Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 131

Thread: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

  1. #41
    intel's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Porando
    Posts
    4,684

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    I suggest we drop this discussion. It is really non-productive. You could just as well read a book or two about hussars- I strongly recommend, Radoslaw's essays, as smoe could be probably be found on the web.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Okay. What's more important than morale? Equipment?
    I may be wrong, but I would attribute more importance to experience and discipline. But why do we have to deal with absolutes?
    Their equipment is about the same.
    It is not.


    Unless you can't see the drastic difference between this:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    ...and this:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    We can already tell that hussar has great advantages over thousand years earlier cavalryman- gunpowder weapons, longer lance and faster horse.
    Training? I'm fairly sure they're equally well-trained.
    Pity, because as hussar training was generally consistent, "Persian cataphract" is a very generic term that could possibly describe cavalry of wide range of experience and training.
    So it comes down to morale.
    ...again, poor conclusion, since the technology gap between those two horsemen is unfavourable for Cataphract.
    And the Parthians/Sassanids repeatedly beat the Romans. Resulting in a strategic stalemate.
    Thus, a definite sense of superiority?
    Never said that. I said "If it hits", which, as anyone who has used a firearm before will tell you, is certainly not a given, especially when using a smoothbore firearm at full gallop.
    Which leads to question why would hussar use a firearm in least favourable situation possible- in full gallop.
    So, basically they were 1600s-era knights? Cool stuff that, using a lance when everyone else switched to swords and pistols.
    So, basically you argue about something you know little about. Cool stuff that.
    No, just that they will miss. Accounting for wounds
    What wounds?
    evasion the horse briefly stumbling or flinching, the rider briefly stumbling or flinching
    Hussars weren't raiding on wild, untrained horses. Horse's movement is steady and regular.
    adrenaline, fear, and so on, there is a significant chance the lance will not strike home.
    So, we just abandon that lifetime's training and reflexes will abandon hussar in the least favourable moment.
    Unlike you, I don't have a vested interest in bigging up Winged Hussars as anything more than good-quality heavy cavalry.
    Well, you never really knew anything about them in the first place...

  2. #42

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    Yes, they were.



    Therefore winged hussars were such a mortal formation. Unlike present day Western historians, who diminish the importance of lancers (you know, if something wasn't in use in their countries any more, it must be obsolete or little important), people in 17th c. knew the real, high value of heavy lancers. I can quote primary sources in French, Spanish or English, which say essentially the same thing - in the open field, the charge of Polish hussars couldn't be stopped. Why? Because of lances they had.
    Save for when they ran headlong into a pike formation, of course.
    That tends to stop all cavalry charges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    Unlike pistols, lances needed well trained men,
    Really? Hitting a target on the move with a smoothbore weapon, and then reloading it, all while moving, doesn't require significant training?

    Lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    very good horses and they were much more expensive.
    Yes. A long stick+metal point in the end is much more expensive than a hand-crafted wheellock pistol.


    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    Therefore countries which couldn't afford to raise heavy armored lancers, switched to cavalry armed of pistols or carabines.
    Yes. Not afford. Britain, slowly acquiring an Empire, France, the greatest land power in Europe, Spain, with a massive Empire, Austria, Russia, Sweden - all significant powers - couldn't afford armoured lancers.
    Poland, on the other hand, could, because it was just that awesome.

    Pistols, carbines and most importantly, swords. Since no cavalry could defeat a solid, disciplined pike wall [which was the norm in these countries], and a cavalryman armed with a sharp stick will defeat musketeers deployed in a line through shock and mass, the lance became irrelevant. I think the prevalence of heavy lancers in Poland and Eastern Europe speaks more to the poor discipline of infantry in these regions, rather than any superiority in a lance.


    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    I may be wrong, but I would attribute more importance to experience and discipline. But why do we have to deal with absolutes?
    It is not.


    Unless you can't see the drastic difference between this:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    ...and this:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    We can already tell that hussar has great advantages over thousand years earlier cavalryman- gunpowder weapons, longer lance and faster horse.
    Pity, because as hussar training was generally consistent, "Persian cataphract" is a very generic term that could possibly describe cavalry of wide range of experience and training.
    ...again, poor conclusion, since the technology gap between those two horsemen is unfavourable for Cataphract.
    Thus, a definite sense of superiority?
    Which leads to question why would hussar use a firearm in least favourable situation possible- in full gallop.
    So, basically you argue about something you know little about. Cool stuff that.
    What wounds?
    Hussars weren't raiding on wild, untrained horses. Horse's movement is steady and regular.
    So, we just abandon that lifetime's training and reflexes will abandon hussar in the least favourable moment.
    Well, you never really knew anything about them in the first place...
    Intel, you're the one who wants us to believe that Hussars are:

    Incapable of missing a target with either lance or pistol.
    Massively more heavily armoured than Cataphracts [despite their 3/4 armour actually protecting less of their body in terms of coverage, not protecting their horse at all, although being significantly harder].
    And in all ways magically better than any other heavy cavalry that was available in Europe, ever.

    And you have not substantiated this argument. Thus I naturally dismiss it.
    Last edited by Rolling Thunder; July 07, 2011 at 02:35 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    How about we define the rights that allow a government to say that isn't within my freedom.

  3. #43

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    I suggest we drop this discussion. It is really non-productive. You could just as well read a book or two about hussars- I strongly recommend, Radoslaw's essays, as smoe could be probably be found on the web.
    And for information on the Savaran, I recommend the Osprey book Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642 by Kaveh Farrokh.

  4. #44
    Nissedruva's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Gävle, Sweden
    Posts
    1,092

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Yes. Not afford. Britain, slowly acquiring an Empire, France, the greatest land power in Europe, Spain, with a massive Empire, Austria, Russia, Sweden - all significant powers - couldn't afford armored lancers.
    Poland, on the other hand, could, because it was just that awesome.

    Pistols, carbines and most importantly, swords. Since no cavalry could defeat a solid, disciplined pike wall [which was the norm in these countries], and a cavalryman armed with a sharp stick will defeat musketeers deployed in a line through shock and mass, the lance became irrelevant. I think the prevalence of heavy lancers in Poland and Eastern Europe speaks more to the poor discipline of infantry in these regions, rather than any superiority in a lance.
    As for Sweden it could never hope to raise cavalry as costly as the hussars. Captain Gars on the Swedish historical forum skalman.nu point out that the equipment of 3 polish hussars in the 17th century could supply up to 125 ordinary cavalrymen with helm and breastplate. Unlike the Polish-Lithuanian state with (in perspective) numerous wealthy noblemen who supplied their own hussar equipment and riders the Swedish state was way more centralized and controlled by a state in almost constant need of monetary funds to fuel the various wars. The Swedish noblemen wealthy enough to afford hussar equipment and a capable horse (very important) were literally only a handful. Add to that the practice of handling a lance was (due to the factors above) basically 0.

