Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last

I was doing some reading on Polish military history when I learned about the Husaria. They were a damn scary group. Here is the link http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/Army.html

I want a total war were I get to use them.

Reply

In honour of the Husaria.


Also a Pancerny.


And who they fought an Ottoman Sipahy

Reply

You can always play the Pike and Musket Mod, made by a Polishman...

Long live Cegorach!

Reply

Man they sound badass. Imagine a group of winged riders with long lances on red and white horses coming out of the mist coming at your flank! That is my kind of lancer!

Reply

They were certaintly good, and impressive no doubt but they can't beat the nomadic horsemen who they based their style and purpose after.

Reply

Thanks for the nice words.

About Husaria - you definetely rarely can see such mixture of power and beauty, of modern equipment and excellent tactics.

It is one of those few units which were almost invincible for at least 100 years.
Even the greatest commanders and biggest armies of that time were annihilated without mercy by these professional soldiers under the command of superb commanders ( few exceptions excluded).

Definitely one of the best military units ever.

Fear us - MTW VI ( RTW BI I will show later)




Regards Cegorach

Reply

More images

in combat



during parades






in game

battle of Klushino - 30 000 Russians and 5000 Swedes, English, Scottish, French vs. 6500 Poles ( 5000+ of Husaria)



in game description



Regards Cegorach

Reply

Just some more images

- armour and weaponry from a museum



- pictures from a Russian book



- early version of Husaria from OiM TW ( for PMTW2 as well ).
They are already better now, don't worry.



Cegorach

Reply

Great pics . My kind of fighter= lance, sabres, pistol and sword,
don't have to depend on one type of weapon .

Reply

After reading a novel about Poland by Michener I have to say that the Polish Hussars are one of the most impressive military soldiers in history. Their style alone takes my breath away. Their battlefield finesse and military prowess also notable. In a time when Europe was getting pounded left right and center by the Turks and Vienna is in danger of being destroyed, the Polish Husaria coming to the rescue paints a very dramatic picture. Their flowing sashes, polished metal helmets gleaming off the arc of screaming feathers, bearing down on a horrified opponent and usually resulting in a massive rout of the enemy. They seem to me to be the epitome of their time - daring, extravagent, but powerful.

Reply

Honestly Vienna was one of the last victories of Husaria. Its story really started at Lubieszow in 1577 when small Royal army defeated 8 times larger mercenary forces of Danzig rebells during the first and last Danzig insurrection (they didn't accepted the new king) - they were very loyal to the very end of the 1st republic.

The unit was the mailed fist but used with skill in XVIIth century 'blitzkrieg' employed by the Polish-Lithuanian armies.
Many times the sight of Hussars lances was enough for an enemy to keep large reserve forces which could be used very well by Polish commanders like Sobieski who simply made 'fake' Husaria by ordering some infantrymen to carry their lances behind the main formation . The trick was used against Tatar and Tatar-Cossack army twice and worked perfectly.
Sobieski was possibly the best Polish commander ever, but his most crushing victories were achieved before Vienna which was pretty easy in comparison to e.g. Chocim 1672.

There are many more interesting battles fought by Husaria than Vienna only, although this is the most famous one.

Reply

and that is why i love my polish ancestry

Reply

where did they get the thousands of tiger and leopard skins and tens of thousands of eagles feathers? did they import them through ottoman lands?

Reply

The hussars! I was infatuated with them too when I first read of them.

Reply

They had nice armor, but I think Hakkapeliitat were much more scarier.

Reply

I agree, Hakkapelitta didn't take prisoners, so was greatly feared, but only because of this

Reply

And maybe it had something to do whit their charge too.
http://pwp.netcabo.pt/the_dementor/p...%20cavalry.jpg
Nice picture.

Reply

Of course, but Hakkapelitta was rather specialised light cavalry whereas Husaria was doing all kinds of 'jobs' and fighting all types of enemies from Sweden, Hapsburg, Russia to the Ottomans and the Crimean Tatars

+ Hakkapelitta in PMTW 2.0

Reply

Of course !

You might be suprised but there were only few wars between Poland and the Ottomans at that time:

1526-36 (???) - small and not really important,

around 1600 Polish forces pursuade the Ottomans to accept Polish influance in Moldavia,

1620-21 - major war, but doomed Ottoman invasion coudn't possibly hope to defeat Poland at that time, still Sweden used the presented opportunity to take Riga.

1634 - largely 'probing invasion' or the private war of Abazy Pasha - reformed Polish army defeated them easily despite war against Russia and the preparations to attack Swedish forces occupying Prussia.

1672 - Humilating defeat of Polish forces.

1672-75 several campaigns - neither Poland nor the Ottomans were able to win, although Ottoman losses were terrible.

1683-99 - Vienna, Parkany and Moldavian campaign despite major victories Ottoman tactics consisting of avoiding battles quite successfull - only lost territories were regained - neither Moldavia nor Wallachia were conquered despite several campaigns.

You see it was rather quiet and quite peaceful - only the eastern border was in flames all the time.

Regards Cegorach

Reply

I was having some drinks with some friends last night and Poland came up. The next many minutes revolved around myself relating to them on the reality of the Polish Husaria and the way they were utilized in the battle of Vienna against the Turks. They were spellbound.

