Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

[Rolling Thunder]

Your ignoramus English historians are not interested in any non-Anglo-American history.

Thus explaining the three books I have on the Thirty Years war, the round dozen on the USSR, one on the WW1 Eastern Front, two on the Italian Wars, and so on. Yes. Completely uninterested.

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 !

So, basically you've got sweet F.A, as they say, in supporting material. Huzzah! Also, expecting me to learn semi-obscure Eastern European languages to confirm sources is just...retarded.

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.

No, your source clearly showed they were not in good order - running away from the battlefield does not constitute good order! Show me a source where the infantry were not demonstrably disordered, and then we'll talk.

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.

Show we one example where infantry, fighting from behind a defended position, were overcome by a frontal charge by cavalry. Just one will do, and I will happily retract that statement.
Please also note that the implicit assumption in that statement is "pike-armed" infantry.

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

It is, however, not as resistant to piercing or blunt attacks.

[Domen123]

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.

They were subject to infantry fire of... just some 200 Polish Hayduk infantry (IIRC).

You claim that several thousands Swedes were exceptionally disordered by 200 Hayduks?

You also failed to provide sources.

Notoria non egent probatione.

Also, expecting me to learn semi-obscure Eastern European languages to confirm sources is just...retarded.

You could kindly ask for translation as well...

Thus explaining the three books I have on the Thirty Years war

In which Poland did not participate. England did.

the round dozen on the USSR

Nearly all of them written from the German perspective.

And mainly basing on German documents captured by Americans (Alexandria Microfilms).

So yeah, kinda Anglo-American history ("captured" German history). USSR was also greatest post-1945 Anglo-American enemy.

one on the WW1 Eastern Front

Which typically deal with Eastern Front as just the context for much more important Western Front.

two on the Italian Wars, and so on.

In which England and Scotland participated.

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.

So Greeks, Macedonians and every Hellenistic army was poorly-led and disordered in every battle against the Romans in which the Romans won?

In every single battle against the Romans in which they lost? Hmmm...

Just ask the Italians what happened when they tried their sword+shield tactics against the Swiss.

Let me guess... the Italians had poor morale, were poorly-led and were disordered.

Show we one example where infantry, fighting from behind a defended position, were overcome by a frontal charge by cavalry.

First define "defended position". Because then you are going to complain that in my example there was no "defended position".

Please also note that the implicit assumption in that statement is "pike-armed" infantry.

Ah - ok. So requirements are constantly increasing...

Soon you will demand to provide you an example when cavalry defeated pikemen inside a defended castle...

[Radosław Sikora]

I will assume that all infantry are in good order unless the source specifically states otherwise

Very well. Finally we have something.

Show we one example where infantry, fighting from behind a defended position, were overcome by a frontal charge by cavalry. Just one will do, and I will happily retract that statement.
Please also note that the implicit assumption in that statement is "pike-armed" infantry.

The battle of Klushino 1610 again, but another phase of this battle.
Andrzej Firlej's hussars charged pikemen, who were deployed behind so called kobylice (look at the attached file; it is 17th c. drawing of kobylice).
In short – winged hussars with lances charged, overcame kobylice somehow (I suppose that they jumped over them), defeated pikemen deployed behind them and entered Swedish camp. Sources say nothing about any disorder among charged pikemen. Quite contrary – one source states that all infantry, including pikemen, stood in order (“wszystka piechota cudzoziemska stała, w sprawie cali; mianowicie spiśnik”). There is also no record about any initial fire of the Poles.

Sources, which describe this episode:

1. Marchocki Mikołaj Ścibor, Historia moskiewskiej wojny prawdziwa. ([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. 73 – 74):

„Tu też między inszymi godzien był wspomnienia dobrego Pan Jędrzej Firlej i Krzysztof Wasiczyński rotmistrze, albowiem za kobylicami przy swym obozie wszystka piechota cudzoziemska stała, w sprawie cali; mianowicie spiśnik. Dlatego tam przyszedłszy Pan Firlej ze swą chorągwią całą jeszcze, bo insi wszystkie kopie [postradali] ok[rzyknę]li się [...] mężnie się o nie uderzywszy. My z [...] bronią [...].”


