit. One of the reasons was probably fact that into hussars were allowed only rich nobles.

The hussar equipment - horse, armour, weapons, together with all the decorations they used were very expensive and every hussar was equiping himself on his own cost.



Posted By: Keltoi
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2004 at 20:18

Only the lance was provided to the hussar. They wore some of the most expenseive armor that there was at the time due to all of the decorations.



-------------
Cymru am Byth


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2004 at 11:25

Not many knows that but there were also Russian winged hussars. Rusian armies were many time defeated by polish husars so someone in russia thought that it would be wise to create their own russian hussars. They copied everything, even the wings but their husars were pathetic, they were fighting poorly and soon the experiment was abadonned. They didnt undestand that Polish hussar is somthing more than just horse, lance, armor. It was also a man who grew up in completelly different conditions and tradition. And polish nobles who were in hussars were the elite of their class. They were better riders, better fencers, better lancers and stronger men than those who served in other formations.



Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2004 at 04:43
and they could use all those... russians were defeated so many times...

-------------


Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2004 at 17:03

 

Not many knows that but there were also Russian winged hussars...

http://www.megalink.net/~dschorr/RusArm17.html - http://www.megalink.net/~dschorr/RusArm17.html



Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2004 at 17:29
Originally posted by TJK

 

Not many knows that but there were also Russian winged hussars...

http://www.megalink.net/~dschorr/RusArm17.html - http://www.megalink.net/~dschorr/RusArm17.html

In contrast to southern units, in the Novgorod Corps (Northwest) a separate Hussar regiment was formed. It had different history from the lancers. The hussars were formed as a close combat unit in Reiter regiments. Russian hussars were a copy of Polish Hussars, but without "wings" and shields (I'm not sure in it, but I have not found any mention of wings and shields in this regiment). In 1662 a separate Hussar regiment was formed under Colonel Nikifor Karaulov. In consisted 20 officers and 350 hussars in five companies. In 1673 this regiment numbered 417 men, and 465 men in 1679.

Hussars were armed with a lance (not spear) and pistols. They were protected by a light cuirass and Naruchnik (an armour protecting the hands). In the middle of 1670's Lancer companies were added to Reiters regiments in Novgorod corps too, but a separate Hussar regiment was retained.

So i was wrong. The author of article says that Russian hussars had no wings. But im sure i have read years ago that they had wings.



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2004 at 18:18
I know that there was a unit of Russian lancers that had wings, there's a picture of them in the Gorelik book I bought.

-------------


Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2004 at 17:30
For Europe: Yes; but for the entire World: I have my doubts. What about the Circassians and Manchu Qing Eight Banner Cavalry?

-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2004 at 20:52

Originally posted by ihsan

For Europe: Yes; but for the entire World: I have my doubts. What about the Circassians and Manchu Qing Eight Banner Cavalry?

Iv heard that Circassians were awesome cavalry. But i have never seen a picture of any. I remember i have read in the past somwhere that the lance was hard to use against enemy who was a great horseman and that Cossacks found it impossible to use against Circassian cavalry. On the other hand cossaks were good horsemen too but didnt have much succes against polish cavalry when fought on horse and prefered to fight against Poles on foots.

Does anyone have any pics of them or know mpore details?



Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2004 at 09:12

Manchu Banner soldier about 1800

Manchu Banner soldier (circa 1800)

Circassian cavalry (circa 1800) 



Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2004 at 14:58
Hmm. small horses, spears, no armour, no firearms. They doesnt look like guys who would be able to defeat winged husars, especially because they also fought tartars and knew that kind of enemy. And in close comabt i guess they would be smashed, no matter how good riders they were.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2004 at 15:01
Originally posted by Mosquito

Hmm. small horses, spears, no armour, no firearms. They doesnt look like guys who would be able to defeat winged husars, especially because they also fought tartars and knew that kind of enemy. And in close comabt i guess they would be smashed, no matter how good riders they were.