    Even if i do agree that the general quality of infantry in the east was very low (Russians is the prime example but also for instance the Swedes prior to the 1620s) the combination of extreme mobility and superior range due to the lance also allowed the Hussars to outflank and defeat solid pike formations.
    - Gentlemen, we just seized an airfield.
    - That was pretty ninja....

  5. #45

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Save for when they ran headlong into a pike formation, of course.
    That tends to stop all cavalry charges.
    No, not these guys. Winged Hussars constantly defeated such formations, even when facing "famed" swedish pike and shot infantry. While in the west, pikemen were generally using shorter and shorter pikes, due to the (wrong) believe that massed cavalry charges with steel (melee weapons) were becoming obselete, in the east, Polish-Lithuanian heavy cavalry retained their lances, and indeed had lengthened ones compared to their medieval ancestors.

    You may wonder why they even used such long weapons in the first place... Why would they want or need a 6m lance? (Guess )

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Really? Hitting a target on the move with a smoothbore weapon, and then reloading it, all while moving, doesn't require significant training?
    Just firing the pistol doesn't. And no, the examples you gave above don't really require all that significant training.

    The difference is that lancers actually had to pick a target, while in that age firearms were just fired blankly at enemy formations, as they were too inaccurate to be used against indvidual foes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Yes. A long stick+metal point in the end is much more expensive than a hand-crafted wheellock pistol.
    No, didn't you read Radosław Sikora's posts before? A winged Hussar carried much more than just a "long stick+metal". (Which by the way, WERE quite expensive, because of the procedure needed to make them lightweight.) You forget winged hussars also had these shiny pistols, yet figured that they weren't at all as effective as lances.

    In the age we are discussing (17th century) Spain is first off declining, Russia is no "power" (wasn't even called that yet). I wouldn't exactly call all these counrties "significant" powers. What and who are we comparing them too anyways?

    Poland-Lithuania functioned in a completely different system, in a different position, and saw the benefit of preserving heavy lancers. The west did not.

    That being said, winged hussars were hardly the norm in their armies. They were in fact the eilte, and usually only formed 20% of the cavalry. The rest would naturally be medium and light cavalry, and of course the infantry, who were actually in no way inferior to their western counterparts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Pistols, carbines and most importantly, swords. Since no cavalry could defeat a solid, disciplined pike wall [which was the norm in these countries], and a cavalryman armed with a sharp stick will defeat musketeers deployed in a line through shock and mass, the lance became irrelevant. I think the prevalence of heavy lancers in Poland and Eastern Europe speaks more to the poor discipline of infantry in these regions, rather than any superiority in a lance.
    No, no, no. You should read up on the Winged Hussars. (Just start here, its really quite fascinating )

    It makes no difference who or what they fought, Pikemen or Swedes, Musketeers or Muscovites, light cavalry or Turks. They had the training and equipement needed to dominate the battlefield.

    And once again, infantry was in no way worse in the east than in the west. They simply did not play a as large a role on the battlefield as the cavalry did. (BTW "eastern europe", besides Poland-Lithuania, was only really muscovy, who modeled their troops mostly after the western styles, and regardless suffered spectacular defeats)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Incapable of missing a target with either lance or pistol.
    Massively more heavily armoured than Cataphracts [despite their 3/4 armour actually protecting less of their body in terms of coverage, not protecting their horse at all, although being significantly harder].
    And in all ways magically better than any other heavy cavalry that was available in Europe, ever.
    It is quite hard to miss at a formation with a pistol or lance, so it doesn't really make that much a difference. They weren't "more armoured", but they did without a doubt have better armour. And their superior weaponry does sort of make a joke of a cataphracts armour. Even the sabers, which they wouldn't use against such opponents (they would instead use axes, maces, picks, and a type of sword designed to pierce chainmail) would suffice against cataphracts. (You forget sabers, more so it that age, could be used as a stabbing weapon)

    Their horses were better, (carefully mixed breeds and modern), not encumbered by armour (quite a decisive factor, as it enabled them to be almost as fast as other light cavalry, such as tartars), and used stirups and persian saddles.



    With such an impressive combat history, and the fact that they enjoyed these successes against such a variety of opponents, it goes a long way to show that they were certainly the best heavy cavalry of the era, and indeed quite a worthy candidate for the "best ever" heavy cavalry of Europe.
    Last edited by Sire Brenshar; July 07, 2011 at 06:51 PM.
    "Nobody is right, but historians are more right than others"



  6. #46

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Since no cavalry could defeat a solid, disciplined pike wall [which was the norm in these countries]

    Wrong - at least two types of heavy cavalry were capable of doing this:

    French Gendarmes (Late Medieval) and Polish Winged Hussars are credited with confirmed examples of breaching through pike formations in frontal charges.

    I am sure Radoslaw can tell you more about this.

    Gendarmes thanks to their super-heavy armour and horse armour, Winged Hussars thanks to their unique weapons and tactics.

    Any other heavy cavalry could defeat pike wall by outflanking and attacking from behind (of course this required favourable conditions).

    the lance became irrelevant. I think the prevalence of heavy lancers in Poland and Eastern Europe
    rather than any superiority in a lance.

    The Medieval knight lance became irrelevant - but that was long before the lance of Winged Hussar was developed.

    The lance of Winged Hussar was a 16th century invention - it was not the same as 14th / 15th century lances.

    Comparing Medieval knight's lance to lance of Polish Winged Hussar is like comparing FT-17 to M1-Abrams:

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

    It was already explained that production technology and overall parameters of Hussar's lance were different than that from Medieval.

    speaks more to the poor discipline of infantry in these regions,

    In what way was Polish or Hungarian infantry inferior to any other European infantry in terms of discipline ???

    It used different tactics (more reliance on firepower and on shock melee tactics, almost complete lack of pikes) - but it doesn't mean they were poor disciplined or inferior in general. Especially that they had better firepower and were good in melee combat. They were only vulnerable vs cavalry due to lack of pikes.

    There are battlefield examples of Polish (Hungarian-Style) infantry being superior to Western-Type infantry.

