Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 131

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

  1. #101

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

    Solak means left-handed, they're guard archers of the Sultans with the Silahtars you can see them at near of the Sultan in all miniatures with bows in their hands, Solaks choosen from the most skilled archers in the Janissary units and they had to train everyday, they continued to use bows until mids of the 18th century

  2. #102

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

    Thanks. It fits very well to Marcin Bielski's descriptions of solaks (read also here).
    It is a bit weird that Paszkowski translated solaks as petychorcy. Petychorcy were cavalrymen, while solaks were infantrymen. Better translation would be 'petyhorczycy' (they were dismounted petyhorcy, i.e. infantrymen).

  3. #103

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

    Another example of cavalry (even pre-stirrup cavalry!) breaking through solid pike wall:

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...6#post10149396

    Quote Originally Posted by frontier-auxilia
    Thessalians and Companions cavalry- Fast, hard hitting and aggressive. The first managed to charge a solid formations of spartans and routing them right away (It sounds unbelievable, i be putting the sources up later on). Given the reputations of the Spartans, the lack of stirrups and general historian's belief that any cavalry charging a well prepared line of infantry meant absolute defeat, this was extremely impressive for its time.The second proved themselves as fine instrument of war under Alexander the Great under the Macedonian's combine arms doctrine.

  4. #104

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
    Another example of cavalry (even pre-stirrup cavalry!) breaking through solid pike wall:

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...6#post10149396
    Dude, that "source" is a forum post already under contention.

    Pike walls broken by cavalry...pff. Next we'll be having stories that Roman Legions were destroyed by bowfire.
    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.

  5. #105
    intel's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Porando
    Posts
    4,682

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Pike walls broken by cavalry...pff. Next we'll be having stories that Roman Legions were destroyed by bowfire.
    Disregard historical examples of pike wall actually being broken by cavalry

  6. #106

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

    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    Disregard historical examples of pike wall actually being broken by cavalry
    Happy disregard for the writings of foreigners,

    Is happy.

    [In all seriousness, I've not read one account of the wall being broken by a direct cavalry charge.]
    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.

  7. #107

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

    I bet my money on the Winged Hussars. Persian Cataphracts might mistaken Winged Poles for angels and ran...

  8. #108
    Semisalis
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    426

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

    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    Disregard historical examples of pike wall actually being broken by cavalry
    He's probably being sarcastic. Everyone knows about the Roman defeat at Carrhae by the Parthians where they were "destroyed by bowfire".

  9. #109
    |Sith|Galvanized Iron's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    I live in Kansas
    Posts
    4,710

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

    Polish Hussaria of course, they were elite units and a millenia more advanced armor, but a Teutonic Ritterbrüder would of course beat both :p
    Also responsible for the Roma Surrectum II Multiplayer mode
    Rest In Peace Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
    Forward to Victory Great Leader Assad!


  10. #110

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

    First post here and is participating in necromancy...

    Typically, a solid formation of disciplined pikemen braced and facing a unit cavalry would not be broken by that unit of cavalry. Now even if there were historical examples of this happening, it is not what would normally occur and relying on cavalry to break a formation intended entirely to destroy cavalry is a foolish idea. Regarding the strange match of Persian Cataphract and Polish Husaria, Imposter would typically give the advantage to the Husaria due to access and knowledge of technology a thousand years more advanced, better bred horses, more secure saddles and firearms; which could quite easily startle a horse (and the man riding it) had they never witnessed or heard of such a device. However, for the Cataphract he could have possibly hit the Husaria in an unprotected location with his bow, possibly the horse also.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    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.
    It is true that Poles are extremely nationalist regarding their history, but especially about beloved winged hussars and also of Rzeczpospolita itself, both of these being very worthy of remembrance and respect. But it would be incorrect and absurd to believe that the winged hussars were ever more than an elite unit of well-trained heavy cavalry (of which many existed), it is a sad thing to see that people cannot have true historical discussions without showing their nationalist bias in their words. But can Imposter still have suit of Husaria armour now please .

    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
    Unfortunately, your ignoramus English historians are not interested in non-Anglo-American history.
    That was very unnecessary, especially regarding the great number of and great detail of those Osprey books, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with Anglo-American history.

  11. #111

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

    This thread is gold.

    Apparently, Polish Hussars can not only break ordered pike formations in a frontal charge, they also can impale 6 (!) enemies at a time, ride faster than the wind, and their horses also serve as battering rams

    It is no wonder that they have ruled the world for the last 500 years.

  12. #112

  13. #113

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

    Yes, please tell us how Polish Hussar units stormed through solid pike formations, battered down castle walls, and impaled 6 enemies at a time. It's amazing stuff

    I presume this is how Poland looks in your alternate history?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by mike^_^; July 06, 2012 at 04:25 AM. Reason: spoilered

  14. #114
    intel's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Porando
    Posts
    4,682

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

    Winged hussars had very long lances that explains how two of your examples can be possible. As for your bad attempts at irony and general tone of your post, please quit it. It gives an impression of you being a douche and I think you aren't really interested in that

  15. #115

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

    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    Winged hussars had very long lances that explains how two of your examples can be possible. As for your bad attempts at irony and general tone of your post, please quit it. It gives an impression of you being a douche and I think you aren't really interested in that
    I see, so that's the secret then. Long lances. Very long lances. Were these long lances a prized state secret of the polish nobility? It would seem such a renovation in warfare would be a closely guarded secret, particularly if it gave them the needed edge to break solid pike formations in a frontal charge, something considered tantamount to suicide for (lesser, of course) horsemen.