Well, horses were smaller back then. The Swedish cavalry rode animals we would call ponnies today...
I suspect continental cavalry had smaller horses too, even if not that small.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2004 at 02:36
polish had large (really) horses

-------------


Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2004 at 09:42
Average weight of the hussar's horse was slightly above 500 kg so for the modern standards they are small or average but certainly not the ponnis...


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2004 at 13:27

the armour of the bannermen was lght and effective, and thoroughly, I think they're the best worldwide, though they lacked lance-cavalry.

Circassians were light indeed, but keep in mind Hussars were not the only cavalry of Polish armies.



-------------


Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2004 at 15:14
Frankly speaking I don't think any archery-based cavalry of this time could be competitive for hussars especially when they are supported by light banners (for wing protection).. 


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 11:03
Originally posted by Mosquito

Accidentally i found what was that. It was Dalmatian rider (maybe even Serb Usar) but in the Venetian serivce. They were called "stratori" or somthing like that.

You're thinking of the famous Balkan stradiotti, who were employed by the Venetians as a nice counter to Turkish light cavalry (akincis, etc).  These lightly-armored troopers fought with a light lance, a saber (sciabla), and sometimes a composite bow.  Alternatively, some stradiotti may have used the local form of straight, basket-hilted broadsword (the so-called schiavona).  They were comparable to Hungarian hussars and Spanish jinetes.

And speaking of "hussar", I'm not so sure if we have a definitive answer regarding the origins of either the word itself, of the type of soldier the word described.  AFAIK, the first troops called "hussars" were from Serbia, and they were light cavalry (as opposed to later Polish hussars).  This light type became understandably popular with the Hungarians, Transylvanians, Moldavians, etc.

As for the Polish Winged Hussars, their war record is definitely impressive, but they did indeed suffer defeats--witness the destruction of the Polish "Quarter" Army at Batoh by the Cossacks, in 1652.  It's also interesting to note that German cavalry (ritters or reiters--rajtars to the Poles) were actually paid more money than hussars were, by King John Casimir, after the fiasco at Batoh.

Peace,

David Black Mastro



-------------
"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,

I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."


--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)


Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2004 at 11:54

AFAIK, the first troops called "hussars" were from Serbia, and they were light cavalry (as opposed to later Polish hussars).  This light type became understandably popular with the Hungarians, Transylvanians, Moldavians, etc.

Yep..they were light cavalry also in Poland up to the time of king stephan batory when they have adopt armour.

As for the Polish Winged Hussars, their war record is definitely impressive, but they did indeed suffer defeats--witness the destruction of the Polish "Quarter" Army at Batoh by the Cossacks, in 1652.

Well, I would rather not connect the slaughter at Batoh with decline of Winged Hussars. There were only 8 or 9 banners of hussars at Batoh in total about 1000 soldiers when whole polish army consist of about 10 000 soldiers. The main factor was the rebellion of polish cavalry.

It's also interesting to note that German cavalry (ritters or reiters--rajtars to the Poles) were actually paid more money than hussars were, by King John Casimir, after the fiasco at Batoh.

It is not exactly..there was not one fixed salary for certain type of soldier - it was always depend from which region soldiers were -for exapmle the quater salary of hussars from Cracow was on the level of 40 zlotych, when the hussars from Sandomierz got 60 z and from Lublin  and Belz even 80 zl. In the same period the reiters form Mazovia got 60 zl and from eczyca 60 zl...

 



Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 06:20

Hello Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner (Cohort).

Here is Raf.S from THC forum.

Im glad that you decided to join this AE forum and hope that you feel well here.

Greeting from Luxor (Aegipt) to all of you and see you after ill come back home.

 



Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2004 at 23:01
but as the deafeats - what army hasnt been defeated???

-------------


Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2004 at 16:16
Actually, a great amount of Circassian riedrs were wearing heavy chain armor up until maybe late 18th century, they were noted to be the last heavy cavalry people(s) of Europe.

-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Rava
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2004 at 17:01

Isn't it beautiful...