Reply

Hi all

Kirchholm resulted in very bad Swedish defeat yes, but after this??? (and before at Stångebro when Sigismund tried to reclaim the throne of Sweden??) The Swedish defeat also was as much due to Charles IX decisions over his tired army then to the husaria :)

Did the Husaria win the battles against Gustavus II? As i recall the peacetreaty was in great Swedish favor :p

What about invasion of Poland by Charles X in the 1650:s (not a nice thing to do of course), I dont think he lost one single battle against the poles (in fact not one single battle in his career apart from the assault of Copenhagen in his second danish war) and there were many battles during his invasion. Of course he finally had to pull back, Chestokowa and gerillas aswell as other nations declaring war on Sweden forced him to do so not the Husaria :p

The husaria charge (and other polish cav) against Charles X army is often in swedish historybooks described as the medieval time riding into the annals of history since the polish knights didnt stand a chance against the massed fire of the modern disciplined swedish army :P

(In retreating from Poland Charles took the opportunity to deal with the Danes in one of histories most daring manouvers walking his army across the semifrosen ice from Jutland to Copenhagen.)

Charles XII roamed over Poland as he saw fit.

So id say Sweden largely had success against Polish arms from the time after Kirchholm until Charles XII left Poland for Russia in 1708 - about 100 years.

At all this time remember that Sweden with all provinces never numbered more then 2,5 milion people whearas Poland had much more of course.

And Sweden had to fight a lot of other enemies aswell; danes and russians mainly but others also, so even if Poland also had to do so that evens out I think.



Kalle

Reply

I was waiting for a moment when some scandinavian guys will drop in to add the ususal stuff about 'medieval husaria and swedish perfect warengine'.

Just to make sure you understand. I think that all those wars between Poland and Sweden were a wasta of time and resources - especially the Great Northern War were the balance of forces in Eastern Europe was broken for another 3 centuries ( i.e. untill the fall of the SU in 1991) and Russia dominated the region together with parasitic Prussia ( future militaristic Germany), but probably it was not possible to avoid it since Sweden was one of the poorest, backwater and conservative countries of Europe ( it was Gustavus Adolphus who really ended Medieval period in swedish history) and Poland quite opposite i.e. rather non-aggressive, decentralised, almost democratic, tolerant and rooted firmly in Renessaince from the early XVIth century. So ultimately it was destinated that Swedish armies would attack especially when Poland was involved somewhere else or experienced serious problems.
Nevertheless I have nothing against Sweden, Finland and other scandinavian countries even though most of most biased information I had from those sources, I wonder why is it so that countries which are almost neighbours and had no conflicts since early XVIIIth century know so little about each other, especially Swedes about Poland ?
History is another territory when similar biased opinions appear so often that I slowly become tired with answering weird questions and correcting strange statements - that's why I wrote these sentences above, I guess.
So please don't feel offended, but the comparison is , I think, completely true.


@Kalle

I am greateful for your information regarding allotment system and Karolingen army - it seems that you really like this period of swedish history and have very good knowledge about it, still you have to learn a lot about Polish-Swedish wars, because your statement that:
"So id say Sweden largely had success against Polish arms from the time after Kirchholm until Charles XII left Poland for Russia in 1708 - about 100 years." would suprise Charles X Gustav, Gustav II Adolph and shock poor Charles IX who didn't win a single battle against always outnumbered POlish forces.

Overall I think that Polish-Sweadish wars can be divided into a couple of periods:

1. 1600-1622 Polish total dominance

- not a single battle won against polish forces, Kircholm 1605 was a disaster, but there were also Kokenhausen (once or twice), Whitestone (I don't remember the right name) - twice, Dynemundt (sp ?) and others - I am sorry I am abroad so I have no access to more detailed Polish sources, but I have read several good books about the subject especially biography of Jan Karol Chodkiewicz.
Overall the picture is all the same - superior (numbers) swedish forces were forced to fight (often avoided battles if possible) and were completely crushed with very small casualities - at Kircholm it was around 250 dead to 9000 dead swedish mercenaries.
Still it is important to note that Polish army at that time almost completely outclassed all enemies - and not because they were so primitive - even Hapsburg forces were massacred at Byczyna 1588 and Archduke himself was imprisoned in Zamosc.

2. draw 1622 - 1635

Both armies fought to a standstill - several swedish victories and several polish, still it was Gustavus Adolphus who crushed Imperial armies in Germany, but still against Poland he had to fortify in what was, let's be honest, a swamp.
After the lost war of 1625-29 polish army was reformed so from that time regimental cannons, musketeer brigades and powerful cavalry was more than enough to subdue Swedes, sadly no battle was fought to prove who was better.

3. swedish dominance 1655-60 and 1701-08

It is often forgotten that the Deluge wasn't only swedish invasion - it was far more complicated affair with Russia, Cossacks, Transylvania, Sweden and for a period of time Brandenburg and some traitors. Only 3 or 4 cities in 1 mln kilometer large Poland were spared foreign presence.

Swedish army was winning, but the problem is that Polish had still to recover from the crushibg results of the ambush at Batoh in 1652 when 10 000 strong veteran force was almost totally eliminated ( brother of Jan Sobieski amongst them). Yes I agree that only few battles were won by Poles, but the problem was that after a victory Swedes were not able to finish off their enemies, Poles simply retreated or fled regrouped and attacked again.

