discuss about POLISH WINGED HUSSARS

from wikipedia:

Initially the first units of Polish hussars in the Kingdom of Poland were formed by the Sejm (Polish parliament) in 1503, which hired three banners of Hungarian mercenaries. Quickly recruitment also began among Polish and Lithuanian citizens. Being far more maneuverable than the heavily armoured lancers previously employed, the hussars proved vital to the Polish and Lithuanian victories at Orsza (1514) and Obertyn (1531). By the reign of King Stefan Batory the hussars had replaced medieval-style lancers in the Polish-Lithuanian army, and they now formed the bulk of the Polish cavalry.

Over the course of the 1500s hussars in Hungary had become heavier in character: they had abandoned wooden shields and adopted plate metal body armour. When Stefan Batory, a Transylvanian-Hungarian prince, became king of Poland in 1576 he reorganized the Polish-Lithuanian hussars of his Royal Guard along Hungarian lines, making them a heavy formation, equipped with a long lance as their main weapon. By the 1590s most Polish-Lithuanian hussar units had been reformed along the same 'heavy' Hungarian model. These Polish 'heavy' hussars were known in their homeland as husaria.

With the Battle of Lubieszów in 1577 the 'Golden Age' of the husaria began. Down to and including the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the Polish-Lithuanian hussars fought countless actions against a variety of enemies, and rarely lost a battle. In the battles of Byczyna (1588), Kokenhusen (1601), Kircholm (1605), Kłuszyn (1610), Trzciana (1629), Chocim (1673) and Lwów (1675), the Polish-Lithuanian hussars proved to be the decisive factor often against overwhelming odds.

Until the 18th century they were considered the elite of Commonwealth armed forces.


Winged Hussar (in early 18th century, Polish Winged Hussars had winged helmets):
https://img187.imageshack.us/img187/9930/12muz5.th.jpg https://img513.imageshack.us/img513/...ssarpt4.th.jpg https://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3333/g43fu3.th.jpg
https://img140.imageshack.us/img140/...zy12yf5.th.jpg
https://img512.imageshack.us/img512/...ariahb3.th.jpg https://img148.imageshack.us/img148/...4nq8fc2.th.png https://img251.imageshack.us/img251/...5st7ci9.th.png

here is unit for 'European Wars' (18th century mod for Rome Total War):

POLISH WINGED HUSSAR:

https://img129.imageshack.us/img129/...dhussardp8.jpg

Oh yes! I have drooled over your hoplite skins for a while now but this is something else again. Polish winged hussars are IMHO the coolest cav unit of all time pretty much anywhere in the world and now King Louise himself decided to make skins for it, moreover - your work looks fantastic mate (as always).

I hope they will be included in ETW, hussars were the only cav formation I know of that happily charged pike units head-on and tore them apart (thanks to monstrous 15 - 18 ft hollow lances, much too long for infantry to wield). Polish hussars employed top-notch discipline and tactics, approaching enemy lines slowly and widely dispersed, only to gather speed after enemy's first musket salvo and close ranks very tight (some say knee-to-knee hmmm...) just before making contact with first line of the enemy.

Hussars' charge was utterly devastating and often led to general rout, battle at Kircholm 1605 is probably the best example of their clout - Polish army dealt the Swedes a crushing blow butchering ~6000 with minimal casaulties (around 100 men). Only took them half an hour too!!Beat that in M2TW! Even Swedish royal guard defending Charles IX himself lasted less than 5 minutes toe to toe with hussars.

You can gather from KLA's work just how amazingly cool those guys looked, leopard skins and all. It would be an ideal ceremonial unit today and I simply cannot fathom why the Polish army makes no use of this icon! I say they look far better than the Life Guards or 1st Dragoons (who make a close second tho - you've gotta love Queen's Guard.)

If this unit makes it into ETW it should be what it historically was - best armed and trained cavalry unit in Europe at the time. Can't bloody wait!