 



Posted By: Evildoer
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2004 at 06:48

The helmet in the first picture looks almost Roman. The protruding visor, and the extended backflap resembles a legionary helmet.



Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2004 at 19:21

 

 

 I think you've forgotten the Napoleonic Hussar. Under De LaSalle, they were the most feared units in Europe. They were better than the Hussars of all other europeans armies of the time and they have excellent combat record. Which Prince of Prussia did quarter master Guindet killed?



-------------


Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2004 at 13:19
Originally posted by Evildoer

The helmet in the first picture looks almost Roman. The protruding visor, and the extended backflap resembles a legionary helmet.

 

Yeah, the helmet as well as the armour (anime type) is modelled as roman.

 

I think you've forgotten the Napoleonic Hussar. Under De LaSalle, they were the most feared units in Europe. They were better than the Hussars of all other europeans armies of the time and they have excellent combat record. Which Prince of Prussia did quarter master Guindet killed?

They were excellent soldiers especially 5th and 7th (Lassale's brigade) but they belongst to the another epoch....

BTW Guindey have killed prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia at Saalfed

 

 



Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2004 at 20:28

BTW Guindey have killed prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia at Saalfed

 

 That Prince Fredinand was an excellent Prussian General.  It was a heavy loss to the enemy in fact, he was the only one doing everything right. How unfortunate for the Prussian. 

 



-------------


Posted By: Lannes
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2004 at 20:32
Originally posted by Evildoer

The helmet in the first picture looks almost Roman. The protruding visor, and the extended backflap resembles a legionary helmet.

Well, Roman neck flaps were positioned in a more vertical manner(at least, from the Coolus onwards).  Not to mention that the 'visor' was positioned higher up in a Coolus or Imperial-Gallic helmet, and generally, didn't jut out near as much.

Not to mention that it lacks the curved ear guards(and I may have glossed it over a bit much, but do the cheek pieces seem to be so large that they don't allow room for an earhole in the Polish helmet?) of the Imperial-Gallic and Itlaic helmet designs.



-------------
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;


Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2004 at 14:17
Originally posted by TJK

Winged Hussars have became heavy cavalry after reforms of polish king Stephan Batory in the second half of XVI centaury. For about 50 years this formation was a king of battlefield able to crush every other or even combined formation. The best achievements were battle of Kircholm (defeat of 3xbigger Swedish army ) and battle of Klushino (defeat of 5xtimes bigger Russian army). After the reforms of Gustav Adolf western type infantry (especially Swedish) became nearly invincible for the sole cavalry action (including winged hussars). The position of the best cavalry of Europe was held however by winged hussars up to the neraly end of XVII centaury.

In XVIII centaury this formation was just obsolete and with poor morale and trainning was only a "shadow" of  XVII centaury predecessors...

So my answer is: "yes at all" for the period 1570-1620, "best in Europe" up to the 1683 and definitely "no" for the XVIII centaury...

..and I don't know how to vote      



Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2004 at 14:19

First appearance of hussars dates to 1514 at the battle of Orsza.

Originally posted by TJK

Winged Hussars have became heavy cavalry after reforms of polish king Stephan Batory in the second half of XVI centaury. For about 50 years this formation was a king of battlefield able to crush every other or even combined formation. The best achievements were battle of Kircholm (defeat of 3xbigger Swedish army ) and battle of Klushino (defeat of 5xtimes bigger Russian army). After the reforms of Gustav Adolf western type infantry (especially Swedish) became nearly invincible for the sole cavalry action (including winged hussars). The position of the best cavalry of Europe was held however by winged hussars up to the neraly end of XVII centaury.

In XVIII centaury this formation was just obsolete and with poor morale and trainning was only a "shadow" of  XVII centaury predecessors...

So my answer is: "yes at all" for the period 1570-1620, "best in Europe" up to the 1683 and definitely "no" for the XVIII centaury...