It is interesting that Charles X Adolph was trying to eliminate the 'last' (as he thought) centre of resistence i.e. Lwow (except Danzig which for some reason wasn't interested in surrendering even when apparently almost whole Poland was conquered), but during his campaign in late 1655 he was harrassed so badly (not to mention that he wasn't prepared to besige so powerful fortress as Zamosc) that he lost around 50 % of soldiers and was trapped betwen San and Vistula in early 1656. It only proves how much Poles lacked infantry at that time that they were not able to finish him off.
Also so famous battle of Warsaw shouldn't happen at all because again the lack of good infantry was terrible at that time. Still a better commander than Jan Kazimierz ( good defender, but bad attacker) should coordinate cavalry charges better and it really might turn the defeat into a decisive vistory.
But it happened that Husaria charged alone - which probably never happended before or again in the history of Polish army - whole 1500 of them into swedish lines. This was really stupid, but still they broke the first line alone and almost killed the Swedish king himself.
I have no idea what losses are presented in Swedish sources, but it was something like 2000-4000 Poles to 1000-1500 Swedes and Brandenburians. During this unsupported charge Husaria suffered something around 20 % losses, still imagine how dangerous they were that they kept the entire attention of Swedish-Brandenburgian army.

So "The husaria charge (and other polish cav) against Charles X army is often in swedish historybooks described as the medieval time riding into the annals of history since the polish knights didnt stand a chance against the massed fire of the modern disciplined swedish army :P" as you see they were alone, which was useless, but typical for Jan Kazimierz.


MEDIEVAL HUSARIA

For some reason I also hear from time to time that Husaria was medieval or that they were knights.
Time to correct it here.

It is important to remember that Poland maintained only small standing army used to counter Tatar threat, it was around 4000 at the beginning of the XVIIth century and rised to around 8 000 later on. Of course there were in fact two armies: of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and of the Crown ( Poland and Ukraine), but I counted them together.
Of course because Rzeczpospolita was a decentralised state it had more military orgainisations: Royal Guard ( around 1500), city militias ( the largest of Danzig, Krakow, Zamosc and Warsaw), private troops of richer nobles (even up to 10 000), Cossack troops ( around 5 000), army of Courland Polish vassal ( 2000 or so) etc.
The small size was useful to achieve to goals:
- not to let the king to impose his favourite absolutism or other dictatorship - he had to behave more like a president in presidential democratic system,
- not to cost too much.
In fact the small army was more like a core troops for much larger army when a war was declared and troops were mobilised. It had a large percentage of officers so quite easily could absorb much larger number of fresh troopers.
Soldiery was a profession as in other countries so entire families were fighting in army of in orther military organisations - often private troops in wild fields of Ukraine.

So when a mobilisation was declared veteran colonels ( pulkownicy) were assigned to recruit a regiment which they obviously did mostly with their more trustworthy friends/better known soldiers etc. There was often a rivalry between some colonels to get certain people to their units. Because it was a matter of trust and respect (and future employment) corruption was easily avoided - if a colonel had a certain amount of money to share with people who were supposed to trust him he had to use them all for the purpose - not like in many western armies where they could amass a pretty decent amount recruiting barefooted cripple idiots to their regiments.
New regiments were formed and some existing ones were enlargened e.g. Royal Guard which could be even 5 times larger during the time of war.
When husaria (and other polish cavalry) regiments were formed (usually most of them were employed in the standing army - were too good) soldiers were supposed to appear with all the expected weaponry (regulated by procedures) except the lance which was provided by the state.
As you see the cost of forming Husaria depended on the wealth of the population rather the amount of money from war taxes. Wages were paid by state ( + lances), but it was a future Hussar who had to buy the equipment. Tricky, isn't it ?

Well, it should be rememebered that it was a great honour to serve in Husaria - even greater to form a regiment of them (still under state control i.e. the voters it was almost democratic society) and simply it was a way to get richer because of the expected loot and quite high wages. Many soldiers got richer this way. Also for non-nobles it was one of the few ways to become a one - you can compare Polish nobility status to Roman citizenship in some way, although there were no ranks of nobility and both genders were equal - now about 60-80 % of Poles are nobles i.e. aristocracy.
Second thing was that only less than half of Hussars worn so much equipment - more than 50%
of them were armed with sabres and pistols and carbines which gave Husaria pretty decent firepower, however caracole was never used in Poland insted massed firepower at close range was employed which had disastrous effect on enemy morale. Caracole wouldn't last more than 10 minutes against enemiesw like Tatars especially since pistols and carbines were rather inaccurate. Despite this fact Hussars and other polish cavalry used decent amount of firearms, sometimes to soften enemy infantry together with the firepower of infantry and artillery ( also rockets) of the Polish-Lithuanian armies, esides sometimes you had to dismount to defend or you loose your steeds - that is a war.

They were elite formation so considered themselves much better than others, but they had good reasons to do it.
Mainly because of their tactics and weapons they were able to handle with every kind of foe.