'spect

I've always liked Cossacks more, myself. I mean, come on, did the Cossacks ever call one of the most powerful man in the Western World the 'goat-(humper) of Alexandria' and get away with it?

Again with the unbeatable :juggle2: husaria. Dunno how many times this topic have been covered in various threads in this forum.

The utter defeat at Kirchholm did not stop the Swedes from advancing in the baltic area upon Polands cost. In early 17th century Gustavus II fought them victoriously on a number of occasions.

In mid 17th century Charles X dealt Poland a blow they never came back from.

And when ETW starts, I.E around 1700 there was most certanly no eastern european cavalry that could match the Swedish cav, Polsih included.

Kalle

Oh dear, just read my post again and I admit, must have had a couple of bevvies too many that evening, admittedly I went a bit ott. Incredibly - no spelling mistakes, how do I do that...

But to the point - Charles X scenario has little to do with our discussion on hussars themselves. Please care to mention that the Swedes, after initial success were severly beaten twice on Polish soil under Czarniecki (although hussars played limited part in those victories) and eventually a peace deal was hammered out. Please also remember that the same Czarniecki later helped the Danes drive Swedish troops out of Jutland and the operation was a complete success.

As for the "blow from which they never came back" bit, I beg to differ. 40 years later hussars proved their skills at Vienna where Turkish army suffered it's biggest defeat in many years at the hands of hussars chiefly.

Also - I'm happy to discuss the unit itself, rather than Polish military history, for which I have little sentiment or time. Fact is, Polish army at that time was quite average and hussars were the only truly effective unit the Polish had. I'm specifically discussing tactical effectiveness, not strategic success. It is indeed true that in military terms Poland was decades behind Sweden. The Swedish had much greater mobility, much better training and superior discipline than the vast majority of Polish army at that time. But that should not detract from hussars' effectiveness as a unit, and in terms of raw power and skill I doubt very much that Swedish cavalry was better that them.

Firstly, standard equipment of a hussar was usually two pistols or a short musket, a 16.5 ft hollow lance (for charging pikemen) and a long, heavy cavalry sword (to finish pikemen off mwa ha ha). Sometimes a bow on top, depending on personal preference. Equally as important as general kit were hussars' horses - well trained and bred especially for the purpose. Hussars great success at Kircholm was a little hollow since they lost a great many battle horses. It's the horses' training and discipline that gave the unit fantastic flexibility and allowed for well organised and controlled charges.

It is the only cavalry unit I know of that was able to succesfully engage pikes, muskets and cavalry alike, and that was so fearsome on the battlefield. Because of that (and their flamboyant presence) this unit has a lot more cred and recognition than any single Swedish cavalry formation. I love a good argument though, so just maybe there were one or two cracking Swedish cavalry regiments with specific armament and tactics that were equally as effective and I just don't know about them. Let me know, I love cavalry in general and will love to hear about Swedish horsemen too!

Thanks!

One of the best cavalry at the disposition of the Swedish army was Finn: the Hakkapeliitta
(This has nothing to do with the ongoing topic, I know :))

Annie

From Wikipedia:
"Because of their strength, camaraderie, and battlefield success, the Hakkapeliitta were well-respected by their adversaries. Hakkapeliittas did not have any special repuation in Central Europe. They are mentioned only in few contemporary European sources" - there you go then!

Thanks for that Lady Anne!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

Again with the unbeatable :juggle2: husaria. Dunno how many times this topic have been covered in various threads in this forum.

The utter defeat at Kirchholm did not stop the Swedes from advancing in the baltic area upon Polands cost. In early 17th century Gustavus II fought them victoriously on a number of occasions.

---

And refusal of Polish parlament to finace the army any longer followed by rebelion of said army does not have any influence on Swedish recover...

Gustavus Adolphus was also bearly captured by polish horsemen on one ocasion and defeted on number others.
You should also remember that his reform of cavalry was done along polish lines:
1) "Western" tactics of karakol were dropped and cavalry was taught to charge "into the smoke"
2) Melee training was expanded

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

In mid 17th century Charles X dealt Poland a blow they never came back from.