..and I don't know how to vote      



Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2004 at 01:38
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

First appearance of hussars dates to 1514 at the battle of Orsza.

No. First time hussars in polish service are registred in 1500. One or two banners of hussars were present also at Kleck (1506)



Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2004 at 09:33
Originally posted by TJK

Originally posted by cavalry4ever

First appearance of hussars dates to 1514 at the battle of Orsza.

No. First time hussars in polish service are registred in 1500. One or two banners of hussars were present also at Kleck (1506)

Thanks. It is worth pointing out that Polish hussars were an army formation that managed to stay undefeated for more than a century. First defeat will be at Gniew in 1626.



Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 01-Dec-2004 at 00:41
I agree that Husaria was the best cavalry of Europe during renaissance, but I'd also like to say that if you look at Polish History, almost ever cavalry regiment we had was great in it's own way, even when Partitioned during the Napoleonic wars, The Ulans and Szwolezery made glorious achievements defeating British redcoats 2 out of 3 times, and Somosierra a daring charge that even Napoleon had to reward by moving them up straight form young guard to Old guard, skipping middle guard. praising them as his bravest soldiers, and he acctually made a statement , can tell you the source now, Id have to check, but he said "nothing is impossible for my Poles". also the Lisowczycy light cavalry similar looking to cossacks, they were ruthless regiment that evryone in europe recognized, led by Aleksander Lisowski, here's more... http://www.signum-polonicum.com.pl/strona1.html (in Polish)


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 12:30
hmmm......      Lonely hussar riding across the "wild steppe" it was the beautiful time.


Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 12-May-2005 at 13:09
Czesc Czesiek welcome ot the forum


Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 15:01

About huszrs:

Huszr is a Hungarian word means horsemen. The origin of the word is Hungarian 'hsz' (twenty). Emperor Sigismund who was the king of Hungary at the same time had a military reform, so Hungarian nobles gave a horsemen after twenty peason family. After death of Sigismund his military reform was deleted by Hungarian nobles. First huszrs were Serbians who escaped into Hungary and Hungarian kings orgonised cavelries from them. At least in the 16th century huszrs were mainly Hungarins. Some huszr cavalries fought against the Ottoman Turks and in the war of Smalkalden with the Habsburgs. After that Poland became the land of huszrs. Firstly, Stefan Bthory, prince of Transylvania was elected by Polish and he became a a popular king. He made military reform and Hungarian huszrs fought with Polish versus Russia. Secondly, the relationship beetwen Hungary and Poland was very good. Hungarian huszrs migrated into Poland in the 17th century after end of wars against Turks.



Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 15:09

And it stated that??

Anyways, Hussars defeated infantry battalions cause they had longer lances, some say that up to 6 metres.



-------------


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 15:14
Originally posted by rider

battle of Vienna 1683 (hopefully) with Jan Sobieski to finish of Turks...

Yes, I was going to mention this battle. From the account I read, the Tatars may have made a match for the Hussars but they got angry that the Turkish commander would not let them charge the Polish on their flank when they were in the forests around Vienna. The Hussar charge totally destroyed the Turks and finished their large army in one night, which really the battle should have taken two. The Hussars were definitely heavily armed warriors, with a currais and if they were not very great, then why did the other countries of Europe, who had fought so hard to erase Poland from the map, beg for them to aid them against the Turks?


-------------



Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 19:23
Hussar comes from not a Hungarian origin but a Serbian one does it not? "The hussar originated in Serbia towards the end of the 14 the century. There are references to hussars in Poland in treasury registers of 1500, though they were probably in Polish service before this date. These early formations were foreign mercenaries. first known as Racowie, from the term Rascia, 'Serbia', from the original center of the Serbian state, Ras. The term 'hussar' probabaly originates not - as has een widely published - from any contrived connections with Hungarian husz meaning 'twenty', but from gussar, a Slavonic word meaning 'bandit'" - Polish Armies 1569-1696


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 04:10

I belive that a little more. What wiki says? Wait:

The word hussar (pronounced huh-ZAR, huh-SAR, or hoo-ZAR; IPA: [hʊ'zr]) probably derives from Serbian gusar ("highwayman", or brigand), a type of flamboyant 15th century cavalryman.