    That's also why Hungarian-Style infantry in the Polish army received 2 times bigger soldier's pay than German-Style infantry.

    Only Swedish infantry after reforms of Gustavus Adolphus was better than Polish - but also than any other European - infantry.

    Polish (Hungarian-Style) infantry of ca. 1600 had some advantages over Western-Style infantry of ca. 1600 and some disadvantages:

    Advantages:

    - better overall firepower (rate of fire)
    - better in shock melee "charges"

    Disadvantages:

    - shorter range (using shorter muskets)
    - lack of pikes vs cavalry

    - this formation was usually not very numerous

    And in terms of discipline I don't think they were worse than any western infantry.

    Besides - Poland also used typical, Western-Style (German-Style) infantry - apart from Hayduk infantry.

    Western (German) Style infantry was usually more numerous in the Polish army than Hungarian Style (Hayduk) infantry.

    But as I wrote before - Hayduk infantry was considered as more valuable (they had 2 times higher soldier's pay).
    Last edited by Domen123; July 08, 2011 at 10:55 AM.

  7. #47

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Another thing was Wybraniecka Infantry - that was a levy "militia like" formation. They were indeed not very disciplined.

    But Wybraniecka infantry was just an auxiliary, semi-regular formation. Nobody expected them being disciplined...

    And that formation was never more numerous than regular infantry of Hungarian and German Type.

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

    French Gendarmes with complete and thick plate armour for both man and horse, which was very hard to be penetrated by any pike:

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

    Last edited by Domen123; July 08, 2011 at 10:59 AM.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Just to be objective, the hussars do have an edge with equipments with longer lance, plate armor, sitrups, the ability to hold a shield in one hand plus the lance in another and pistols.

    Persican cataphracts look cooler imo. They have a chance if the guys leading them are playing his cards right. If said dude have the savaran pin cushioned the hussar's mount before charging in, the fight will be interesting. When it comes to melee, it will boil down to morale.

    Speaking of this matchup someone wrote a blog about a kataphraktoi vs winged hussar match up with equipment comparison and all. http://necromoprhvsfellowship.blogsp...-of-depth.html
    Last edited by frontier-auxilia; July 08, 2011 at 12:54 PM.

  9. #49

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Save for when they ran headlong into a pike formation, of course.
    That tends to stop all cavalry charges.
    Wrong.
    Many battles prove that horses successfully charged not only piks, but also much more solid obstacles, for example wagons. Horses chests were used as a battering ram.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Really? Hitting a target on the move with a smoothbore weapon, and then reloading it, all while moving, doesn't require significant training?
    Sire Brenshar has already answered you. I agree with him, particularly because primary sources say it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Yes. A long stick+metal point in the end is much more expensive than a hand-crafted wheellock pistol.
    First of all, hussar lance wasn't only 'a long stick+metal point in the end'.
    Second of all, we have sources which prove that hussar lances was as expensive as pistols. But unlike a pistol, which could be used many times, the hussar lance was a weapon which could be used only once. Therefore using lances was much more expensive than using pistols.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Yes. Not afford. Britain, slowly acquiring an Empire,
    So, read an opinion of English military writer from 1632:

    “The Lanciers proved hard to be gotten; first, by reason of their horses, which must be very good, and exceeding well exercised: secondly, by reason their pay was abated through scarcitie of money: thirdly and principally, because of the scarcitie of such as were practised and exercised to use the lance, it being a thing of much labour and industry to learn”

    (source: John Cruso, Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie or Rules and Directions for the Service of Horse, Collected out of Divers Forrain Authors Ancient and Modern, and Rectified and Supplied, According to the Present Practise of the Low-Countrey Warres. Cambridge 1632.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    France, the greatest land power in Europe,
    So, read an opinion of French military writer written before 1577:

    “One thing I perceive, that we very much lose the use of our lances, either for want of good horses, of which methinks the race visibly decays, or because we are not so dexterous in that kind of fight as our predecessors were; for I see we quit them for the German pistols”

    (source: Monluc, Commentaries, translated by Cotton)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Poland, on the other hand, could, because it was just that awesome.
    Poland could, because in that time it still had:
    enough horses good for lancers
    enough wealthy nobles, who were preserving knightly traditions (exercising with lances and paying for their weapons, horses and equipment).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Pistols, carbines and most importantly, swords.
    Were not enough to stop a frontal charge of lancers in the open field .

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Since no cavalry could defeat a solid, disciplined pike wall [which was the norm in these countries], and a cavalryman armed with a sharp stick will defeat musketeers deployed in a line through shock and mass, the lance became irrelevant.
    Ha, ha. What a pity that the history proves otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    I think the prevalence of heavy lancers in Poland and Eastern Europe speaks more to the poor discipline of infantry in these regions, rather than any superiority in a lance.
    Poor disciplined infantry? Which one? English or German one (defeated in the battle of Klushino 1610, although it was defending behind obstacles)? Or maybe Swedish one after Gustav Adolf reforms? So, which countries had good infantry in 17th c.?

  10. #50

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Below are my comments to the text 'Byzantine Kataphraktoi: vs. Polish Hussars :Edges'

    Long Range: Hunnic composite bow (toxton), sling vs. Bandolet Wheelock carbine, Luk

    In the scenario I see two ways that it can come into play. The first opportunity for the sling to be used is at the beginning of the fight when the two teams are about a couple of hundred meters away from each other. Here they could dismount to hurl lead at the hussars, who would have to retreat out of the slings range or rush into the battle .
    First of all, slings were not in use by any enemy of winged hussars, so I can only speculate what could have happened.
    Second of all, the author misses one thing: hussars also had long range weapon – muskets. Muskets were not taking on horses, but they were on wagons for purpose of defense of a tabor, for hunting etc. A hussar retinue was composed of: a comrade (who was the owner of the retinue), his retainers (who followed their comrade in the battle) and a lot of armed servants (they were called also free servants). A comrade supplied all his men with necessary weapons and equipment (the only one exception were lances, which had to be provided by commander of a hussar banner / company, who was called 'rotmistrz' / rotamaster). Some weapons were taken on horses, some of them (like long muskets) not. But they always were at comrades' disposal.
    So in that case, mounted hussars could be supported by their dismounted free servants armed of muskets. The mortal efficiency of muskets, particularly at a long range, was minimal (in practice – zero efficiency), but their impact on morale of enemy, who didn't know this weapon should have been significant. I suppose that it could finish the battle. I mean, people (and their horses) who were not accustomed to the fire weapon, could retreat in this moment.
    Third of all, there are examples which can support both, mentioned above, options. I mean, there are examples that hussars stood under cannon fire (cannons seems to be the best possible analogy to slings) for a long time, without any reaction (like in the first day of the battle of Warsaw 1656, where Swedish artillery fire was inefficient). There are also examples that hussars asked their commanders about a permission to charge the enemy, whose long range fire was too irritating. Hussars preferred to attack than to stay under this fire.