  16. #116
    intel's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Porando
    Posts
    4,682

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

    This technology came from Hungary, but its use didn't have to do with know-how as much as it did with equestrian tradition and military composition. It really takes a long training to make a good lancer, it takes also a good horseman and a proper mount. Knigthood was not as cultivated in the western europe as it was in Poland during XVIth century, lance was abandoned to much cheaper and easier alternatives. In the meanwhile, polish nobles were both raised as knights and had adequate funds to equip themselves in a hussar outfit. Polish army, contrary to western armies, had to deal with much more cavalry-saturated armies and had vast territory to defend. In the end, it boils down mostly to human factor. Russia tried to copy hussar formations but it failed due to poor training.

  17. #117

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

    Quote Originally Posted by intel View Post
    This technology came from Hungary, but its use didn't have to do with know-how as much as it did with equestrian tradition and military composition. It really takes a long training to make a good lancer, it takes also a good horseman and a proper mount. Knigthood was not as cultivated in the western europe as it was in Poland during XVIth century, lance was abandoned to much cheaper and easier alternatives. In the meanwhile, polish nobles were both raised as knights and had adequate funds to equip themselves in a hussar outfit. Polish army, contrary to western armies, had to deal with much more cavalry-saturated armies and had vast territory to defend. In the end, it boils down mostly to human factor. Russia tried to copy hussar formations but it failed due to poor training.
    That's been covered in this thread, by you and others. I don't dispute that Poland had an excellent cavalry arm. I don't think anyone is in this thread. I take issue with the unbelievability of a (for the most part unarmored) horse being used as a battering ram to break through pike formations and pallisades. If all that is needed is a good tradition, money, and an extra long lance, why did the french go to all the trouble to deck their horsemen in complete armor eventually, instead of just giving them an extra long lance, and LOL WE WIN.

  18. #118
    Adar's Avatar Just doing it
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,764

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mike^_^ View Post
    I see, so that's the secret then. Long lances. Very long lances. Were these long lances a prized state secret of the polish nobility? It would seem such a renovation in warfare would be a closely guarded secret, particularly if it gave them the needed edge to break solid pike formations in a frontal charge, something considered tantamount to suicide for (lesser, of course) horsemen.
    Actually, the Polish hussaria did break and/or wear down Swedish pike formations during the Baltic war (1599-1629).

    The Tercia doesn't protect musketeers sufficiently when faced by 6 meter lances which mean that you need a cohesive force with disciplined musketeers and cavalry to maintain the battle line. In most Swedish battle Hussaria first defeated the Swedish cavalry and then slowly took down the infantry by holding them in place while artillery, infantry and Hussaria in cooperating to wear them down.

    Essentially the Hussaria were able to fight like an extremely efficient Caracole but with a far higher precision as a lance had far superior accuracy compared to a pistol being fired from 6 meters away. This made them superior to pretty much all other cavalry that used the caracole during the late 16th and early 17th century. Sweden for example only managed to defeat Polish cavalry after implementing gallop tactics which ment that mounted battles were less about skill and horsemanship and more focused on numbers and aggression.

    I think the major problem with this thread is that people envision battles to be Total War style in a time when a lot of time was spent on maneuvering and fire from rather inefficient distances. The Hussaria were excellent at the maneuvering and "cheated" by using a weapon considered outdated but with far greater precision. Pretty much like how the Caroleans 100 years later dominated infantry battles by maintaining the pikes rather than using all muskets for their line infantry.

  19. #119

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    Actually, the Polish hussaria did break and/or wear down Swedish pike formations during the Baltic war (1599-1629).

    The Tercia doesn't protect musketeers sufficiently when faced by 6 meter lances which mean that you need a cohesive force with disciplined musketeers and cavalry to maintain the battle line. In most Swedish battle Hussaria first defeated the Swedish cavalry and then slowly took down the infantry by holding them in place while artillery, infantry and Hussaria in cooperating to wear them down.
    What you're describing here is a far cry from "breaking" a pike formation in a frontal charge, or using the (unarmored) horses as "battering rams" to bust down pallisades and the like. That's the previous claim that's being disputed

  20. #120
    Adar's Avatar Just doing it
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,764

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mike^_^ View Post
    What you're describing here is a far cry from "breaking" a pike formation in a frontal charge, or using the (unarmored) horses as "battering rams" to bust down pallisades and the like. That's the previous claim that's being disputed
    I am fairly certain that I actually saw a demonstration of a horse being used to break down a pallisade at the 400 year anniversary reenactment of the battle of Kluszyn (Radoslaw Sikora know more about this as he directed the event).

    Regarding the whole frontal charge question I think it is a huge issue with terminology here as Hussaria didn't make Medieval style charges and rather attacked in waves like a western caracole would. Against Hussaria the pikemen would have to very careful with their positioning as the Hussar lance could be more than 6 meters while the pike was 4.5-5.5 meters. It is also important to remember that a Tercia or Gustavian battalion wouldn't consist of a pure wall of pikes as the Tercia employed a screen of musketeers and the Gustavian battalion consisted of 2/3s of musketeers.

    Unless supported by cavalry the Hussars would have an almost complete freedom of mobility and be able to strike at both pikemen and musketeers during their Caracole like movements which quickly could collapse a Tercia as soldiers tried to avoid the frontlines. Due to this Swedish infantry never did well against Polish hussars until the Gustavian reforms allowed the cavalry to hold their own against the Polish cavalry.

    The later lack of success of cavalry against bayonett armed infantry in squares is a completely separate matter as the bayonett provided a range of 2-2.5 meters while still being ready to fire. While the heavy cavalry fought with a sword with very limited range or highly inaccurate pistols.
    Last edited by Adar; July 06, 2012 at 08:58 AM.

Page 6 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
  •