For example lance often wasn't used against Tatars were more mobility was required and only 1,5 meter longsword (koncerz) was employed, still the Tatars feared Hussars lances greatly, so when it was possible to pin them down with infantry's firepower or light cavalry (including polish and lithuanian Tatars ) Husaria was used as a hammer to smash Tatar army.

Husaria charged in a different way than most of other western cavalry




The whole last 375 meters ( the maximum range of a musket) was travelled in less than the time required to shoot more than once or commit a suicide (the pikemen have to move forwards)- for this reason Swedes at Kircholm 1605 placed their musketeers in mixed formation with pikemen, but it wasn't enough. In addition Husaria did loosen their ranks while charging which made the formation much more difficult by firepower to tight them just before hitting thir enemies.
The very last phase of Husaria charge was made in knee-to-knee formation which gave it incredible impact, but it wasn't the end. The last phase was even faster than gallop - it is called 'cwal' in Polish and I have no idea what is the English term. Only some armies adopted this pace, because it was very hard to maintain for long, interesting thing is that Husaria was accelerating from the last rank to the first one i.e. last ranks entered 'cwal' quicker than the first ones - this straightened the formation and make it better formed before the impact.
Hussars trained as well to turn their steed and retreat very quickly, so they could charge once again very soon - now imagine their enemies sighting with relief only to learn that it could be just the first of even 10 or 15 Husaria charges.
Only the most disciplined enemies could hope to survive, and almost nothing could stop well prepared Husaria charge. This explains a lot why G.Adolph's army fortified their positions as soon as possible and chose ususally some sort of natural obstacles.
Other enemies did similar things: at Klushino 1610 enetire 5000 strong mercenary part of 35 000 Russian army hidden behind a fence and polish infantry used cannons to burn these down - later Husaria charged and convinced them that using caracole in front fo charging Husaria is asking for a miracle.

Obviously Hussars had to use incredibly good steeds to make repeated cherges possible, so they did a unique to Poland blend of western, tatar and arabic steed which was at the same time swift and large and had huge stamina - at Trzciana in 1629 Husaria had to charge 3 or 4 times during a running battle against Swedish cavalry - the distance was close to 5 kilometers and Hussars had to charge fresh enemy reinforcements after breaking through their friends kilometers before, but thay succeeded.

The most interesting thing about Husaria is how was able to smash their way through enemy pikemen. Of course I think that they wouldn't be able to break massed pikemen formations like Spanish tertio, but they never had to there would be other ways to deal with them, I am sure.

Still it seems that breaking enemy pikemen was quite usual thing for the Hussars themselves - in the memoires from the period there were comon notes such like: "and at that time as usual we broke through their pikemen and finished them off".

So how did it worked.
First thing was the dense knee-to-knee formation used against enemy infantry ( against cavalry often it was better to widen and loose the formation - it still had enough impact anyway) with 5,5 meter lances outreaching enemy pikes - lances were hollow and counterbalanced so were quite easy to handle by experienced cavalryman.
Next thing is the psychological impact of watching the entire first ranks trown away as if charged by RTW elephants. Lance is a very acurate weapon so trained hussars knew how to couse their enemies to lose their lives and drop the pike harmlessly to their steeds.
The last thing is that because pikemen rely on formation much more than anything else any holes can be used well, especially when next ranks of Husaria is shooting you to bits with pistols and first ones are cutting you with sabres (especially special Husaria ones, which were rarely used in duels because were 'killer's weapons').
Usually it is pretty enough to make enemy run.
Besides Hussars could always turn back reform and charge again...

Now imagine yourself standing in formation when suddenly you hear the flutter of infamous wings, and watching your pikemen retreating somehow far too quickly behind your regiment.
You are lowering your pike and praying silently. Next you see them quickly approaching in tight formation, lances lowered. Next you watch some of your frinds crushed, thrown away trough your ranks... Only the best could survive it, or most lucky - no wonder that western mercenaries capitulated so quickly after the fence they were hiding behind crumbled.

Of course when it wasn't necessary pikemen were not charged when in formation - after all it is always better to do it easier way.
Still Husaria was the only cavalry capable of crushing pikemen without really numerous losses.

So there is my conclusion:

Husaria is so medieval as knights (both had lances) exactly like a washing machine is a TV - both have screens... although washing gives more entertaining than some TV proposals


More later if you want. I have a frind who is a historian and currently writes his second book about Husaria, so I can give you some answers if you need.


Regards Cegorach

Reply

Hello :)

I was waiting for the moment when some proude Polish dude was to come back with an answer on backward Sweden and Democratic Poland

Agree on the war thing - wars are hardly ever any good.

Well it is impossible to say a date when the medieval times end almost everywhere I think but in Sweden historians usually draw the line with Gustav (Gustav Wasa, Gustav I and all other things he later has been called) who was Gustavus II Adolphus grandfather. Why?? Because he made Sweden a unified country through hard struggles, he abandoned the pope and introduced protestantism, he made a huge step forward in standardising the langauge through his translation of the bible to Swedish, and above all he started the creation of a state administration that since then has been one of the worlds most effective and made the Swedish expansion during the 17th century possible since it allowed Sweden to use relatively much more of its resources then the Swedens enemies.

