Fear the Polish Husaria!

[m52nickerson]

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.

[lars573]

In honour of the Husaria.


Also a Pancerny.


And who they fought an Ottoman Sipahy

[edyzmedieval]

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

Long live Cegorach!

[NodachiSam]

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!

[Steppe Merc]

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

[cegorach]

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

Long live Cegorach!

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

[cegorach]

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

[cegorach]

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

[cegorach]

'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

[cegorach]

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

[Watchman]

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.

[cegorach]

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

[Kalle]

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

[m52nickerson]

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.

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.

[Ironside]

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.

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

[m52nickerson]

I don't think they every fully charged a full unit of Pikes that were ready to receive a charge. They did not have to, remember they were armed with muskets, as well as bow and arrow. Now if they hit a unit that did not have time to set there pikes, or had taken a some losses, it was then that there lances reach came into its own.

[KrooK]

OK at the beginning I would like crush some stereotypes.
Polish parliament into XVI and 1st half of XVII century was simply I - D - E - A - L. Swedish and british parliaments were much less developed than polish one. Why - because (and it's strange but true) everyone felt that future of country depend on him.
Do you want example of "polish parliament"???
Despite during elections one vote "against" bill could crush bill (because 100% votes "for" were necessary), people simply didn't vote "no". They were telling that they don't think this bill will be good and it was all.

Maybe other example?
Once upon a time polish parliament wanted enact "Act against prerogatives".
MPs decided that they should give good example - so they went to king and gave every prerogative they took. Without any force.

Do you know that polish nobles (mostly catholics) enacted bills about tolerance called Warsaw Confederation. Same time rest of Europe was fighting on religion wars. So talking about "polish parliament" as example of mess, in XVI and 1st half of XVII century is simply JOKE.


Kalle sorry that we don't tell that Swedens are undefeated but they were being defeated many times. Swedens were winning when Poland was weakened by enemies or when they have massive human andvantage.
During Warsaw battle husaria's charge did what they expect for it. Swedish army was in mess and Poles lost because other units didn't attack.

BTW lances got 5.5 metres lenght. Husaria could break heavy infantry with pikes because pikemen from XVII century weren't pikemen from XVI centrury.
There were 1/3 or even 1/4 pikemen and 2/3 (3/4) musketeres. Musketers stood into some rows. Into husaria regiment there were about 200 soldiers, they were charging into 4 rows. After researching about these charges it appeared than into decisive moment there were 1,5 meter beetwen 2 pikemen and 0,5 meter beetwen 2 husaria soldiers. Connect it with information that husaria lances were simply longer than pikes and husaria attacked partially from flank.
When husaria broke 1st line, it caused mess into enemy formation and then it was easy. Pikemen from other rows couldn't use their pikes because their friends ran into their direction.

Leopard skins for husaria armour were being imported from turkish empire. Same like some parts of weapon (part of sabres from Siria). Furthermore horses were turkish origin (they were strong and easy to train). Horses equipment has been imported from Persia (im not sure about it but i think so).