---

Big overestimation. Without help of Cossak rebelion that devastated 1/3 of Commonwelth teritory (S-E) and Russians who did the same to N-E 1/3 it would hardly be that serious blow. The other thing is that most of Poland was surrenderd to Charles not won by him. For different reasons polish nobles didnt want to fight. And Crown army, always weak in numbers took serious losses fighting on Ukraine, and major part was stationed there (they also swiched sides).

In fact deadly blows was dealt on Poland during Great Northern War.

What may be interesting that Poland was able to mobilise against Charles Gustavus invasion (in 1656, in 1655 there wasn't any serious fighting) about 1500 hussars - about half of the forces available at Kircholm. Most others were just levy serving in daily clothes and having sabre as only weapon. Not to mention lack of any military training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalle

And when ETW starts, I.E around 1700 there was most certanly no eastern european cavalry that could match the Swedish cav, Polsih included.

Kalle

---

that I may agree. But it was more due to social changes in Poland rather than due to some war defeats.

Wars of XVII and begining of XVIIIc destroyed medium nobility, who were the most valuable military manpower. As the result quality of polish cav dropped rapidly, within generation from around battle at Vienna till GN War. Hussar regiments were some of the mostly affected, as they always been few, relying on good quality soliders and serving there was not cheap.

Well I could write long replies to all of you (and I might in case of some extra spare time) but as mentioned this has been discussed on numerous occasions elsewhere (monastery) so ill just very quickly respond to Annie since I havent talked with her for a very long time and we killed many enemys together during the years (and took some beatings). Hi Annie btw!!

In the timeframe we talk about here Finland is Sweden, an integrated part of the kingdom since many centuries. When talking about Sweden at this time we should imagine not long stretched north-south country of today. It was more about centre and remote areas and the baltic was the best line of communication, thus southern and coastal Finland were coreareas and for instance Småland or Laponia (located in Sweden both then and now) or northeastern parts of Finland were remote areas. The more remote the less control the central government had.

Thus, a finnish cav unit in this time was a Swedish cav unit :yes: (compare with saying a regiment in the US army from the state of Florida is not a US unit but a Florida-unit.)

Charles X did not retreat from Poland due to being outskilled in any way. Sweden did not have the resources/manpower to occupie this vast country once the people wanted Sweden out. Hostile peasents and so on forced Sweden out not Husaria. Even when on the retreat Sweden won the fieldbattles, 3 day battle of Warzaw saw the mighty Husaria gunned down.

Not only was Poland hostile but pretty much all of Europe declared war on Sweden, at least those countries that could gain land. Sweden leaving Jutland did not have so much to do with force but was one of the boldest moves in history of war. On the frozen ice they marched to Copenhagen forcing the hardest peacetreaty ever on the danes. Thus Charles ended his warmongering in success in spite of the retreat from Poland.

Well that was a bit longer then just to Annie but no one disturbedme at work! :P

Kalle

first place: I'm not going to discuss about a thing that's not part of my knowledge

second: nice units !

can someone give me a link to that 'European Wars' (18th century mod for Rome Total War )

Hi Kalle :bow:

I am not going to argue what exactly the "Hakkapeliita", Finns or Swedes. Nor who was the best cavalry, Polish, Swedish or French.

Annie

Quote:

---

In early 17th century Gustavus II fought them victoriously on a number of occasions.

---

Gustavus never fought Hussars victoriously. On the other hand, on a number of occasions he avoided battles in the open field.

For example between 1621 and 1624 during military operations in Livonia Gustavus constantly avoided battles in the open field despite the fact that his army numbered 18,000 men and 375 guns, while the Polish army opposing him numbered only 3,000 men.*

*It should be noted that in September of 1621 Poland-Lithuania mobilized in total 106,000 soldiers (37,200 state regulars, 27,400 regular soldiers from private contingents and levy en masse, 1,500 wybraniecka infantry and 40,000 Cossacks), but only 3,000 of them were sent against Swedish army of 18,000 while majority of the remaining 100 thousands was sent against the army of the Ottoman Empire which invaded Poland from the south and numbered over one hundred thousands men.