Sweden was poor yes, backward hm, im not sure about that neither politically or scientifically but culturully Sweden was not very advanced no. Kristina, Gustavus II Adolphus daughter tried immensly hard and spended much money on making at least the Swedish court culturully leading as was fitting for a great power (for instance she brought Descartes to Stockholm where he got ill from the cold and died, but we thank him for coming )

Politically I fail completely to see how Sweden was a backward country. Not only was the administration top notch but only in Switzerland did the farmers have such a high status and freedom as in Sweden. They were represented at the parliament, the majority of farmers were free and owned their own property and as long as they payed their taxes no one could touch them. Along with the free farmers there were farmers on homesteads belonging to the crown (state) and there were farmers on homesteads belonging to noblemen and id say those few who were working on noblemens lands were worst off. Please tell me if the polish farmer had the same freedom, power and right to his own property as the Swedish one

Please also enlighten me how, what in the rest of the world is known as polish parliament (polsk riksdag in swedish), is in the frontline of democracy. Noblemen squabling about everything and one nobleman being able to cancel decissions of the rest if he so wanted - the political system probably more then foreign invaders brought Poland down. And where in this democracy were the farmers and other ordinary people? Slaving on the noblemans goods id guess .

Destined that Sweden would attack?? Gustav (I) had a son - Johan (III) who also had a son - Sigismund. Sigismund also got the crown of Poland and here was an opportunity for greatness indeed I guess but Sigismund put his effort in Poland so his uncle Charles (IX) led a fight against him since he and others thought Sweden should be ruled from Sweden and not Krakow or Warzaw. Sigismund landed with a Polish force to crush the rebellion but he failed at Stångebro against Charles who actually got a victory over the poles

So who was the attacker wel hard to say imo, depends on if you feel it was a rebellion or not and if it was a justified rebellion or not.

Happy to give you good information :)

I allready showed that Charles IX won a battle, a more important one then Kirschholm as it ment Sweden was to be ruled from Sweden not from Poland. It also ment that Sweden continued as a protestant country.

And as for my timeline well lets push it forward another ten years then to the 1620:ies and as far as I can see we then are in agreement that Sweden was largely (not completely successful). And lets not forget that if Swedish forces were more numerous when the Poles won in the early 17th century the other way around is true for the later wars. Charles X and Charles XII did not have superior numbers when fighting the poles instead it was the other way around.

Also you say Poland was in so much trouble fighting on all fronts well so were all of Polands neighbours also, Sweden not the least. You can bet your a.s that allmost everytime Sweden was at war with someone those sneeky danes would try a backstab

Well and from where did they get those ideas for reform?? Regimental artillerypieces was Gustavus II Adolphus idea I tink

And lets not forget that Charles X was tought how to wage war in the army that Gustavus had created and we all know what happened when Charles X and polish met in battle (Charles lost vs Poland vs gerilla movements and the national rising after chestokova as said in my earlier post, he did not loose against the obsolete husaria.

Finally you have a friend who is a historian, please tell me the name of his books if they are in English as im intrested in this time of history exactly as you and would love to read about the husaria charges (i dont mean the husaria were bad troops if you get that impression from reading my posts).

Btw I am also a historian

Kalle

Reply

'I was waiting for the moment when some proude Polish dude was to come back with an answer on backward Sweden and Democratic Poland'

No, no, no ! Kalle you should have written something like 'I was waiting fr the moment when some POlish guy will answer with usual stereotype/biased information/something else' - it doesn't sound so good and not at all agressive or passionate.

Anyway that is good the thread is becoming more interesting.

Good auti-irony with this Descartes travell, I must admit.

'Politically I fail completely to see how Sweden was a backward country. Not only was the administration top notch but only in Switzerland did the farmers have such a high status and freedom as in Sweden. They were represented at the parliament, the majority of farmers were free and owned their own property and as long as they payed their taxes no one could touch them. Along with the free farmers there were farmers on homesteads belonging to the crown (state) and there were farmers on homesteads belonging to noblemen and id say those few who were working on noblemens lands were worst off. Please tell me if the polish farmer had the same freedom, power and right to his own property as the Swedish one '

I hardly can see such good status as a mark of beeing more modern than anyone. The reasons were simple:
1. Sweden was similar to Switzerland in that way taht it was scarcely populated, so the status of local communities was obviously enhanced,
2. Small number of nobles or urban dwellers meant the king had to build links directly with peasants,
3. There was hardly any opposition to the king and it was hard enough not to submit the rural folk - without the support of the monarch it was impossible - who simply played the peasant card against all others. It also explains why the support was so strong even though the losses during wars were so terrible.

Besides the situation of the polish peasant was evolving towars full freedom which cannot be said about its neighbours - for some reason entire villages were running away to Poland - especially in the XVIIIth century. Freedom for peasant refugees (and soldiers) guaranteed in first european written constitution ( that of Poland from the 3rd May 1791) was the major reason of Russian invasion in 1792, especially since Polish army remained mostly professional not conscript force.

'Please also enlighten me how, what in the rest of the world is known as polish parliament (polsk riksdag in swedish), is in the frontline of democracy. Noblemen squabling about everything and one nobleman being able to cancel decissions of the rest if he so wanted - the political system probably more then foreign invaders brought Poland down. And where in this democracy were the farmers and other ordinary people? Slaving on the noblemans goods id guess'

I knew it would happen... The name is used in Swedish and Danish ONLY - because Polish Parliament was seen as a complete opposite to neat and tidy Scandinavian parliaments where all kings proposals were accepted and all the taxes were given.
'Squabbling' is a part of DEMOCRACY - especially when the country is so diverse like Poland at that time.