-------------


Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 04:25

I think huszr is a Hungarian word after Sigismunds military reform but the first huszrs were really Serbians. Because of this huszr maybe had a Serb etimology.



Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 04:30
All in all, huszrs were the best horsemen in Europe. I know about huszrs in Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Prussian and French armies.


Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 17:23
In Poland after the heavy cavalry wingged Hussars, the other hssar regiments never really layed too big a role in Poland's army. After durin Napoleonic era and after while most army's used Husars for light cavalry Poland create the Uhlan regiment. The origin of this regiment comes from Polish tatars. The Polish word "ułan" comes from the tatar word "oglan" meaning skilled warrior.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 06:43
YOu say they didn't play a role? What did - infantry??

The hussars and dragoons made up the backbone of Polish Heavy Cavalry and with it the whole army.


-------------


Posted By: Kenaney
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 12:14

Originally posted by Sarmata

In Poland after the heavy cavalry wingged Hussars, the other hssar regiments never really layed too big a role in Poland's army. After durin Napoleonic era and after while most army's used Husars for light cavalry Poland create the Uhlan regiment. The origin of this regiment comes from Polish tatars. The Polish word "uan" comes from the tatar word "oglan" meaning skilled warrior.

Oglan/oghlan actually means son or guy, it can be that tatars used that word for another meaning.



-------------
OUT OF LIMIT


Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 15:02
Originally posted by rider

YOu say they didn't play a role? What did - infantry??

The hussars and dragoons made up the backbone of Polish Heavy Cavalry and with it the whole army.



Im not saying they didnt play a role at all, Im saying during the 18th-19th century the Wingged Hussars weren't around as muhc anymore and during 19th century the Uhlans took their place. While in other parts of Europe the cavalry sually consisted of light cavalry hussars, in Poland the Uhlans were the backbone of the army. Again Im saying this was in the 19th century anytime before the wingged hussars were the backbone of the Polisharmies like rider said.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 16:29
Ah, i thoguht you were mentioning the 16th and 17th armies, srry, my bad.

-------------


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2005 at 16:55
Originally posted by Kenaney

Oglan/oghlan actually means son or guy, it can be that tatars used that word for another meaning.

yes, Ohlan was the name for a member of the usually lance-carrying tatar nobility.



-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 14:44

Originally posted by Sarmata


Im not saying they didnt play a role at all, Im saying during the 18th-19th century the Wingged Hussars weren't around as muhc anymore and during 19th century the Uhlans took their place. While in other parts of Europe the cavalry sually consisted of light cavalry hussars, in Poland the Uhlans were the backbone of the army. Again Im saying this was in the 19th century anytime before the wingged hussars were the backbone of the Polisharmies like rider said.

Ulhans already took their place in the 18th century. And also Saxony in times of union with Poland employed many regiments of ulhans. First it were Tartars, next Poles modeled after Tartars.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2005 at 16:37
I think Polish Hussars was best in world between 1514 (first battle of hussars in painting - 'battle of Orsza')- 168x (few years latter than Vien battle). At the turn of 17 and 18 centuries polish hussaria is turning tho downhill... reason ? Although by 18th century their importance was diminished by the introduction of modern infantry firearms and quick-firing artillery, the Polish hussars' tactics and armament remained almost unchanged.

........................................................

MY ENGLISH IS BAD, I KNOW ...


Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2005 at 11:33

      The Hussars were the one of the most elite cavalry units.They had proveb their brutality against the swedish, Russians, Tatars and the most important to the war machine of the Ottomans.The Hussars were the victorous at Khaldenberg 1683. But after all this the steppe cavalrys were the best for all the times.