Poles considered the Ottomans a much more dangerous enemy than Sweden, especially that the Ottoman army was much more numerous.

This is well described by Radosław Sikora in his book "Fenomen Husarii", 2010.

Sikora also quotes numerous letters of Hetman Krzysztof Radziwiłł to the Polish king.

In these letters Radziwiłł asks the king to send him more infantry and artillery (or at least peasants to dig trenches and fortifications) and complains that Gustavus with his army of 15,000 - "unlike his father" (Karl IX) - constantly avoids confrontation against the Polish army of 2,000.

Radziwiłł complains that he cannot hold castles because he has simply not enough infantry to defend them and that the Swedish army constantly hides behind fortifications or in forested and swampy areas, so he has no opportunity to crush it in real, face-to-face battle.

Quote:

---

3 day battle of Warzaw saw the mighty Husaria gunned down.

---

In the battle of Warsaw Husaria numbered only 900 men and charged the Swedish-Brandenburgian army of 18,000 without support from the rest of the Polish army. The main mistake was that Husaria was not supported by other Polish units in the decisive moment of the battle.

Even though, Husaria broke through the first Swedish line, reached the second Swedish line and caused confusion in its rank.

Only the Swedish reinforcements who fired on the flanks of the charging Husaria, eventually forced it to retreat.

Anyway, in the battles such as Warka, Prostki and Trzemeszno in 1656, Swedish forces were crushed in the open field:

Battle of Prostki - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI66ZNFYTXc

BTW - some people wrongly think that Polish cavalry = Husaria. This is wrong.

For example in 1655 regular forces of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland numbered 23,863 soldiers, of whom 7,248 were infantry, 3,216 were dragoons and 13,399 were cavalry - but of this 13,399, only 909 were Husaria (6,8% of cavalry), while 12,490 were other types of cavalry.

Quote:

---

In mid 17th century Charles X dealt Poland a blow they never came back from.

---

Poland fought against Sweden, Russia, Cossacks, Brandenburg, Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallahia in that war. Not mentioning local traitors (Union of Kedainiai). Swedish forces comprised only of 20% - 30% of the entire army of Polish-Lithuanian enemies during that war.

The blow Poland never came back from was actually suffered much later - in early 18th century.

Quote:

---

The utter defeat at Kirchholm did not stop the Swedes from advancing in the baltic area upon Polands cost.

---

Kircholm was not the only utter defeat of Swedish forces in the war of 1600 - 1611. They lost every single battle in the open field during that war. Their only success in that war was capturing a few castles, most of which were later recaptured by Polish-Lithuanian units (despite the fact that Swedish forces in the entire war of 1600 - 1611 were superior in numbers over Polish-Lithuanian forces facing them).

Sweden advanced into Livonia but this was not achieved by Karl IX in the war of 1600 - 1611 but by Gustavus Adolphus in his further wars.

And I explained why Gustavus managed to achieve this - he avoided battles in the open field and he had a 6 times more numerous army.

Quote:

---

Charles X did not retreat from Poland due to being outskilled in any way. Sweden did not have the resources/manpower to occupie this vast country once the people wanted Sweden out. Hostile peasents and so on forced Sweden out not Husaria.

---

Charles X retreated from Poland because his armies suffered huge casualties.

And not due to peasants, but regular and irregular Polish-Lithuanian military forces.

Peasants only started to resist against the Swedes in late 1655 after the Swedes started to oppress the local population.

Before that pretty much noone resisted the Swedes - even large part of the Polish-Lithuanian army came to the Swedish side almost without resistance because they simply didn't like the rules of their king and they hoped that Charles X would be a better king of Poland-Lithuania than Jan Kazimierz. Thus Swedish forces achieved their success in 1655 mainly thanks to the fact that nobody really wanted to resist them.