And please - one noble not making something possible - it is a fairy tale - YES it is true that the belief that every nobleman is equal led to the belief that everyone should agree, but the truth was that NOONE even tried to disagree if he didn't have serious support.
Veto was a mark of the bad situation of Poland - not the reason of it. I think it should never appear, but I dare say that Polish Parliament was very efficient for that time as well as local gatherings of similar status.
Again veto happened BECAUSE the country was in crisis ( 70 years of constant wars didn't helped), not it caused the crisis. True it fuelled it further, but Polish parliamentary system recovered from it - alone and against foreign influence when the society overcame the crisis.
I must admit that liberum veto appears too often - but it was so simple -Russian and Prussian governments claimed they were 'liberating' people in Poland from 'anarchy' so they justified it so hard that it became the major myth about POland.
Tell me one thing - how did the absolutism work ? I have the feeling that it wasn't any better than Polish 'anarchy'.

True it was limited democracy - that is why I said it was 'almost-democratic' system - it was nobles' republic and peasants generally had no rights. It is unjoust I agree, but it was XVI-XVIIth centuries - in many countries the situation was much worse and in no other the power of the king was so limited - but too strong in my opinion - they did too much harm anyway.
So see it this way - yes in Poland only 10 % ( or a little more) had full rights (both genders !), but other classes of the society ( except peasants i.e. 75-80 %) were represented by lobbing, local gatherings or autonomy ( like in Royal Prussia with Danzig or in Riga or amongst Zaporozhian Cossacks or in larger cities etc.) - in political systems with 'puppet' parliament or none at all EVERYONE WAS A SLAVE.

'Destined that Sweden would attack?? Gustav (I) had a son - Johan (III) who also had a son - Sigismund. Sigismund also got the crown of Poland and here was an opportunity for greatness indeed I guess but Sigismund put his effort in Poland so his uncle Charles (IX) led a fight against him since he and others thought Sweden should be ruled from Sweden and not Krakow or Warzaw. Sigismund landed with a Polish force to crush the rebellion but he failed at Stångebro against Charles who actually got a victory over the poles'


So you say that Polish-LIthuanian-Swedish-Finnish state should be ruled from Sweden ?
I dare say that it would make no sense at all - there was not a single reason to do this. The very idea was to elect a Swedish heir to make a frind from the possible enemy like with Lithuania. If the union survived Swedes and Finns would be POlonised like LIthuanians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Germans etc - it is the matter of cultural supremacy not imposed policy.
Sigismund was elected to make Baltic 'the sea of the Republic and cut Russia of the Baltic Sea. There was strong belief that it is the best idea, because it worked before with Lithuanian Grand Duchy, Royal Prusia, Livonia, Courland and almost worked with Moldavia, Transylvania, Wallachia and Prussia - even in Russia and Crimea there were pro-POlish parties. The problem was that Swedish society lacked opposition to future Charles IXth reign, was conservative Lutheran ( so intolerant), obviously afraid of beeing 'swallowed' in the Commonwealth and besides the very personality of Sigismund who was fanatically catholic worked well against him both in Poland and in Sweden - most of political crisises in the Republic were driven by this man.
Still I think that the union had better chance than that with Russia which was even more conservative - almost bordered paranoia, but Charles IX believed as well in conspiracy theories ( mostly Catholic), which didn't help at all.

You see the center of the universe wasn't going to be in Sweden, although the Republic was a federation so it would have its autonomy, faith and law intact - the inevitable Polonisation would be a differet thing, but it was NEVER imposed - sometimes it worked against us , I must admit - especially in Ukraine where the elites polonised so quickly that it was the Cossacks who formed the seed of the future Ukrainian nation, ufortunatelly so rebellious in the beginning...

'I allready showed that Charles IX won a battle, a more important one then Kirschholm as it ment Sweden was to be ruled from Sweden not from Poland. It also ment that Sweden continued as a protestant country.'

First thing - it is hard to say it there were at all any Poles at Stångebro - about the entire affair I only heard that:
POles only lent artillery to Sigismund and that once during a battle Sigismund prohibited some Poles from his bodyguard unit to charge the Swedes which would be seen as emplying foreign, catholic troops against lutheran countrymen and fuel only Charles IX support.

I will find more, I promise - I have extensive 'network' to ask the questions.

And about protestant Sweden - you are only probably right, but only in long terms - because protestant territories of Poland remained protestand and didn't lose its autonomy, even stranger they opposed Polish enemies sometimes even more than any other part of the country ( e.g. Danzig against Swedes in 1626-29 and 1655-60, against Prussia 1700-93 and against Russia in 1733-34). Of course beiing the part of the republic meant accepting religious tolerance so Catholics in Sweden would have to be tolerated - there is something like LUtheran sectarianism and intolerance as well and Charles IX was an excellent example of people believeing too much in Jesuit conspitacies.
The revival of Catholic faith in Poland and its future supremacy ( still no intolerance) was the consequence of several things one of them that it was all non-catholic enemies which Poland was fighting and jesuit schools were very popular - because no inquisistion was possible in the Republic they had to adapt as everywhere, in Poland they founded schools.