 



Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 04:03
agreed, steppe cavalry did turn out to be more superior during 18th century and later on, which is why Poland developed its own light cavalry one who could check the Kozaks and other steppe cavalry; Uhlans, and Szwolozery.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 14:06
Were they brutal? I consdier to think otherwise, or i just misunderstood the post, Evrenosgazi

-------------


Posted By: El Cid
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 19:54
I think Hussars was good, but they would be vulnerable against some cavalry like Catphracti or the modern regiment of Dragoons. What do you think?

-------------
The spanish are coming!




Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 01:54
I thin Cataphracti was a heavier cavalry then the Winged Hussars, so i think the hussars would have more manouverability, as well as I think the Hussar lance was designed to reach the victim form a safe distance, would the catapracti survive the charge? i dont know...as for the dragoons i think that, sure they have an advantage with firearms, but what happens when they shoot some hussars start reloading while more hussars charge at them with the lances? Im pretty sure a Winged Hussar would beat a dragoon.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 09:15

Well, probably they could beat both as:

Hussars were pretty heavily armoured, but their lances were still about 6 meters long. They had carabines and a pair of pistols, atheir horses were very good. Dragoons wouldn't stand a charge. Cataphractii would need to attack from charge, which would be pointless against Hussars who had longer lances.



-------------


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 09:29

I think "winged hussars" are in Turkish "atli efeler" means efe's on horse.

Here are some pics of them.

When they ride on horses, theyre "yelek" (kind of cloth) seems like a wing from distance.



-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 06:26
DayI-

I think what you presented is totally different from Polish Winged Hussars and it probably has nothing to do with them.  It's interesting, though!


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 07:43

no its because those guys where fighting with horses (the atli efeler) in WW1 and the anzac soldiers who saw them from distance tought they have wings.

And I tought also the winged hussars has maybe the same kind of clothes as them.



-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 09:23
No, they were called thae Winged Hussars because their back armour was in the shape of angelic wings.

-------------


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 10:16
can you post a picture of those famoust winged hussars?

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 12:15



-------------


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 13:34
LOL, those ARE wings  

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 15:17

Well, they are... but their main objective was to protect the back of you, and it frightened the enemy as well.

Still, they didn't go off as you explained before the Turks' ones did.



-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 20:49
I dont see any advantage of dragoons over hussars. Especially because every hussar had 2 pistols and musket. Those who knew how to use it had also eastern type bows (I guess it were the same bows which were used by Tatars).


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 05:18
And some of their manouvers were really similiar to the ones the tartars used, and that made the western european armies unknown to their tactics when they used such...

-------------


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 17:39
Hussars carried a pair of pistols in later years (17th century) but never a musket. pancerni had muskets...

-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 11:42

Hussars carried muskets. They were obligatory. Altough not on horse but it was carried by servant. Hussar was using musket only when was fighting on foots, not on horse. Example: during battle of Chocim  (or Khotyn in 1621), after long siege when hussars have eaten their horses, they fought as infantry only with muskets. In the squadron (banner) of hussars were not only hussars but also their servants who were carrying equipment, cooking, etc. As Polish-Lithuanian army often lacked on infantry, hussars were supposed to act as infantry during defence of camp or when besieging enemy camp or fortress or city. One hussar wasnt equal to other. They were divided on comrades (towarzysz) and squires (pocztowy). Every commrade had 2-3 squires who were armed and equipped on his cost and were recuruited from poorer gentry. They all had servants who were carrying their equipment. Its simple, they had too much arms and armours, more than one man and horse could carry.

17th century hussar carbin (pol. bandolet). Maybe not a musket but 115 cm long, caliber 15 mm.



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 16:07
mmh, but if you look at it, the Pancerni had a lance, shield, curved sabre, pair of pistols, musket and even a Steppe bow, thats much more than a Hussar carries personally with him (pair of pistols, straight sabre, curved sabre and heavy lance)

-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 19:38
As you said its more than hussar carried personally. But hussar had his servants with him. Servants were not counted as soldiers but somtimes they were fighting too.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com