    Presumably once the hussars got in a certain range the Byzantine would get back on their horses and switch to bows.
    But where were Kontarion lances in that moment?

    The second circumstance is if an archer gets dismounted in battle and has either run out of arrows/broken bow. Now he has a backup weapon to switch to. I am going to split up the damage review into two parts: man and horse. For the man I really can't see it doing much. The armor of the Hussar is too thick in too many places for the lead bullets to do much. Sure he may suffer some bruising and at worst, a fractured bone, but I cannot see the sling doing much damage in the places where the hussar is armored. Of course if the bullet got a lucky (or extremely accurate) shot to the uncovered portions of the neck , face and eyes then yes that Hussar is going down, but that is pretty much a given. The horse on the other hand.....
    Hussars did not wear much in the way of horse armor, preferring speed over protection.
    By now, I agree

    As a result a lead bullet to basically any part of the horse is going to be completely devastating. A horse isn't going to be able to run at all with a broken leg or a fractured chest which would take the mount away from the hussars, putting him at a disadvantage. This is assuming he survives of course cause if you break a horse's leg while he's in full gallop then his rider is going to be sent flying forward when the horse collapses, possibly breaking his neck.
    This is the theory. But are there any records of any significant efficiency of slings used at a long range against unarmored horses? I ask, because I am skeptical very much in efficiency of any missile weapons.
    Yes, it happened that from time to time a 'lucky shot' did some harm to an enemy, but it was really an exception. It applies both to medieval times and to the times of winged hussars. Good morale was the key to withstood any long range missile weapon.
    Moreover, I'd like to remind that horses are really very resistant to wounds.

    In conclusion the sling won't be the greatest weapon in this fight but it certainly has potential to help the Byzantine greatly.
    In my conclusion, the using of sling at a long range would be the latest thing, which could influence the result of the meeting of Byzantine Kataphraktoi and Polish Hussars.

    Now onto the Hunnic Composite Bow: As I noted in the Byzantine bio, Byzantine Cataphracts were expert archers and will be bringing a high degree of skill to this match-up. They worked in combo with the lancers to ensure maximum devastation to the enemy formation(remember the point of heavy calvary were to break up these lines). I can see their armor piercing arrows making it through the weaker points of Hussar armor but their real advantage here will be shooting out the Hussar's horse. The best of the Byzantine's ranged weapons.
    The best ranged weapon doesn't mean an effective ranged weapon. I have already written that there are many examples of the fights between hussars and Tartars, but I can hardly find any example of a significant physical efficiency of arrows (or generally – any missile weapons). For example look at the battle of Hodów 1694, where 400 hussars and pancerny cavalrymen were under fire of 100 times more numerous Tartars, for 5-6 hours. The density of Tartar fire was tremendous. So we should expect the annihilation of the Polish troops. But, after such a long time, most of Polish unarmored horses (although many times wounded) still lived.

    The Tartar bow is the Polish Hussar's first and most common of the long range weapons.
    Well, apart from muskets, yes. But, as I have already pointed out in this thread, the importance of a bow for mounted hussar was minimal.

    It has roughly the same range as the Hunnic bow,has a high draw, can be used from horseback and is quite accurate in the hands of an expert. Unfortunately the Hussars were noted for their deficiency in the field of archery, and while good Polish archers did exist in that time frame they are the exception rather then the rule.
    I wonder, what is the source of this statement above?

    Further adding on the Hussars problems in this category is their lack penetrative arrows, which means that only a divinely guided shot is going to kill anything. The Byzantine's horse is protected by steel or ox-hide Lamellar, which was quite resistant to arrows. Thus this weapon may actually be the weakest in the fight.
    I agree. Hussars' bows would be the last useful weapon in this fighting.

    The Wheelock carbine is where the Hussar shines in this match up. While it has many problems such as; it is prone to misfiring (especially in bad weather), takes a long time to reload , has a small range when compared to the weapons in the rest of this category and is practically a one shot weapon,
    And in practice, it is physically inefficient. I mean, the possibility of killing anyone (even unarmored enemy) from a carabine was very low - close to zero.

    it is the only ranged weapon here that can tackle the big issue: armor. While I am not completely sold on it penetrating the many layers that make up the Byzantine's chest armor , it can penetrate just about anywhere else including the Byzantine's horse's armor . It can be accurately used from horseback and pulled from the saddle fairly quickly. The bandolet is the best weapon of this range.
    First of all, a hussar should hit one's mark .
    Anyway, the only one important advantage of carabines would be their powerful psychological effect of use against the enemy (particularly horses), who didn't know fire weapon.

    Overall it is really hard to give an edge in this category, as the Luk(bow) is going to have relatively little effect on the outcome of this matchup while the Bandolet will have a high effect. The Sling's contribution will be slightly greater then the Luk's while the Hunnic bow will be in the high-middle range For all of its faults, I think that the Bandolet is powerful enough to give the Hussars a very slight edge in this category.
    IMO, taking into consideration the long range fighting, the only one significant factor is a high psychological impact on morale of men and horses, who did not know fire weapon. Physical efficiency of guns was close to zero, but salvos of muskets and carabines should have been tremendous for morale of Byzantine Kataphraktoi and their horses. The fighting might have finished in this moment.

    More my comments later...
    Last edited by Radosław Sikora; July 12, 2011 at 02:19 AM.

  11. #51

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post

    French Gendarmes (Late Medieval) and Polish Winged Hussars are credited with confirmed examples of breaching through pike formations in frontal charges.
    We still haven't seen any sources that either of these units broke a well-ordered and halfway competent infantry formation with a frontal charge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    Wrong.
    Many battles prove that horses successfully charged not only pikes, but also much more solid obstacles, for example wagons. Horses chests were used as a battering ram.
    Really? Kindly show me these sources.