'Also you say Poland was in so much trouble fighting on all fronts well so were all of Polands neighbours also, Sweden not the least. You can bet your a.s that allmost everytime Sweden was at war with someone those sneeky danes would try a backstab'

Yes, but Sweden had the ultimate weapon which was its fleet - this way it actually always could choose the moment to strike without risk of invasion.

'Well and from where did they get those ideas for reform?? Regimental artillerypieces was Gustavus II Adolphus idea I tink'

Yes, the army of the Republic used every kind of inspiration which was good enough.

'the obsolete husaria'

????????? Please explain... do you mean it was outdated or something ?


'Finally you have a friend who is a historian, please tell me the name of his books if they are in English as im intrested in this time of history exactly as you and would love to read about the husaria charges'

I will ask him -maybe there is something, although I don't think there is a book describing Husaria indetails - there are only few in Polish -because Husaria was one of those things which the Communists found 'anti-Russian' o gerenerally unfriendly and too 'imperialistic'.

Besides my earlier post was based on several POlish ones.

There is going to be an Osprey book from warrior series about Husaria - released in 2006, I hope.

For now there are 4 books I would recommend:

Polish Army 1569-1696 two volumes and The Army of Gustavus Adolphus two volumes as well - all by Richard Brzezinski and all from Osprey publishing.
In addition you might like to read Lutzen 1632 - author and publisher still as above - I am using this one to make a historical battle for PMTW both editions.

There is only one serious mistake I have noticed - the author forgot that at Kircholm it was mostly mercenary army which the Poles were fighting - not swedish national troops.
BTW - I have recently discovered that Kircholm was fought for less than 30 minutes !!!
It makes this battle in PMTW 1.0 almost real-time.




In addition two Polish formations -





so called Old Polish Order - used at Kircholm and other battles in early XVIIth century and more firepower oriented new formation after military reformas of Wladyslaw IV Vasa and Koniecpolski.

Regards Cegorach

Reply

Another image - it is from quite old polish board game - pretty good in recreating tactics of both sides - I must admit

Reply

For some reason I'm getting the feeling this has turned into a bit of a national match. Anyways, I've a policy of always getting my neck hairs all a-bristle when something gets hyped up too much - something ceg and, for that matter, the site the original poster linked, have a bad habit of doing.

For one, AFAIK the Hackapells (or Hakkapeliitat as the name goes in Finnish) are seriously overrated. To my knowledge their contemporaries didn't find them anything particularly special - tough fighters for cavalry of their "weight", but then that much may just as well be thanks to an exceptional commander. Still tended to get badly bloodied by Imperialist cuirassieurs (once they dumped the caracole and started fighting aggressively too) in a straight fight in any case, and like most Swedish cavalry of the Thirty Years' War relied heavily on the close support fire of musketeer brigades against heavier troops.

Anyway, given the hideous campaign attrition rates of the period and the difficulties in getting reinforcements all the way from back home, odds are that most of the time the "Finnish" Hackapells were about as ethnically homogenous as any other military unit - not very. Most likely the ranks tended to be largely filled with "foreign" mercenaries even if for one reason or another attempts were made to keep the unit "national" - during the TYW the Swedes actually tended to use their own draftees as occupation and garrison troops anyway (as they were considered more reliable) and partly by necessity used mostly mercenaries in their field armies.

These days Finnish researchers tend to suspect the light cavalry unit in question received a fair bit of extra glory from the National Romanticists of the late 1800s, who as one might imagine tended not be overly picky about details.


I cannot help but suspect something similar is going on with the Winged Hussars (hereafter Husaria for short). Certainly by all accounts they were a highly capable cavalry force, able to take on all comers on at least equal terms; and obviously their battlefiald C&C was superior to at least that of the average grade of late-medieval and Renaissance European heavy cavalry.

But then, so ? High degree of mobility, coordination and battlefield control are pretty much the prequisites of being able to fight an opponent as tricky and dangerous as the steppe nomads with even a decent success rate; if that level of maneuverability and professionalism is coupled with European-style lance-shock tactics, then it is only natural the end result is pretty darn lethal.

Clearly the Poles managed to develop a highly effective "weapon system" that, at least for a while, proved to be superior to most anything that confronted it. This isn't exactly a new scenario, though; only recently the Hussite wagoneers and the Swiss phalanxes had laid claim to the exact same achievement, and they too eventually fell prey to their own success - when their winning method eventually lost its keenest edge and stopped being as unbeatable as it used to be, they either did not realize it in time or were too committed to the method to be able to change it sufficiently. This is a *very* old story, really - the demise of the war chariot in far Antiquity was very similar.

Be that as it may, one gets the strong impression the Husaria ultimately relied on "cold steel" shock attack with, as it were, "some guts behind it" and being able to shred the opposition in the ensuing melee. That this technique was employed with high degrees of coordination and professionalism, or that the Poles could do it better than their opponents, doesn't make it any less essentially "medieval" - this approach was actually the norm for heavy cavalry all over Eurasia except the relatively isolated westernmost end (ie. Europe) where things got rather degenerate and sloppy at one point (the High Middle Ages mainly).