2. Szymanowski Samuel Hutor, Mars Sauromatski, to jest od szczęśliwej koronacyjej Najaśniejszego Władysława IV, z łaski Bożej króla polskiego etc. krótkie opisanie różnych ekspedycyj Jaśnie Oświeconemu Książęciu J.M. Jeremiemu Michałowi Korybutowi, książęciu na Wiśniowcu Wiśniowieckiemu, Panu swemu Mciwemu, wydany przez Samuela Hutora Szymonowskiego z Kleczan. Warszawa 1642. p. 38:

„Długo snadź będzie każdy to w pamięci chował
Moskal, czego tam zacny Firlej dokazował.
Przezeń pierwszy moskiewskiej kłuszyńska wygrana
Potrzeba, barzo ciężka i niespodziewana,
Gdzie jak w ogień z usarską wpadł chorągwią swoją
Na twardego śpisznika odzianego zbroją,
Którego rozerwawszy, gdy mu szyki zmeli,
Wnet i drugie chorągwie oń się uderzyły
I wygrali potrzebę dość niespodziewaną,
Przez zacnego Firleja wprzód kredensowaną.
Który lubo w świebodnej na ten czas młodości
Jeszcze kwitnął, lecz pełen męstwa i dzielności.”

Soon you will demand to provide you an example when cavalry defeated pikemen inside a defended castle...

Domen, you will be surprised. There is such an example. However both opponents (Polish winged hussars and French pikemen) were present in a castle, when they clashed . I mean hussars didn't need to enter a castle defended by pikemen, because they were pikemen who entered a castle defended by hussars.

[Radosław Sikora]

I will assume that all infantry are in good order unless the source specifically states otherwise

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 can understand your skepticism. Hoverer you should also understand that battles between non-English nations were most of all described in languages of involved nations.
If you don't like or don't trust Polish language, I can provide you Russian description of the clash between Russian infantry (supported by artillery) and winged hussars. The clash which finished in defeating Russian troops.

It happened in the battle of Domany 1655:

„А перед обозом шли три роты солдатских, и они начали с теми литовскими людьми, отыкався пиками острожком, биться и из пушек стрелять. И их, солдатских три роты, польские и литовские люди гусары, напустя копьями, побили.”

I'm sure, Russian members of this forum can translat it into English if you ask them kindly . BTW, there is also a Polish source which describes this episode.

[Rolling Thunder]

You claim that several thousands Swedes were exceptionally disordered by 200 Hayduks?

And possibly being attacked on both flanks helped. Military thinkers having often regarded flank attacks as fairly disastrous for most formations, whether they be infantry or cavalry.

Nearly all of them written from the German perspective.

And mainly basing on German documents captured by Americans (Alexandria Microfilms).

So yeah, kinda Anglo-American history ("captured" German history). USSR was also greatest post-1945 Anglo-American enemy.

Which typically deal with Eastern Front as just the context for much more important Western Front.

I haven't even told you the name of these books and you're already going on some delusional whinefest about how horribly marginalised poor little Eastern Europe is by English authors. Either source your complaint or retract it.

In which England and Scotland participated.

If you expand the definition of "participated to

So Greeks, Macedonians and every Hellenistic army was poorly-led and disordered in every battle against the Romans in which the Romans won?

A more plausible explanation that the Romans being able to dodge their way through a prepared spearwall by virtue of the awesome uberleetness of swordsmen.

Let me guess... the Italians had poor morale, were poorly-led and were disordered.

Italian military history is a history of having poor morale and leadership. Not that that would save you from a column of Swiss pikemen.

Ah - ok. So requirements are constantly increasing...

We're discussing Renaissance warfare. Pikes are a fairly common piece of kit for infantry. Nice avoidance by the way.

I can understand your skepticism. Hoverer you should also understand that battles between non-English nations were most of all described in languages of involved nations.
If you don't like or don't trust Polish language, I can provide you Russian description of the clash between Russian infantry (supported by artillery) and winged hussars. The clash which finished in defeating Russian troops.