At Ujscie Polish nobility of the entire Province of Greater Poland surrendered to Charles X without a single shot and pledged loyalty to him.

At Kedainai princes Janusz and Boguslav Radziwills - who took control over entire Lithuania - betrayed and signed an alliance with Charles X.

BTW - I made several charts basing on data from books:

1) Changes of composition and numerical strength of the regular state army of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland:

It shows numerical strength of contingents of Winged Hussars, other types of cavalry, dragoons and infantry in individual years:

In 1621 there were as many as 9450 Hussars (they contributed to the Polish victory over the Ottoman Empire that year):

https://img853.imageshack.us/img853/...noftheking.jpg

2) Polish military effort against individual countries in several years of the early 17th century (it shows that the bulk of Polish military effort was usually against other enemies - not Sweden):

https://img849.imageshack.us/img849/...taryeffort.jpg

3) Polish and Austrian forces involved against Sweden in the war for the Mouth of the Vistula River:

https://img156.imageshack.us/img156/...dagainstsw.jpg

Interesting. You should try posting in the monestary.

Morale is often very important at war. And reputation of the enemy can influence (negatively or positively) morale of own forces.

Winged Hussars - owed its battlefield successes not only to excellent tactics, leadership, equipment and manpower quality - but also if not largely, thanks to their excellent morale, self-confidence on the battlefield and the dreadful reputation they had among their enemies.

Later - when Hussars were no longer able to achieve as amazing results on the battlefield, as during their "golden age" - it was also largely due to collapse of their own quality, their own leadership and their own morale. Not due to any technological advancement of enemy firearms, or such things.

As for the mentioned decline in quality, leadership and morale:

First of all - leadership:

When we look at the battle of Klushino in 1610, out of 28 banners of Hussaria which participated in that battle, 12 were commanded directly by cavalry captain (Polish: rotmistrz; German: rittmeister), 13 by lieutenants and commanders of 3 are unknown.

And most of the lacking cavalry captains (13 - 16) had very good reason why they couldn't command their banners. 2 were already dead before the battle, 7 were trusted to command regiments (and that's why their personal banners were temporarily under lieutenants) and 1 (hetman Stanislaw Zolkiewski) was the commander-in-chief of the entire army (and that's why his banner was also led by a lieutenant).

So in total at least 22 - 25 out of 28 cavalry captains "cared about" their banners.

On the other hand, at Klissow in 1702, out of 10 banners of Hussaria which participated in that batttle, not a single one was commanded by a cavalry captain. And only absence of one of those 10 - hetman Hieronim Lubomirski (C-i-C of the entire army at Klissow) is justified.

The remaining 9 simply didn't want to fight and made use of deputies - lieutenants.

Those lieutenants often also made use of deputies - as the result such units were not under command of officers, but lower ranks.

There was a similar situation with towarzysze - companions (each Hussaria banner consisted of companions - equivalent of modern NCOs - and pocztowi - equivalent of modern enlisted men). In 17th century there was not such thing like "towarzysz sowity" (towarz sowity = companion who was not personally serving in a unit, but was sending additional pocztowy as his deputy - so such a man was a Winged Hussar only "on paper", honorably).

In 18th century such companions were common. As the result number of NCOs (more valuable than pocztowi) in units significantly decreased.

As the result Hussaria slowly became a formation of "deputies" or "deputies of deputies", with few professional officers and NCOs.

And a simple soldier - pocztowy - when he saw that both his companion and his captain didn't want to fight personally - also lost his will to fight.

Secondly - training:

During the reign of Jan III Sobieski training of Hussaria was still good. Group exercises were still taking place on a daily basis.

But situation quickly and drastically worsened after Sobieski's death.

Stanislaw Dunin-Karwicki, a Polish cavalry veteran from 1670s and 1680s, wrote at the beginning of 18th century:

"Now, when our soldiers set war aside and take care more of peaceful matters, when they prefer to act as deputies from Sejmiki in the Parliament or to play the roles of marshals or directors in them, rather than to command in battle or be with their banners and take care of war, we already have more dummies than soldiers, more speakers than warriors. Thus we prefer to fight against the enemy with rations than with weapons."