    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    Poor disciplined infantry? Which one? English or German one (defeated in the battle of Klushino 1610, although it was defending behind obstacles)? Or maybe Swedish one after Gustav Adolf reforms? So, which countries had good infantry in 17th c.?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Klushino

    Quote Originally Posted by Battle of Klushino
    When rumours began to spread that the Muscovite's foreign mercenaries were deserting to the Commonwealth, Muscovite morale cracked and the native Muscovite element of the army began to flee. Eventually a Muscovite cavalry counterattack was mauled by the Commonwealth, and in the ensuring confusion Russians ranks broke, and as usual, infantry running from cavalry suffered extensive losses.
    While the center of the Muscovite army disintegrated, Muscovite regiments continued to hold on the right wing until they were overpowered, and the foreign troops continued to put up strong resistance for several hours on the left wing. Eventually when Commonwealth infantry and cannons arrived, the mercenaries were forced to abandon their position, and again it was in the retreat that they suffered heaviest losses. A large section of the foreign troops managed to retreat under the protection of their long infantry pikes in good order to the safety of their fortified camp (separate from Muscovite camp).

    I'm sorry, so the Hussars manage to defeat an enemy because their morale breaks and then, like cavalry invariable does, inflict savage casualties on the fleeing enemies. Where does in any of this it suggest that the Hussars won out of anything other than luck and superior morale?


    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post



    In what way was Polish or Hungarian infantry inferior to any other European infantry in terms of discipline ???
    Well, for a start, according to you they were broken by frontal cavalry charges. Secondly, I would hardly describe them as being of the quality of the Tercios, or Maurice of Nassau's men, or the New Model Army, though to describe them as inferior in terms of discipline to all other European Nations was inaccurate.
    Last edited by Rolling Thunder; July 12, 2011 at 08:52 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    How about we define the rights that allow a government to say that isn't within my freedom.

  12. #52

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    We still haven't seen any sources that either of these units broke a well-ordered and halfway competent infantry formation with a frontal charge.
    We still don't know your criterion of “well-ordered and halfway competent infantry”. But from your answer to Domen (“Well, for a start, according to you they were broken by frontal cavalry charges.”) it is obvious that in your opinion every infantry broken by cavalry in a frontal charge must be per se “bad ordered and incompetent”.

    Really? Kindly show me these sources.
    Ok, for example below are sources, which describe the battle of Klushino 1610, where chests of hussar horses were used to break oak fences and piks:

    „zniózszy piersiami prawie wszytkie, których nieprzyjaciel na starcie użył fortele [czyli płoty], mężnie się o wojsko jego uderzył”
    source: Anonimowa relacja o bitwie pod Kłuszynem (Wypisy źródłowe do historii polskiej sztuki wojennej. z. 5. Ed. Zdzisław Spieralski, Jan Wimmer. Warszawa 1961. p. 189).

    And the next quotation from the same source (p. 190):
    „sieła nasi w koniach przez mężne natarcie znosząc płoty, któremi zdradą nieprzyjaciel założył w obronie, a na spisy piersiami wpadając szkody odnieśli”

    „naszym przez opłotki przyszło się potykać i płoty końmi łamać zarazem”
    source: Budziło Józef, Historia Dmitra fałszywego. [in:] Moskwa w rękach Polaków. Pamiętniki dowódców i oficerów garnizonu polskiego w Moskwie w latach 1610-1612. Ed. Marek Kubala, Tomasz Ściężor. Kryspinów 1995. p. 444.

    „natarli naszy tak mężnie, że z sobą płoty znieść musieli”
    source: Diariusz drogi Króla JMci Zygmunta III od szczęśliwego wyjazdu z Wilna pod Smoleńsk w roku 1609 a die 18 Augusta i fortunnego powodzenia przez lat dwie do wzięcia zamku Smoleńska w roku 1611. Ed. Janusz Byliński. Wrocław 1999. p. 158

    „przez kilkanaście płotów przebijając”
    source: Kulesza Piotr spod Carowego Zajmiszcza, 5 VII 1610 (Biblioteka Muzeum Narodowego im. Czartoryskich w Krakowie, 342, k. 762)


    „P[anu] Podolskie[m]u koń szwankował na płocie i zginął ze wszystkim.”
    source: Regestr pobicia Towarzystwa w potrzebie pod Kluszynem za Carowym Zamiesciem mil 2 dnia 4 Lipca (Biblioteka Kórnicka Polskiej Akademii Nauk 1591).

    „na spisy końskimi piersiami wpadali”
    source: Wiadomość o porażce Dymitrego (Biblioteka Muzeum Narodowego im. Czartoryskich w Krakowie, rps 105, nr 41)


    „Польские войска понемногу тают, но снова свежими силами пополняются и безбоязненно наступают, насмерть стоят и доблестно на полки нападают и пики железные ломают, а в них у немцев вся надежда на спасение”
    source: ЛЕТОПИСНАЯ КНИГА.


    I know that your next question will be about English translation . By now I have no time to do it, but you can ask another Polish members of this forum about translation.

    I'm sorry, so the Hussars manage to defeat an enemy because their morale breaks and then, like cavalry invariable does, inflict savage casualties on the fleeing enemies. Where does in any of this it suggest that the Hussars won out of anything other than luck and superior morale?
    Do you use wikipedia? Oh my God!
    First of all, there are errors in the description (like this one: “A large section of the foreign troops managed to retreat under the protection of their long infantry pikes in good order to the safety of their fortified camp”). Second of all, the morale of German infantrymen broke because they were attacked by the Poles. It doesn't mean that they were incompetent or bad ordered. They withstood 3 charges of hussars (although in these charges oak fences and some piks were broken by chests of hussar horses), so they were not an easy enemy.
    Last edited by Radosław Sikora; July 12, 2011 at 05:27 AM.

  13. #53

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    We still don't know your criterion of “well-ordered and halfway competent infantry”. But from your answer to Domen (“Well, for a start, according to you they were broken by frontal cavalry charges.”) it is obvious that in your opinion every infantry broken by cavalry in a frontal charge must be per se “bad ordered and incompetent”.
    Hardly. Even the best-ordered infantrymen can be broken by a cavalry charge, if he is improperly armed. However, any dense infantry formation equipped with pikes that is broken by a frontal cavalry charge, is clearly either in extremely bad order, usually through dispersal and disorder from terrain or the application of enemy musketry.



    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    Ok, for example below are sources, which describe the battle of Klushino 1610, where chests of hussar horses were used to break oak fences and piks:

    „zniózszy piersiami prawie wszytkie, których nieprzyjaciel na starcie użył fortele [czyli płoty], mężnie się o wojsko jego uderzył”
    source: Anonimowa relacja o bitwie pod Kłuszynem (Wypisy źródłowe do historii polskiej sztuki wojennej. z. 5. Ed. Zdzisław Spieralski, Jan Wimmer. Warszawa 1961. p. 189).