It happened in the battle of Domany 1655:

„А перед обозом шли три роты солдатских, и они начали с теми литовскими людьми, отыкався пиками острожком, биться и из пушек стрелять. И их, солдатских три роты, польские и литовские люди гусары, напустя копьями, побили.”

I'm sure, Russian members of this forum can translat it into English if you ask them kindly . BTW, there is also a Polish source which describes this episode.

It's not that I distrust Polish sources any more than I do any other source I cannot verify for myself, I just find it extremely hard to believe that Poland, with her Winged Hussars, managed to do what every other cavalry commander throughout history never did.

In short – winged hussars with lances charged, overcame kobylice somehow (I suppose that they jumped over them), defeated pikemen deployed behind them and entered Swedish camp. Sources say nothing about any disorder among charged pikemen. Quite contrary – one source states that all infantry, including pikemen, stood in order (“wszystka piechota cudzoziemska stała, w sprawie cali; mianowicie spiśnik”). There is also no record about any initial fire of the Poles.

So, we have information that contradicts the wikipedia article. I'm inclined to treat this source with a degree of skepticism as well, but I will consider it.

[Jlop985]

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.

The Persians tended to use a combination of armors, including lamellar, scale, laminated plate, and mail. Lamellar, scale, or laminated plate was the main armor, and mail was used for complementary protection.

[Domen123]

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.

BTW - there is an example from the Medieval Polish-Teutonic battle of Swiecino (1462). Not vs pikes, but something similar.

In that battle Polish cavalry used their horses as "battering rams" smashing through enemy palisade (!) in several places.

If breaking wooden stakes with chests of horses was possible, then breaking thinner wooden "sticks" (pikes) was possible too.

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.

Hussaria had chance of attacking back because it had lances longer than pikes as well as pistols.

In period until 1643 Hussaria charged in formations 2 - 6 ranks deep (after 1643 in formations 2 - 3 ranks deep).

Italian military history is a history of having poor morale and leadership. Not that that would save you from a column of Swiss pikemen.

Just like Macedonian military history & military history of any infantry beaten by cavalry & any pikemen beaten by swordsmen - according to you.

If you expand the definition of "participated to

"To participate" = to be listed by en.wikipedia.org among Belligerents:

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

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

Domen, you will be surprised. There is such an example. There is such an example. However both opponents (Polish winged hussars and French pikemen) were present in a castle, when they clashed . I mean hussars didn't need to enter a castle defended by pikemen, because they were pikemen who entered a castle defended by hussars.

- what battle was that?

[Radosław Sikora]

- what battle was that?

It was the battle in Russian castle Osipów in April 1610, described by Marchocki. French infantrymen (including pikemen) surprised Polish garrison and entered into the castle. However surprised hussars finally were able to counterattack. They defeated Frenchmen.
BTW, it is not the only one episode of a fight between pikemen and hussars inside walls. Similar thing happened during the siege of Cracow 1587 by the Hapsburg army.

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

Now more comments to the text: Byzantine Kataphraktoi: vs. Polish Hussars :Edges

Mid Range: Marzobarboulon , Kontarion lance vs. Flintlock pistols, Koipa lance


It is a bit humorous that the main weapons of both warrior, the two lances , are both going to be near useless in this match up due to the excessive amount of armor. The best either is going to be able to do is knock the other off their horse, which is pretty unlikely given the superior saddle of the Hussar and the brittleness of the Kopia.

Well, the kopia should break while hitting an enemy, but it doesn't mean it was powerless. There are records that it pierced 5-6 unarmored enemies at ones. There are records, that hussar lances pierced wooden shields and metal armors (one source adds an interesting information, that rivets of armors were snapping, which might suggest that lances pierced armors in places where elements of armors were joined with each other).

Both have small advantages though; the Kopia has nearly three times the length of its rival,

And it is a key factor, because it permitted hussars to hit their opponents before their opponents could use any weapon against hussar. If a hussar was really well trained, he could hit a head of his opponent. Such event was recorded during a duel of two Polish hussars in 1607. Piotr Łaszcz killed Joachim Ślaski, hitting him in a face.
If a hussar was worse trained, he could try dismount an enemy by hitting his horse or him (in a chest for example). Anyway, in every case, even if hussar's enemy survived a blow of a lance, he was temporary inert (like a soldier protected by ballistic vest, who survived a blow of a bullet), what made him more vulnerable for secondary hussar weapons.