And he also postulated to:

"(...) meanwhile at least the cavalry should organize field exercises, which had been applied by our ancestors, in order to make their horses and their weapons more fit to battle and to accustom them to use of weapons. As I remember, when devoutly deceased king Jan III was on winter quarters with the army in Braclaw in Ukraine, he was giving opportunity for his comrades-in-arms to such kinds of exercises with lances, sabers and other proper cavalry weapons, which should be introduced again these days instead of drinking bouts. That way soldiers and horses were more fit to battle."

During the rules of king August III of Saxony Jedrzej Kitowicz wrote about level of training of Polish cavalry at that time:

"Mounted drill was unknown (...) marching in pairs and stopping in a row according to registery, not according to height, it was the whole mounted drill."

The already mentioned Dunin Karwicki also criticized discipline of Polish cavalry in 18th century:

"Moreover, discipline and obedience, on which the entire strength of any army is based, are better in infantry. Because in cavalry of our army, soldiers called companions, conceited due to specific reputation, and even more due to their possessions, concerning themselves as equal to their officers, or even to hetmans, coldly endure orders of their superiors; on the other hand infantry in regiments much more accurately applies orders of their superiors."

==================================================

In 17th century Winged Hussars used to win battles even against multiple-times stronger enemies.

The victory against 14-times stronger odds was at Liubar-Chudniv in 1660 when 2 banners of Hussaria in strength of 250 horses - without any support from any other formation of the Polish army - defeated the advance-guard of the Russian army in strength of 3500 soldiers (1000 cavalry and 2500 infantry):

"(...) A banner of Hussars under Wladyslaw Wilczkowski (ca. 125 horses), charges against a regiment of Russian Cuirassiers (ca. 1000 horses). Wilczkowski begins the attack on his own initiative. Hussars sustain the fire of multiple carbine salvos and strike into the enemy. After breaking lances, Hussars take their broadswords... The fight is fierce. Armors and huge numerical superiority protect the Cuirassiers for some time. Seeing the lone fight of Wilczkowski's Hussars, another banner under command of Stanislaw Wyzycki (further 125 horses) launches an attack. Russians do not sustain the second impact. Cuirassiers flee from the battlefield. They spread confusion in ranks of the infantry regiment standing behind them (ca. 2500 Cossacks). Both banners of Hussaria, "on the necks" of the escaping Cuirassiers, charge into infantry and literally smash it to the ground.
This is how on 26.09.1660 the advance-guard of the Russian-Cossack army was defeated on the field between Liubar and Chudniv. Describing those events Leszczynski comments:

"There all the companions, filled with love to their homeland, went to battle with great joy. (...) You have earned eternal fame, Wilczkowski.""

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

That clash vs Russian advance-guard was on 26 September - a few weeks before the "proper" battle of Chudniv started (it started on 14 October):

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

I have a question...(sorry my bad english)

First there was the medieval nobles, in the golden age for feudalism, who fought on horses with full plate armors and frontal charges against the unlucky enemies. Being a footman at that time was being a dead man walking. With the fall of feudalism as a political-economical system, a great number of mercenary professional infantrymen appeared and made the armoured noble knights of Europe lose their power. The tactics for infantry evolved at the point that they learned how to face those charges and the super-heavy knights eventually lost their efficiency. With the new tactics for the infantrymen, the firearms were created, speeding up the obsolescence of noble medieval knights.

So there comes the Polish Winged Hussars, at XVII century, and are known as the motherfuckers-big-balls. If the firearm is the great weapon that made heavy melee knights outdated at the transition from Medieval Age to Modern Age, why the XVII century infantry (having a lot of firearms) didn't win against the Winged Hussars?
Why the Winged Hussars, being a full melee cavalry (AFAIK using the same equipment of medieval knights), were not considered outdated against the firearms of XVII century?