Who would win? Polish Winged Hussar vs Persian Cataphract

[intel]

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

Momentum is transfered to the horse via tok, which was connencted to the saddle. Not only it allowed better handling of lance, but it also significantly decreased vertical forces working on hussar's arm (according to Radoslaw's calculations-by 46%).

[neoptolemos]

Well both cavalries were extremely skilled, heavily armored and effective but my vote here goes for the winged Hussar (after all he has the possibility of carying pistols) although i really respect the tremendous capabilities of the Persian Cataphract.

[Radosław Sikora]

Momentum is transfered to the horse via tok, which was connencted to the saddle. Not only it allowed better handling of lance, but it also significantly decreased vertical forces working on hussar's arm (according to Radoslaw's calculations-by 46%).

I do confirm.

BTW, there are records that a hussar lance pierced 5-6 enemies at once. Like for example in the battle of Cudnów 1660.
Samuel Leszczyński, who was colonel of the Polish cavalry, participated in this battle and described it. Among other things he wrote about:
- using horses chests as a battering ram ("a tabor przerwany końską piersią i ręką polską, jak tarany rozbity")
- piercing Russian armors by hussar lances ("chorągiew hetmana wielkiego [...] kopije swoje w brzuchach grubych Moskalów topiła i zbroje moskiewskie twarde nity od grotów puszczały")
- piercing 5 Russians at once ("drzewce aże w piątym ciele zostawały")

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

We're looking for Russians saying that, but whatever. In battle any kind of impalement is unlikely to happen, and lance is not suited for piercing armor. It's better at unhorsing an armored opponent.

[neoptolemos]

In battle any kind of impalement is unlikely to happen, and lance is not suited for piercing armor. It's better at unhorsing an armored opponent.

Well the combination of weight and velocity make the momentum of the lance hit devastating enough to penetrate armor (i am not sure about plate armor though)but the opponent since he is not "nailed" on the back of the horse, he will probably absorb the energy and the momentum of the hit by leaning backwards or even, as you ve correctly put it, fell down of his horse.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

...and unhorsing the cataphract would be a bit counter productive, since yor lance is now gone and you have to ride up to him and kill him with a mace/hammer/sword. However, the Persian still has a 4-5 meter long lance, which he can now proceed to use as a pike. That is, taking firearms out of the equation.


Although the Savar might deflect the lance by simply leaning off to the side/using their shield, and strike the hussar a split second after that. So this could still easily go both ways.

[Radosław Sikora]

and unhorsing the cataphract would be a bit counter productive, since yor lance is now gone and you have to ride up to him and kill him with a mace/hammer/sword. However, the Persian still has a 4-5 meter long lance, which he can now proceed to use as a pike. That is, taking firearms out of the equation.

1.Unhorsing heavy armored cavalryman, who rides 10 meters per second (it's a gallop) would be 'a bit counter productive'? Have you ever fall down from a horse in a gallop?
There are some records from knights' tournaments, which show how dangerous was falling down from a horse in an armor. For example Grzegorza Lütke had broken bones, when Herman Kersten dismounted him during the tournament in Gdańsk in 1552.
2.In a real battle there was also a risk of being trampled. So the first and foremost, you would suffer from contusion, falling from your horse on the ground and then, you would be trampled by hussar horses.
3.The lances of the first hussar rank could b broken, but there were also lances of the second rank (retainers)
4.Why would Savaran lance survive unbroken in such an event?
5.Why would dismounted Persians be eager to any other fight?
6.What's the problem to attack dismounted men with pikes?

Although the Savar might deflect the lance by simply leaning off to the side/using their shield, and strike the hussar a split second after that. So this could still easily go both ways.

Good point. I agree, it was possible.
Hussars in 16th c. used shields to do it too. It was not necessary in 17-18th c., when they used plate armors. But shields in 16th c. were in use to protect people, who either didn't use any body protection or who wore only chain mails.
Shields were sometimes pierced by a hussar lance, but the key word here is 'sometimes'.