BTW, do you know if cataphracts used lance pennons? I have written about their importance here p.10-11

and the Kontarian can be thrown. A thrown Kontarian will likely do the same amount of damage that a hand-held one will do, i.e. none at all, but it will still be an effective distracting tool. I can't really call this one.


Pistol vs. Marzobarboulon seems like a bit of a miss match but the darts do have some advantages. For one they don't jam and if held by a professorial are surprisingly accurate and its possible these could be thrown into the eye, chin or neck. They also have a bit of a surprise! factor, and can be hidden behind objects such as a shield or even in the sword hand and thrown. Even if they don't bore through the Hussar's armor I guarantee he'll still be feeling the sting, and the Byzantine will be able to take out his horse with it. Same could be said about the flintlock though, and unlike the darts these will be able to get through the weaker parts of the Kataphract armor (like the face). For more lethality I am giving it a edge.

Well, these are generally good notices. I'd like only to point out that hussar enemies (Ottoman cavalry) used something similar to Marzobarboulon. It was Djerid (Jarid, Jered). So, I really doubt if hussars could be surprised by using Marzobarboulon.
On the other hand, pistols had very limited range of effective fire – only 3 steps. Good opponent with a fast hand, could cut hands of cavalrymen who tried to use pistols (the example comes from the battle of Trzciana 1629, where Polish light cavalrymen armed of sabres cut hands of Swedish reiters, who already kept pistols and tried to use them).
Anyway physical efficiency of pistols would be much less important than their huge psychological impact on people and horses who didn't know them.

Close Range: Spathion, Paramerion vs. Szabla, Koncerz, Pallash,

Every single weapon here has problems with armor, and so this category will not be decisive one. The Spathion and Sazabla are both slashing weapons, and in this battle the only way to get kills by slashing are to sneak up and grab your foes throat, ripping off the helmet, and slitting it. Not going to happen very often(although if timed well it may be able to hit the weak points of someone's armor). The Paramerion and Pallash are better at thrusting, but neither is going to really have the power to get through even riveted chainmail. Finally the Koncerz, though unwieldy , tips the edge in Hussar favor. Due to its length the Hussar's could and would use this as a small spear, and being hit with it would be painful to endure.

again slight edge Hussar for having more options

I almost agree with these notices above. Except two things:
1.szabla could be used also to thrust
2.there was a special manner of using koncerz, which enabled to pierce even armors; I have written about it and I have shown it here p. 17

Extremely close Range: Byzantine Dagger vs. Polish Hunting Dagger

Obviously in a mounted battle these two weapons will hardly ever see use, and when they are their effectiveness will be limited by length and lack of armor penetration (only way either are getting kills is through precision strikes to the weak points of each's armor). The Polish hunting knife is a better knife then the Byzantine dagger, but its rarity hurts it here. The Byzantine dagger would have been available to every man, and for that reason it gets the edge

I agree. But I'd like to stress the first sentence, which is very true: Obviously in a mounted battle these two weapons will hardly ever see use

Special: tzikourion(axe), Bardoukion and other maces vs Czekan axe , Horseman's pick

The Tzikourion vs. Czekan is going to be an interesting match up, as both are fast and unlike other weapons
capable of doing damage through each of their opponent's armor. Both have a spike on the other side for dual use. I really cant decide between these two axes...

Me too

But I can judge between the two different types of maces and the Bardoukion throwing maces get a sound edge over the Nazdiak, despite the latter's clear lethality. You have three of them, you can throw them with bone shattering force, and the Hussars armor is going not going to really help him deal with the blunt force trauma (even the helmet, with its assorted padding, is not going to do enough) . The many layers of the Byzantines armor includes two heavy padded coat(innermost and outermost layers) that will be able absorb a great of the impact from the Nazdiak's hammer side . The spiked side is most likely not going to pierce through every layer and may end up getting lodged in, which would be fatal in battle.