Conversely, the system to which most European armies went for in the Early Modern period was that of a true mass army. As they were made up of dubiously trained conscripts and mercenaries they couldn't really realy on skill, bravery and élan to carry the day in the thick of things; they were all about iron discipline, cohesive units and individual soldiers compensating for deficiencies in skill and equipement with machine-like teamwork. The trend had actually started back in the Middle Ages, its first true exponents probably being the Swiss although the more capable infantry forces, be they peasant levies of urban militias, had long had the right idea going too. Its undeniable success made it the continental norm, and when pushing the technology of the lance, horse and armour to their conclusions proved to be an insufficient response the cavalry arm could not but follow suit.

However good they were at it, it remains that the military method of the Poles was ultimately that of a previous era their foes to the West had already discarded. The old method still worked for quite a while, partly as the others had yet to work out the bugs from the new one, but ultimately its time was rapidly drawing to a close.


Personally, I find it difficult to believe the 5.5 meter hollow lance was quite as effective against infantry pikemen as is claimed. It's simple mathematics, really. Of the 5.5 meters, at least about 0.5 if not more goes to being couched under the arm. Past that, it ought to be roughly a meter before the lance projects past the head of the horse. That leaves about four meters of "business end" reaching forwards from the rider/mount combination.

Infantry pikes tended towards a similar 5.5 meter lenght, or thereabouts (longer having proven to be far too unwieldy). Now, when a front-rank pikeman "sets" his weapon to receive a cavalry charge he does so by stepping on its butt, grippin the shaft with his left hand, taking a fairly low, wide and quite stable semi-crouch (not unlike the basic stance of many martial arts, really), grips the hilt of his sword with his right hand in preparation of the melee, and angles his pike so that the tip is approximately at the level of the horse's chest.

However you look at it, that leaves most of his weapon (probably about five meters in terms of practical reach) projecting in front of him. Added to this are the second and third ranks behind him, who prepare to receive the charge with different stances and grips (I understand they hold their pikes horizontally).

Now, unless there's something seriously flawed with my scenario thus far it would seem to me that even with his extra-long lance the Hussar's horse is getting shish-kebabed on the tip of the first pike while the tip of his lance is still about a meter away from the front-rank pikeman - and even should he get past the first pike-tip, he'll reach the second one around the time his lance hits the first pikeman...

I'm sorry, but given that late-medieval knights on plate-barded horses found pikemen nigh unassailable I have severe problems believing the Husaria on their unbarded mounts would fare much better even if they had unusually long lances. Among the fundamental truths of military history is that disciplined heavy infantry is a very frustrating opponent for even the best heavy cavalry, even if they don't have proper "anti-horse" weapons; spearmen are doubly so and much more dangerous, and pikemen - they were the foil of men on horseback everywhere they turned up. The much-maligned caracole skirmish tactic was specifically an anti-pikeman invention, and not terribly effective at that...

Mind you, I've yet to get around to reading Englund's Den oövervinnelige properly where there would no doubt be informative discussion on the topic, but I did cursorily leaf through it a while ago. One part that caught my eye mentioned that during Carolus X's Polish foray the Polish cavalry found the massive pikeman-shielded firepower of the Swedish infantry all but insurmountable, but usually had the upper hand in straight cavalry fights. After all, the effective range of the wheellock pistol against an armoured opponent was around five meters... The pistol-toting Swedish cavalry was overall badly out of its league against the Husaria. They simply did not have the firepower to distrupt or turn back a massed charge at long range, and as a result the Poles were usually able to press home with their lances. Naturally a massed lance charge crashing into a squadron of comparatively lightly armoured cavalry wrought some terrible damage and very likely threw the formation into disarray - and particularly if unit cohesion was distrupted the more skilled and aggressively minded Poles, mounted of faster, stronger, more agile and likely better-trained horses, would usually pretty much demolish their hapless Swedish colleagues in the ensuing whirling melee.

Similarly, fully modern British "redcoats" received several nasty beatings when irate Scots were able to push a "Highland Charge" into their ranks; if the "modern" soldier could be deprived of the benefits of his cohesive formation, then the more freewheeling and individually more aggressive (and usually more skilled) "medieval"-minded fighter would tend to have him for breakfast.

Reply

Good to see you - any ideas to answer for my PM BTW ?

I have found some info about the swedish 'campaign' of Sigismund III, I will post it soon and aswer the latest posts as well

Reply

I aint gone either :p I just havent had either time nor strenght to post anything more in this topic yet

Info also coming on Erik XIV reforms.

Kalle

Reply

The Lance was up to twenty feet in length. That is around 6.6 yards. Know I know that a yard is longer than a meter, so the lances could out reach the first line of pikes.

Reply

Cough
1 yard = 0.9144 meters

And the problem is that pikemen keeps a dense formation so killing the first pikemen still gives a massive amonts of pikes to damage the hussaria.

Now I'm quoting someone in Swedish (Swedish forum), but can you find any case of hussaria beating pike-equiped Swedish infantry by charging frontally through the years 1617-1660? http://forum.skalman.nu/viewtopic.ph...&highlight=pik

Reply

Page 1 of 2 1 2 Last