    And the next quotation from the same source (p. 190):
    „sieła nasi w koniach przez mężne natarcie znosząc płoty, któremi zdradą nieprzyjaciel założył w obronie, a na spisy piersiami wpadając szkody odnieśli”

    „naszym przez opłotki przyszło się potykać i płoty końmi łamać zarazem”
    source: Budziło Józef, Historia Dmitra fałszywego. [in:] Moskwa w rękach Polaków. Pamiętniki dowódców i oficerów garnizonu polskiego w Moskwie w latach 1610-1612. Ed. Marek Kubala, Tomasz Ściężor. Kryspinów 1995. p. 444.

    „natarli naszy tak mężnie, że z sobą płoty znieść musieli”
    source: Diariusz drogi Króla JMci Zygmunta III od szczęśliwego wyjazdu z Wilna pod Smoleńsk w roku 1609 a die 18 Augusta i fortunnego powodzenia przez lat dwie do wzięcia zamku Smoleńska w roku 1611. Ed. Janusz Byliński. Wrocław 1999. p. 158

    „przez kilkanaście płotów przebijając”
    source: Kulesza Piotr spod Carowego Zajmiszcza, 5 VII 1610 (Biblioteka Muzeum Narodowego im. Czartoryskich w Krakowie, 342, k. 762)


    „P[anu] Podolskie[m]u koń szwankował na płocie i zginął ze wszystkim.”
    source: Regestr pobicia Towarzystwa w potrzebie pod Kluszynem za Carowym Zamiesciem mil 2 dnia 4 Lipca (Biblioteka Kórnicka Polskiej Akademii Nauk 1591).

    „na spisy końskimi piersiami wpadali”
    source: Wiadomość o porażce Dymitrego (Biblioteka Muzeum Narodowego im. Czartoryskich w Krakowie, rps 105, nr 41)


    „Польские войска понемногу тают, но снова свежими силами пополняются и безбоязненно наступают, насмерть стоят и доблестно на полки нападают и пики железные ломают, а в них у немцев вся надежда на спасение”
    source: ЛЕТОПИСНАЯ КНИГА.


    I know that your next question will be about English translation . By now I have no time to do it, but you can ask another Polish members of this forum about translation.
    I hope you will not take this as a personal insult, but given the extremely high levels of nationalism demonstrated by the various Polish forum-members on this subject, who seem to be operating under the impression of the Winged Hussar being some sort of super-cavalry, I am naturally leery of any Polish-language text or source as I cannot check it for bias. Thus, please forgive my natural suspicion of your claims that Polish Hussars could break pike formations, defended obstacles, and perform other such feats that have been outside the ability of every other cavalry unit in the world in recorded history [to my knowledge]. I find the wikipedia explanation of the battle to be much more sensible - that the Coalition troops' morale disintegrated at the centre and then the rest of the battle was, in effect, a rout.



    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    First of all, there are errors in the description (like this one: “A large section of the foreign troops managed to retreat under the protection of their long infantry pikes in good order to the safety of their fortified camp”).
    Really? How is that an error?


    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    Second of all, the morale of German infantrymen broke because they were attacked by the Poles. It doesn't mean that they were incompetent or bad ordered. They withstood 3 charges of hussars (although in these charges oak fences and some piks were broken by chests of hussar horses), so they were not an easy enemy.
    I never said they were incompetent. "Bad order" does not refer to incompetence, it refers to disorder and loss of cohesion amongst a formation when it is subject to battlefield pressures such as missile fire, artillery fire, dense terrain and so on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    How about we define the rights that allow a government to say that isn't within my freedom.

  14. #54
    intel's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Porando
    Posts
    4,684

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Hardly. Even the best-ordered infantrymen can be broken by a cavalry charge, if he is improperly armed. However, any dense infantry formation equipped with pikes that is broken by a frontal cavalry charge, is clearly either in extremely bad order, usually through dispersal and disorder from terrain or the application of enemy musketry.
    This is extremely false reasoning. We used to call it "No true scotsman fallacy".

    By courtesy of wikipedia:
    No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.

    (...)

    A simpler rendition would be:
    Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
    Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
    Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.







    I hope you will not take this as a personal insult, but given the extremely high levels of nationalism demonstrated by the various Polish forum-members on this subject
    Whom? Radoslaw? Domen? Me?

    How should one not take this as personal insult if:
    a) there is a limited amount of Poles there
    b) you accustom to at least one of them an insulting trait.

    A bit of hipocrisy that you start resorting to baseless ad-hominems.
    who seem to be operating under the impression of the Winged Hussar being some sort of super-cavalry
    Unfortunately it's just you who have absoultely no idea what you are talking about (as many people on this thread pointed out numerous times, particulary Radoslaw took effort and perfectly undermined your arguments). Now, I'd appreciate if you were there to learn something. But you make bold and completely ignorant statement as if you knew anything.
    I am naturally leery of any Polish-language text or source as I cannot check it for bias.
    Thus, please forgive my natural suspicion of your claims that Polish Hussars could break pike formations, defended obstacles, and perform other such feats that have been outside the ability of every other cavalry unit in the world in recorded history [to my knowledge].
    Very limited knowledge.
    I find the wikipedia explanation of the battle to be much more sensible - that the Coalition troops' morale disintegrated at the centre and then the rest of the battle was, in effect, a rout.
    Yet, Radoslaw provided you with believable explanation with numerous authentic sources. Radoslaw could also appear to his authority as best expert on Winged Hussars (but he is too modest for that) and to extensive reasearch he made for his book "Kluszyn 1610".
    I never said they were incompetent. "Bad order" does not refer to incompetence, it refers to disorder and loss of cohesion amongst a formation when it is subject to battlefield pressures such as missile fire, artillery fire, dense terrain and so on.
    So, what do you have to say about the battlefield pressures that infantry suffered that day? Or you are just-again- making arguments out of thin air?

  15. #55

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    This is extremely false reasoning. We used to call it "No true scotsman fallacy".

    By courtesy of wikipedia:
    No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.

    (...)

    A simpler rendition would be:
    Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
    Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
    Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
    Except your reasoning doesn't hold up.

    I say: Pike infantry in good order can not be defeated by a frontal cavalry charge.
    You say: Here, the Winged Hussars broke pike armed infantry with a cavalry charge.
    I say: Yes, and the source clearly shows that the pikemen were in disorder.

    Therefore, you fail to demonstrate how cavalry can defeat pikemen in good order.