[neoptolemos]

...and unhorsing the cataphract would be a bit counter productive, since yor lance is now gone and you have to ride up to him and kill him with a mace/hammer/sword. However, the Persian still has a 4-5 meter long lance, which he can now proceed to use as a pike. That is, taking firearms out of the equation.

Wasn't that supposed to happen in all cavalry battles? Cavalry men hit down unhorsed opponents or infantry?

Although the Savar might deflect the lance by simply leaning off to the side/using their shield, and strike the hussar a split second after that. So this could still easily go both ways.

Of course this is possible as it is possible that the Persian cataphract would have hit the hussar first.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

In a battle, where there are hundreds or thousands of horsemen, getting unhorsed is very bad. In this specific duel situation, that would not be the best solution, since the very specific properties of the contus lance.

Also, there is this video on youtube where Mike Loades in full plate armor trows himself off his horse in gallop. Landing on his back. And immediatly gets up.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

The Polish Winged Hussars would win hands down.

[intel]

In a battle, where there are hundreds or thousands of horsemen, getting unhorsed is very bad. In this specific duel situation, that would not be the best solution, since the very specific properties of the contus lance.

Provided that persian will still have kontos in his hands after being unhorsed. I will also add that long kontos has specific propeties of being weapon that occupies both hands- a clear disadvantage.

Also, there is this video on youtube where Mike Loades in full plate armor trows himself off his horse in gallop. Landing on his back. And immediatly gets up.

The same series in which he points that impact of the lance was throwing armoured men into air and knocking over war horses?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Provided that persian will still have kontos in his hands after being unhorsed. I will also add that long kontos has specific propeties of being weapon that occupies both hands- a clear disadvantage.
The same series in which he points that impact of the lance was throwing armoured men into air and knocking over war horses?

Not after the reforms. That lance was lighter and wielded in one hand. Getting unhorsed is bad, but if that deprives the enemy of his main weapon...

Don't get me wrong, I still think the hussar has a much better chance of winning.

[Domen123]

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

[Radosław Sikora]

that nadziak word, is that borrewed from Turkish ?(its orginally a Persian word)

Tureuki, you are right. The word is borrowed from Turkish language.
Marcin Paszkowski in 1615 published a Polish-Turkish dictionary. There is also this word.

Polish version - nasiek
Turkish one - nadziak

Attachment 176700

[Tureuki]

Can I find full version of that dictionary in somewhere ? especially with English translations ?

[Radosław Sikora]

Can I find full version that dictionary in somewhere ? especially with English translations ?

AFAIK, there is not English translation.
But you can download the original version here. There is not only a dictionary. There are descriptions of the Tartars, the Ottoman Empire, and a history of some Pole, who was captured and who lived in the Ottoman Empire for some time. The dictionary begins on the page 387. There is a phonetically writing, so it might be a bit difficult to read Turkish version of words for someone, who doesn't know Polish language.

[Tureuki]

Thank you its great I able to recognize majority of the words in that page

[Radosław Sikora]

Thank you its great I able to recognize majority of the words in that page

So, Paszkowski did a good job

[Tureuki]

But I couldn't understand the words which ending with lery,lary, these are probably plural, can you tell me English meanings of Polish equivalents of these words ?

[Radosław Sikora]

But I couldn't understand the words which ending with lery,lary, these are probably plural, can you tell me English meanings of Polish equivalents of these words ?

Yes, these are plural forms.


For example (p. 394):
Turkish - Chazylary
Polish - 'lud wyborny' (elite people/warriors)
modern English - 'Ghazi' warriors

Cut the ending -lary, and it should be easier to understand what Paszkowski meant.

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

BTW, below Ghazi warriors is the word pietyhorcy / solaklary.
In Polish, petyhorcy were a kind of cavalry, which originated from Circassian warriors (a short description in English is here).
But what exactly means 'solak' in Turkish?