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....

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

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

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

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

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

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 Their way of fighting had become outdated by the mid 17th century, and their tactics were inferior to the combined arms their opponents used.

"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.

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      

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 o�vervinnerlige (The Invincible, English title), dealing with with Karl X Gustav's wars in Poland and Denmark.

The regiments of Uppland, �sterg�tland and Sm�land (or in the genitive form, Upplands, �stg�ta & Sm�lands regementen - in English I'd use the first form though).

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

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.

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

*spelling mistake

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Manchu Banner soldier (circa 1800)

Circassian cavalry (circa 1800) 

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.

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

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

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 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...

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.

Isn't it beautiful...

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

 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?

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

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

 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. 

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.

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.

About husz�rs:

Husz�r is a Hungarian word means horsemen. The origin of the word is Hungarian 'h�sz' (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 husz�rs were Serbians who escaped into Hungary and Hungarian kings orgonised cavelries from them. At least in the 16th century husz�rs were mainly Hungarins. Some husz�r cavalries fought against the Ottoman Turks and in the war of Smalkalden with the Habsburgs. After that Poland became the land of husz�rs. Firstly, Stefan B�thory, prince of Transylvania was elected by Polish and he became a a popular king. He made military reform and Hungarian husz�rs fought with Polish versus Russia. Secondly, the relationship beetwen Hungary and Poland was very good. Hungarian husz�rs migrated into Poland in the 17th century after end of wars against Turks.

And it stated that??

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

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

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

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.

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.

      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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.