    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    a) there is a limited amount of Poles there
    b) you accustom to at least one of them an insulting trait.
    Let us see:

    By the fact you and Radozlaw have both demonstrated a blind need to defend the Winged Hussars and their superiority from any kind of criticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    Unfortunately it's just you who have absoultely no idea what you are talking about (as many people on this thread pointed out numerous times,
    Except those people, just as you now, cannot substantiate how I have "no idea what I am talking about." I am fairly familiar with cavalry and infantry warfare, especially in the late medieval to Renaissance periods

    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    But you make bold and completely ignorant statement as if you knew anything.
    And how is this anything beyond a rather hypocritical ad homenin, mixed with a bare assertion. A claim is made as to the capabilities of Winged Hussars. I question it using my general knowledge of cavalry warfare. You become extremely annoyed at my having the termenity to question this.



    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    Yet, Radoslaw provided you with believable explanation with numerous authentic sources. Radoslaw could also appear to his authority as best expert on Winged Hussars (but he is too modest for that) and to extensive reasearch he made for his book "Kluszyn 1610".
    And? I'm sure there's a point here?

    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    So, what do you have to say about the battlefield pressures that infantry suffered that day? Or you are just-again- making arguments out of thin air?
    Going by what information I have, I would say they were subject to repeat charges, which they repulsed thanks to their good order and the terrain, and then, when an unexpected morale shock occured [the rumour of the withdrawal], a rout/withdrawal actually began.
    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    How about we define the rights that allow a government to say that isn't within my freedom.

  16. #56

    Default

    We still haven't seen any sources that either of these units broke a well-ordered and halfway competent infantry formation with a frontal charge.

    Now I can imagine what will come next:

    When we give you any example of such battle, you will always say that infantry was not well-ordered and halfway competent.

    I say: Yes, and the source clearly shows that the pikemen were in disorder.

    Therefore, you fail to demonstrate how cavalry can defeat pikemen in good order.

    Which sources - allegedly - clearly say that infantry was in disorder?

    Some pike regiments at Kircholm were not in disorder when Hussars charged them, and they still collapsed.

    I think that Radoslaw Sikora wrote something about that on historycy.org forum.

    Going by what information I have, I would say they were subject to repeat charges, which they repulsed thanks to their good order and the terrain,

    Mainly thanks to terrain and anti-cavalry obstacles.

    BTW, repulsed but with minimal casualties for the attacking horsemen, while suffering heavy casualties on their own.

    and then, when an unexpected morale shock occured [the rumour of the withdrawal], a rout/withdrawal actually began.

    No - the rout/withdrawal actually began when another charge occured and succeeded this time.

    it refers to disorder and loss of cohesion amongst a formation when it is subject to battlefield pressures such as missile fire, artillery fire, dense terrain and so on.

    What if it is subjected to battlefield pressures such as another charge of the same cavalry unit which already charged them 3 times before?

    Nobody says that defeating pikemen was easy - in the battle of Klushino a banner of Hussars charged a regiment of pikemen 4 times - first three charges had to be stopped, but the banner charged also for the 4th time - and this time defeated the pikemen.

    So you cannot say that pikemen defeated Hussars 3 times and lost only once - because all 4 skirmishes were between the same units.

    Thus - in the end - a banner of Hussars defeated and routed a regiment of pikemen.

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

    Plus - as I already wrote before - French Gendarmes are known to have managed punching through pike blocks on some occasions.

    Gendarmes had the nigh-invulnerable degree of armouring on man and horse - pikes simply couldn't do much harm to them.

    I also wonder why you imagine cavalry charging pikes frontally at full speed. They didn't have to do it at full speed.

    I suppose they rather slowed down a bit while approaching pikemen during their charge in order not to get impaled.

    Hussars could practice some short-range shirmish warfare against pikemen as well - they could use their pistols too, not only lances...

    If pike formation can be defeated by a unit of foot swordsmen - why can't it be defeated by a unit of mounted lancers / swordsmen ???

    In close, hand 2 hand combat, a Hussar with - let's say - a piece of already broken lance or a broadsword / nadziak (knight's mace) / sabre - probably has an advantage over a pikemen, whose pike is far too long and far too heavy to do any fencing or any blows / parrying enemy blows using it.

    So a Hussar - already in close combat (after charge), using broadsword could probably repel or even cut to pieces enemy wooden pike. Anyway - avoiding being hit by pike in close combat is not such a hard thing (that's why infantry with swords is > infantry with spears / pikes).

    As I wrote - cavalry didn't have to deliberately charge at full speed just to get impaled. It could slow down. Hussars had longer lances than pikes. They could punch pikemen with lances while staying beyond range of enemy pikes. They could also shot to pikemen from their pistols.

    Hussars and their superbly trained horses were known to be able to almost immediately stop and turn 180 degrees on a dime while at full speed charge.

    Thus it was certainly not a problem for them to slow down and even stop completely just seconds before hitting enemy line.

    Breaking pikes by chests of horses ("charging against pikes / jumping on enemy pikes (probably from side) in order to break them") was also implemented.

    Specially breeded and selected, combat horses are animals known to be extremely resistant to wounds and physical injuries / harms.

    That's why horses of Winged Hussars were so extremely expensive - they were the best combat horses in Europe at that time.

    There are examples in primary sources from 17th century which say about horses of Hussars terribly wounded - mortally wounded - which continued to charge, fight and carry their riders for hours after being wounded, and only after the end of the battle they died due to their wounds (mortal - as it turned out).

    So a good and strong combat horse can continue to run and fight even with several serious wounds.

    Thus, please forgive my natural suspicion of your claims that Polish Hussars could break pike formations, defended obstacles, and perform other such feats that have been outside the ability of every other cavalry unit in the world in recorded history [to my knowledge].