The Byzantines get a sound edge here

Well, the result of a fight would depend on individual skill of opponents.
I really don't see any reason, why the blow of Nadziak in a protected Kataphraktoi's head would be less dangerous than the blow of Bardoukion in a protected head of hussar. The one who will reach his opponent faster win such a fight.

*Horse Breeds* : Nisean Horse vs. Eastern style horse, lack of directed breeding, makeshift horses

When the messiah was prophesied to return in Judea by some Persian religious officials, the Persian king sent the Jews a Nisean mount to give to him. When Alexander The Great's prized Nisean mount Buccephalus was stolen he threatened to level the entire country until the kidnappers gave him back (they swiftly did). When Cyrus saw that a Nisean horse drowned in a river he ordered that entire river drained in retaliation.

The Ancients were obsessed with this breed which leads me to the conclusion that it must have been a truly fine horse. Full points to the Nisean though the Poles get points for adaptability.

Well, we can judge horses by comparing what they were able to do. I'd like to see your opinions about Nisean Horse. I can say about horses used by hussars.
First of all, they were the most expensive horses ever used in Poland. Their prices were huge (read here p. 7), also because their training. According to Dorohostajski's “Hippika” (it's a treaty from early 17th c.) some horses were such perfectly trained that they were able to turn 180° in a 2 m circle. They did it in a full gallop!
The already mentioned battle of Klushino 1610 shows also another advantage of hussar horses. The battle occurred on the 4th of July. It is the hottest summer time in this area. Although this, Polish armored hussars were able to move 120 km in 24 hours and participate in 5 hours long battle, charging even 10 times. It is almost incredible, how good horses hussars must have. I really doubt if any horse with barding (look at cataphracts) could repeat this achievement.

To be continued...

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It is, however, not as resistant to piercing or blunt attacks.

It really depends on thickness, Manica was the same thickness as Lorcia Segmentata (Segmentata was not in use in the Time we are talking about, but Manica still was). And they tested LS and it stopped everything but Artillery fire (a Ballista, which is much more powerful than even an arbalast)

Also, a Kontos/Kontarion/whatever you want to call it when on a horse chargineg would spear right htough plate Armor of that day.

And a block of properly disciplened infantry would hold against a cavalry charge any day. Romans did it all the time. They kept their infantry in formation, the Cataphracts hit, the Romans would dive down under the Armor and gut the Horses with their spears or Swords. Easy victory against a cavalry charge (that and a rain of veruta and other javelins)

[Darth Red]

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. The VV is not the place for one line op's that state "as the title says". It also isn't the place for hypothetical discussions. Please use the Alternate History forum or the TD for these types of dicussions.

Moved to Alternate History.

[Domen123]

A participant of World War 1 wrote this about resistance of horses to fire of even modern firearms:

"The fear of infantry was intensified by great resistance of horses to wounds. During a charge only killed horses or those which had crushed leg bones were falling immediately. Other horses, often wounded several times, even mortally, in a zeal of attack continued to run and with their entire mass - under riders or without them - were blindly bumping into the enemy, parting and trampling his lines. From distance this apparent lack of casualties of the charging unit was creating an impression of inefficiency of infantry fire. Infantry was confused enough, that most of bullets were starting to fly too high, and often in a decisive moment infantry was throwing their weapons and commencing a flight, which meant a certain annihilation for them."

[Eofor]

I think that the hussar would win for the simple reason that "cataphracts" were outdated by the time hussars were used.

[Radosław Sikora]

Armor:
Helmets: double layer Mail Coif with Phrygian cap vs. szyszak helmet, nasal guard, karacena scale gorget(rare)

This is pretty even to me. What the Hussars lack in complete protection

As I have already written, there were huge differences among hussars. Some of them were completely armored, some of them used ¾ armors, some of them only half armors. There were also hussars who didn't use plate armors and rode only in helmets and mails.
Anyway, regardless of standard of protection, the best protected hussars always rode in the first rank, so in a frontal fighting, they were the first whose opponents met.

they compensate for increased feild of vision, while the Byzantine's vision will be a bit obscured. A very slight edge to the Byzantines since they all have neck protection whereas the gorgets were only really worn by high ranking Polish officers(or those rich enough to afford them!).

It is some misunderstanding. Gorgets were very cheap. Armors in general were relatively cheap. For example the retainer's armor (with gorget!) used in Kazimierz Borkowski's retinue in 1670, was worthy only 30 zł, while retainers' horses (in the same retinue) were worthy 200, 150 and 130 zł.
To comparison, the cost of a pair of pistols with holsters was only 15 zł.

Body: shirt, padded jacket, mail,Lamellar, padded coat known as Epilorikion vs. Breast and back plate, gorget, shoulder Pauldrons, Tassets (rare) animal skins, WINGS!

I cannot give an edge here, both sets of armor are just so superb, each side has only one weapon that can really get through their opponent's body armor and that is the wheelock carbine for the Hussars and the flanged maces for the Byzantines. Other then that they are both tanks. Full points for both

Arms: Shirt, Upper Arm(manikellia): Steel Lamellar with possible mail undercoat and leather padding , Lower Arm: Mail(kheiropsella) with padding underneath.


Both warrior's arms are nearly completely covered, which is important since this section may be targeted first in a duel, as it holds the weapon. I am giving an edge to the Hussar for having a single Gauntlet, although
as you can guess this edge is small.

No comment.

Legs: leather boot, greaves(podopsella) , solid steel Lamellar skirt(kremasmata) vs. Tasset, leather


This edge is fairly simple. Edge to the Byzantine for more coverage.

I suppose that, like among all warriors of all times, there were different standards of equipment also among cataphracts. And probably, the best armed and armored men kept the most exposed place in a battle order. So, we might expect that in a frontal clash, fully covered cataphracts of the first rank would fight with the best covered hussar comrades, who rode in the first rank.

to be continued...

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Now that I triumphantly return to the VV, I can finally post in this thread.


The Sassanid Savaran were always a fairly standardized cavalry force. It was not a bunch of feudal nobles coming with whatever they could afford. The Sassanids initially provided a list of required equipment, which was then purhased by the soldier. The Savaran were all trained by the same program and finished their training in Ctesiphon.

Later came the reforms of Kavadh and Anushiravan, which made the Savaran arguably the most potent cavalry force in the ancient era. These reforms were:
1. Severely reducing the power of high nobility, instead making the Dekhans, village lords (who were not even feudal lords in the classic sense) egligable for service, thus creating a large manpower pool;
2. Changing the equipment of the Savaran - horse armor was reduced to the front half, probably stirrups were introduced together with lighter lances to be used in one hand, all cavalrymen were also equipped for horse archery;
3. State supply. Horses, armor, weapons - these were all now produced en masse, to equip a new, highly professional force of knights. This also made them less wary of losing their horses, arrows and lances in battle.
4. With the state supply came uniform equipment and clothing, thus making them muc mhore cohesive in battle.


The armor - a combination of segmented/lamellar breastplates, laminated leg and arm armor, spanghelm or ridge helmets and a coat of mail over the previously mentioned.
Weapons - a bow, a lance, a heavy thrusting sword also capable of chopping and slashing, a mace or an axe, sometimes a weapon known as "panjagan", which seems to have been some kind of crossbow-shotgun thing firing five arrows at once.

Now, the armor of the Savar is perfectly capable of stopping a lance, any slash or cut, and most thrusts and percussion weapons. Almost as capable as plate, with the possible weakness against crossbows. A bullet would go straight through it, though, as it would most plate armor.


Comparison - Hussar has a slight ranged advantage, provided they hit their mark. In the charge, the hollow lance of the hussar would have little to no effect on either the rider or horse, while the Persian's could instantly kill the horse. In melee these two are very similar. So unless the Hussar gets a second pistol to shoot right in the Savar's face, this is pretty much equal. Training - these were both the top warriors of their time, so both were extremely highly trained and confident.


A duel would come down to luck and coincidences.

[Radosław Sikora]

The Sassanid Savaran were always a fairly standardized cavalry force. It was not a bunch of feudal nobles coming with whatever they could afford.

The same was with hussars. There were so called 'przypowiedni' letters, which described a minimal standard of hired hussars.
But hussars didn't wear uniforms in 16-17th c., so those ones who wanted and who could afford, took more and better weapons and equipments than was required. For example a plate armor was a standard demand of 'przypowiedni' letters in 17th c., but it depended on comrades if they wanted to use a full plate armor or only a half armor. 'Przypowiedni' letters didn't demand mails in 17th c., but hussars often used them too. 'Przypowiedni' letters demanded either pallash or koncerz, but a hussar could take both these weapons. etc.

The Sassanids initially provided a list of required equipment, which was then purhased by the soldier.

But could they use more than was required?

The Savaran were all trained by the same program and finished their training in Ctesiphon.

It's interesting. Could you write more about this program?

Now, the armor of the Savar is perfectly capable of stopping a lance,

What kind of lance do you mean? There were many lances in history. Some of them were used only in a 'free hand' - they were not too powerful.

Almost as capable as plate, with the possible weakness against crossbows. A bullet would go straight through it, though, as it would most plate armor.

Do you know any tests of their armors?

Comparison - Hussar has a slight ranged advantage, provided they hit their mark. In the charge, the hollow lance of the hussar would have little to no effect on either the rider or horse,

I'm afraid it is only a supposition. There were no tests which can answer the question if Savaran armor is a hussar lance-proof or not.
BTW, a few years ago I have tested a replica of a hussar lance. The test has shown that to break the lance, an energy of about 265 J was necessary. It is more than an energy of a bolt, shot from 13th c. crossbow (192 J) [1], or an energy of arrows (70-212 J)[2]. It is also more than an energy of a blow of an axe, a spear or a sword (60-130 J)[3].
Comparing to energy of a pistol or a musket ball, 265 J seems to be a small energy, but in fact it is not. Because apart from an energy, a shape and a hardness of blowing weapon are important. A test of an arrow, shot with an energy of over 175 J, has shown that it was able to penetrate 2 mm steel sheet[4]. A lead ball needed an energy of 750 J to do it too [5]. To comparison, an energy of 17th c. pistol ball was about 1000 J.

All data below from: Alan Williams, The Knight and the Blust Furnace

[1] "They also measured the velocity of a modern target bolt (62 m/sec) shot from a crossbow of 41kg (90lb) draw weight. The initial energy of a 100g bolt would have been 192 J."

[2] "Pope carried out a series of experiments shooting both an English longbow with both bodkin and broadhead arrows, and other bows (3). He estimated the striking force by shooting blunt-headed arrows at a block of paraffin wax.
A bow of 50 lb draw-weight had a striking force of 20 ft.lbs (170 J) at 10 ft range, and one of 75 lb draw-weight had a striking force of 25 ft.lbs (212 J). The larger bow would have offered an initial energy comparable to a crossbow."
and
"McEwen and others (5) have carried out extensive tests on shooting different bows with accurate measurements, and found that from a yew longbow of 36 kg (80 lb) draw-weight, a 50g field arrow might travel at 53 m/sec, and a 90g broadhead arrow at 43 m/sec. So these would have had an initial energy of 70 and 83 J respectively."

[3] "Throughout the Ancient World as well as the medieval period, swords, spears and axes would have been employed in hand-to-hand combat, and such blows might deliver anything between 60 and 130 J"

[4] "The result of these different factors in determining the energy needed by missiles to defeat mild steel is summarised in the tables below.
'Defeat' implies penetration of a point by 40 mm, or a complete hole made by a bullet. Lead bullets might distort before penetrating, although the impact on the target would undoubtedly be severe, the armour might be described as 'undefeated'.

Resistance to ARROWS

1 mm - 55 J
2 mm - 175 J
3 mm - 300 J
4 mm - 475 J

[5] Resistance to BULLETS

1 mm - 450 J
2 mm - 750 J
3 mm - 1700 J
4 mm - 3400 J

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The same was with hussars. There were so called 'przypowiedni' letters, which described a minimal standard of hired hussars.
But hussars didn't wear uniforms in 16-17th c., so those ones who wanted and who could afford, took more and better weapons and equipments than was required. For example a plate armor was a standard demand of 'przypowiedni' letters in 17th c., but it depended on comrades if they wanted to use a full plate armor or only a half armor. 'Przypowiedni' letters didn't demand mails in 17th c., but hussars often used them too. 'Przypowiedni' letters demanded either pallash or koncerz, but a hussar could take both these weapons. etc.



But could they use more than was required?



It's interesting. Could you write more about this program?



What kind of lance do you mean? There were many lances in history. Some of them were used only in a 'free hand' - they were not too powerful.




Do you know any tests of their armors?



I'm afraid it is only a supposition. There were no tests which can answer the question if Savaran armor is a hussar lance-proof or not.
BTW, a few years ago I have tested a replica of a hussar lance. The test has shown that to break the lance, an energy of about 265 J was necessary. It is more than an energy of a bolt, shot from 13th c. crossbow (192 J) [1], or an energy of arrows (70-212 J)[2]. It is also more than an energy of a blow of an axe, a spear or a sword (60-130 J)[3].
Comparing to energy of a pistol or a musket ball, 265 J seems to be a small energy, but in fact it is not. Because apart from an energy, a shape and a hardness of blowing weapon are important. A test of an arrow, shot with an energy of over 175 J, has shown that it was able to penetrate 2 mm steel sheet[4]. A lead ball needed an energy of 750 J to do it too [5]. To comparison, an energy of 17th c. pistol ball was about 1000 J.

All data below from: Alan Williams, The Knight and the Blust Furnace

[1] "They also measured the velocity of a modern target bolt (62 m/sec) shot from a crossbow of 41kg (90lb) draw weight. The initial energy of a 100g bolt would have been 192 J."

[2] "Pope carried out a series of experiments shooting both an English longbow with both bodkin and broadhead arrows, and other bows (3). He estimated the striking force by shooting blunt-headed arrows at a block of paraffin wax.
A bow of 50 lb draw-weight had a striking force of 20 ft.lbs (170 J) at 10 ft range, and one of 75 lb draw-weight had a striking force of 25 ft.lbs (212 J). The larger bow would have offered an initial energy comparable to a crossbow."
and
"McEwen and others (5) have carried out extensive tests on shooting different bows with accurate measurements, and found that from a yew longbow of 36 kg (80 lb) draw-weight, a 50g field arrow might travel at 53 m/sec, and a 90g broadhead arrow at 43 m/sec. So these would have had an initial energy of 70 and 83 J respectively."

[3] "Throughout the Ancient World as well as the medieval period, swords, spears and axes would have been employed in hand-to-hand combat, and such blows might deliver anything between 60 and 130 J"

[4] "The result of these different factors in determining the energy needed by missiles to defeat mild steel is summarised in the tables below.
'Defeat' implies penetration of a point by 40 mm, or a complete hole made by a bullet. Lead bullets might distort before penetrating, although the impact on the target would undoubtedly be severe, the armour might be described as 'undefeated'.

Resistance to ARROWS

1 mm - 55 J
2 mm - 175 J
3 mm - 300 J
4 mm - 475 J

[5] Resistance to BULLETS

1 mm - 450 J
2 mm - 750 J
3 mm - 1700 J
4 mm - 3400 J

The Sassanid armor was designed to deflect the much heavier Contus lances. A hussar lance was meant to shatter immediately after impact, so as not to break the user's arm. As a consequence, it was not ideal for impacting armored opponents, as it would shatter before the armor would. Don't start with the whole "contus was not as powerful" nonsense, some Roman authors even said the Persians could impale two enemies with a single charge. Yes, the early Savaran could use more than required, but that usually meant shinier armor. But for the comparison to be fair, we should use the reformed cavalry.

[intel]

Don't start with the whole "contus was not as powerful" nonsense, some Roman authors even said the Persians could impale two enemies with a single charge.

Some sources also state that hussar lance was able to impale from three to four enemies at once.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Some sources also state that hussar lance was able to impale from three to four enemies at once.

How can a lance that shatters pretty much immediately impale more than one target?

[intel]

How can a lance that shatters pretty much immediately impale more than one target?

By not shattering pretty much immidiately.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

By not shattering pretty much immidiately.

By not shattering it would either throw you off your horse or break your wrist or something.