    I already gave you an example - late Medieval / early Renaissance Gendarmes. They were also breaching through pike walls on some occasions.
    Last edited by Darth Red; July 13, 2011 at 08:40 AM. Reason: triple posting

  17. #57

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
    Now I can imagine what will come next:

    When we give you any example of such battle, you will always say that infantry was not well-ordered and halfway competent.
    Certainly not - indeed, I will assume that all infantry are in good order unless the source specifically states otherwise -




    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
    Which sources - allegedly - clearly say that infantry was in disorder?
    The part where the centre of the line was beginning to waver, clearly? Infantry in good order and holding a defensible position are not liable to be shifted by even the heaviest of frontal cavalry charges unless those cavalry charges are first supported by artillery and musket fire to disrupt the defence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
    Some pike regiments at Kircholm were not in disorder when Hussars charged them, and they still collapsed.
    I'd say that the fact they were subject to infantry fire, had previously been moving, and were then hit on both flanks and the centre would have made such regiments exceptionally disordered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
    I already gave you an example - late Medieval / early Renaissance Gendarmes. They were also breaching through pike walls on some occasions.
    You also failed to provide sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
    If pike formation can be defeated by a unit of foot swordsmen - why can't it be defeated by a unit of mounted lancers / swordsmen ???
    Except that a pike formation can't be defeated by a unit of foot swordsman, unless broken up and disrupted by terrain, missile fire, or being flanked. Just ask the Italians what happened when they tried their sword+shield tactics against the Swiss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post

    In close, hand 2 hand combat, a Hussar with - let's say - a piece of already broken lance or a broadsword / nadziak (knight's mace) / sabre - probably has an advantage over a pikemen, whose pike is far too long and far too heavy to do any fencing or any blows / parrying enemy blows using it.

    So a Hussar - already in close combat (after charge), using broadsword could probably repel or even cut to pieces enemy wooden pike. Anyway - avoiding being hit by pike in close combat is not such a hard thing (that's why infantry with swords is > infantry with spears / pikes).
    Your model fails to account for several things.
    Firstly, pikemen had swords.
    Secondly, the Hussar is also being stabbed by up to four ranks of pikemen behind him as he tries to attack the first. Even if those thrusts don't kill him or his horse, they will interfere with his ability to do anything such as attack.


    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post

    So a Hussar - already in close combat (after charge), using broadsword could probably repel or even cut to pieces enemy wooden pike. Anyway - avoiding being hit by pike in close combat is not such a hard thing (that's why infantry with swords is > infantry with spears / pikes).
    What...the...? Provide me with one instance of a sword armed unit defeating a well-ordered pike unit frontally. A disrupted, poorly ordered pike unit, sure - all infantry formations die when they're disrupted and then attacked by enemies in good order. You won't be able to, because no commander is insane enough to send swordsmen against well-ordered pikemen. They get shredded. A pike has massively longer reach, and allows upwards of four ranks of men to attack an enemy before the enemy has any chance of attacking back. It has massive momentum on a charge.

    And before you go to the "hurr, the legions beat the Macedonians" - yes, well-led, well-supplied armies tend to beat poorly-led and disordered armies, regardless of equipment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post

    Breaking pikes by chests of horses ("charging against pikes / jumping on enemy pikes (probably from side) in order to break them") was also implemented.
    Source or I'm calling BS. ENGLISH source.
    Last edited by Rolling Thunder; July 12, 2011 at 12:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    How about we define the rights that allow a government to say that isn't within my freedom.

  18. #58

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    One more question.
    How could a Persian cataphract use a bow, having 2 hands occupied by a lance?
    The lance was probably carried on the back. As far as I know, the lancers of several nations used similar techniques (I've seen pictures of WW1 lancers riding that way - I think they were Cossaks but I'm not 100% sure). How exactly were they taking the lance in the attack position I don't really know. But I can speculate the rope going across the chest was tied with a knot easy to untie in one single move.

    The bow and quiver were hanging from the saddle. So they could pick up and use the bow without any hindrance. Even the "Parthian shot" was feasible.

    At the Battle of Carrhae, the Parthian cavalry was accompanied by an "ammo train" of camels carrying additional supplies of arrows. The Romans had quickly lost their cavalry so there was nothing much for them to do against the long range attacks except to hide behind the shield wall.

    However, when they still had their Gaulish auxiliaries, they did charge the Parthians even though they were inferior in numbers. And apparently they didn't suffer too many casualties while chasing the horse archers. The Roman cavalry was slaughtered in hand-to-hand combat far away from the supporting infantry, once the Romans/Gauls were surrounded by an overwhelming Parthian force.

    We don't have any surviving first hand accounts of the Battle of Carrhae but the reaction of the Parthian horse archers to the Roman charge is telling a lot about the [in]effectiveness of shooting arrows at an enemy galloping straight towards the archers. And those Gaulish auxiliaries were much less armored than the winged hussars therefore at first glance more vulnerable to ranged weapons.

    Probably when those 400 Polish winged hussars and knights fought against the Tartars, they didn't stand perfectly still either... What matters is the bows of the cataphracts would be necessary since without them the Persians would be at a severe disadvantage. Still those bows won't be expected to make a huge impact (even at an overly optimistic 3% hit rate).
    Last edited by Dromikaites; July 12, 2011 at 01:43 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  19. #59
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar Aetī Avēas!
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,263
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

    Quote Originally Posted by Radosław Sikora View Post
    It would depend on morale of both sides, because it was more important than any equipment.
    Anyway, if we take into consideration only equipment, I vote for winged hussars, because:
    - contrary to cataphracts, hussars used stirrups
    - hussars used longer lances (up to 6,2 m)
    - hussars used plate armors
    - hussars had guns (which is important, because cataphracts didn't know them)
    Argue with that, the Kontos was over 12 feet in length, and the Byzantines and Persians Adopted Stirrups in the 5th and 6th centuries from the Huns, Avars, and Slavs.

    Cataphracts also used plate Armor and this was in the form of segmented plate armor, which was more flexible than the medieval cuirasses.

  20. #60

    Default Re: Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract


    ENGLISH
    source.

    Unfortunately, your ignoramus English historians are not interested in non-Anglo-American history.

    So I cannot provide you any English source. Because there are no English sources on this issue!

    Better learn some foreign languages instead of demanding English sources !!!

    You have a very poor base of sources in your awesome English language - sorry !

    And you was already told some ever-lasting truth before: English is not the only language on this planet!

    I will assume that all infantry are in good order unless the source specifically states otherwise -
    Provide me with one instance of a sword armed unit defeating a well-ordered pike unit frontally.

    You said you will assume all infantry are in good order unless the source specifically states otherwise.

    So why just several lines below that you demand from me to provide you a source which says specifically about WELL-ORDERED pikemen ?!

    You contradict yourself, simply.

    Infantry in good order and holding a defensible position are not liable to be shifted by even the heaviest of frontal cavalry charges unless those cavalry charges are first supported by artillery and musket fire to disrupt the defence.

    Very funny - so the conclusion from this statement is, that, before musket fire and artillery were invented - cavalry was not able to defeat infantry in a frontal charge.
    Last edited by Domen123; July 12, 2011 at 02:25 PM.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •