The mobility of pikemen
Niels L. Ellegaard
I have a few questions regarding the mobility of pikemen.
If I understand correctly there are many record of forteenth century
flemish pikemen defending themselves against riders with lances, but
was an army of pikemen ever able to move fast enough to attack
anything? How fast could such an army move, while remaining in
position?
How would flemish pikemen defend a city? Would they fortify themselves
outside the city, or would they stand on the walls?
I am asking all this because I want to understand the reasons for
anybody wanting to attack pikemen in open field. Wouldn't it be easier
to ride around them? :)
Niels
PS: I am not a historian.
William Black
"Niels L. Ellegaard" <gna...@ruc.dk> wrote in message
news:7whdqss...@i19.ruc.dk...
Having taken a part in many reconstructed pike phalanxes and mock battles:
1. You can move at the same pace as any other medium/heavy infantry type
and deploy into a fighting formation reasonably quickly. Pikemen move as
fast as anyone else. A pike isn't that hard to march or drill with if
you've been trained.
2. As a general rule pikeman don't have much of a role in a siege, but
there's always a need for soldiers with strong backs to dig trenches and
carry stuff up to the top of the walls. Pike men were usually fitter than
most other soldiers because the bigger men were selected as pike men.
3. Armies fight to destroy other armies. There's no point in running away
if the enemy is outside your wealthiest city full of rich treasure, your
gunpowder factory, and your king (not to mention your wives and children)
and most of your important citizens.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Martin Reboul
Don't worry about it Niels - who is?
When it comes to battle, a lot depends on common sense, although in the fray,
that often goes out of the window (or gets trampled underfoot).
Well disciplined pikemen are all but invulnerable to attack by even the heaviest
cavalry, providing said cavalry aren't equipped with effective projectile
weapons. No horse will run onto a spear willingly, however sharp the spurs - if
forced by pressure, they will die and their rider with them.
Going round the pikemen is no good if they form a square or a schiltron, they
can still move in formation, albeit slowly, if they hold their line. The only
way to destroy them (which is what I presume you would wish to do) is through
the use of archers, artillery or very heavy and very determined infantry. The
pikemen would be probably be able to withdraw in the face of the latter, hard to
say how quickly, but at a fairly fast walk I should think. .
Defending a city is not the job of pikemen, unless the city is unwalled and has
no defensive structures, in which case you'll lose it anyway against heavy odds.
Pike formations are normally meant for defence, not attack, and designed to be
static. A wise commander would back them up with artillery and cavalry (if
available). As a last ditch devence from crumbling city walls, or last ditches,
a great array of sharp spearponts is a great deterrent agianst most infantry and
cavalry, especially when backed up by musketeers, crossbowmen or artillery.
Any help?
cheers
Martin (General Chaos)
David Brewer
>
> I have a few questions regarding the mobility of pikemen.
>
> If I understand correctly there are many record of forteenth century
> flemish pikemen defending themselves against riders with lances, but
> was an army of pikemen ever able to move fast enough to attack
> anything? How fast could such an army move, while remaining in
> position?
In the fifteenth century, armies of Swiss pikemen were able to
attack their enemies by advancing with single-minded determination
and fighting whatever was in their path. They terrified the army
of Charles the Rash of Burgundy, which ran away more than once,
but to actually destroy the broken enemy required the use of
German mercenary riders.
An army (in Western Europe, reachable by Flemings) rarely consists
of horsemen alone, and generally arrives with a slow moving
baggage train and the intention of seizing something permanently
by assault or siege (neither is the speciality of cavalry). I
would not think that raiding forces on horses would be caught by
pikemen on foot.
> How would flemish pikemen defend a city? Would they fortify themselves
> outside the city, or would they stand on the walls?
In 1302, the Flemish defended the walled town Courtrai by fighting
outside the walls, with the city wall covering one flank and,
IIRC, a river covering the other. Either they would be attacked to
the front or not at all. In a later era they would have been
pounded into dogfood by artillery.
Walled cities generally organise their own defence, with property
owners and guilds providing archers or crossbowmen (often
themselves) in numbers proportional to the amount of property that
they own.
> I am asking all this because I want to understand the reasons for
> anybody wanting to attack pikemen in open field. Wouldn't it be easier
> to ride around them? :)
The circumstances surrounding the battle of Coutrai required the
French to fight immediately (and quell the Flemish rebellion) or
go home in disgrace. On another occaision they might have been
able to "besiege" the Flemings and force the Fleming to advance.
Perhaps Paul Gans will stop adressing the loon fraternity for long
enought to whip out his copy of DeVries' "Infantry Warfare..."
--
David Brewer
"The mentally disturbed do not employ the Theory of Scientific
Parsimony: the most simple theory to explain a given set of
facts." - P.K.Dick (from VALIS)
David Read
"David Brewer" <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:412BB514...@blueyonder.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> Perhaps Paul Gans will stop adressing the loon fraternity for long
> enought to whip out his copy of DeVries' "Infantry Warfare..."
Please God, no.
"Kelly DeVries... crazy name, crazy guy."
Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome to your gory bed,
Or to victory!
Now's the day, and now's the hour;
See the front o' battle lour,
See approach proud Edward's power-
Chains and slavery!
Wha will be a traitor-knave?
Wha can fill a coward's grave?
Wha sae base as be a slave?
Let him turn and flee!
Wha for Scotland's king and law
Freedom's sword will strongly draw,
Freeman stand or freeman fa',
Let him follow me!
By oppression's woes and pains,
By your sons in servile chains,
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free!
Lay the proud usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in ev'ry foe!
Liberty's in ev'ry blow!
Let us do or die!
_Scots Wha Hae_ by Robert Burns [1759-1796]
---
cheers,
David Read
Paul J Gans
>"David Brewer" <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:412BB514...@blueyonder.co.uk...
><snip>
>>
>> Perhaps Paul Gans will stop adressing the loon fraternity for long
>> enought to whip out his copy of DeVries' "Infantry Warfare..."
>Please God, no.
>"Kelly DeVries... crazy name, crazy guy."
I gather that you have problems with DeVries?
Now that's more like it.
---- Paul J. Gans
David Read
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cggu9f$a4a$9...@reader1.panix.com...
> David Read <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"David Brewer" <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:412BB514...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> ><snip>
>
> >>
> >> Perhaps Paul Gans will stop adressing the loon fraternity for long
> >> enought to whip out his copy of DeVries' "Infantry Warfare..."
>
> >Please God, no.
>
> >"Kelly DeVries... crazy name, crazy guy."
>
> I gather that you have problems with DeVries?
I gather he's a rather nice fellow...
---
cheers,
David Read
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Martin Reboul" <martin...@SPAMFUKvirgin.net> napisal w
wiadomosci news:%1NWc.94$sK...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
Polish heavy cavalry of XV-XVII called 'husaria' charged succesfully against
guadrilaterals of pikemen defending musketeers.
Hussars used lances longer than pikes. Those lances had short behind-elbow
ends and forward part of the lance was hollow inside so as to provide long
weapon necessary lightness. Riders wore plate armour lighter than knghts in
medieval ages but strong enough to impervious for rare muskets fire, at
least until the reforms of Swedish king Gustav Adolf II .
At the beginning of a charge hussars rode in loose formatiom was done in 3
ranks. Formation gathered momentum gradually starting with walk, then trot,
galloping at full speed at the end. Formation of hussars at the end of a
charge got closer with riders riding knee to knee. The same tactics was
useds against cavalry. If firts attack was unsuccessful they losened ranks
wenta back and charged again. They could repeat charges a few times.
Husars also used sabres, pistols, and cavalry muskets (so called bandolets).
It was a very flexible type of troops without lances and armour they were
employed as a light cavalry for reconaissance and even to defend defensive
camps as both cavalry or fighting on foot.
Most famous victories achieved through successful charges of hussaria
victories were Obertyn 1531, Lubieszów 1577, Kircholm 1605, Kluszyn 1610,
Trzciana 1629, Chocim 1672, Vienna 1683.
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Alex
> >
> > I have a few questions regarding the mobility of pikemen.
> >
> > If I understand correctly there are many record of forteenth century
> > flemish pikemen defending themselves against riders with lances, but
> > was an army of pikemen ever able to move fast enough to attack
> > anything? How fast could such an army move, while remaining in
> > position?
>
> In the fifteenth century, armies of Swiss pikemen were able to
> attack their enemies by advancing with single-minded determination
> and fighting whatever was in their path.
This makes them look like a bunch of the idiots. They were not THAT
"single-minded" (at least not always) and their system of
3 columns provided for a considerable tactical flexibility.
>They terrified the army
> of Charles the Rash of Burgundy, which ran away more than once,
> but to actually destroy the broken enemy required the use of
> German mercenary riders.
They did just fine on their own and not only against the Burgundians but
also against everybody else so it is not completely clear what do you
mean by "actual" destruction. A 100% annihilation of an opponent?
>
> An army (in Western Europe, reachable by Flemings) rarely consists
> of horsemen alone, and generally arrives with a slow moving
> baggage train and the intention of seizing something permanently
> by assault or siege (neither is the speciality of cavalry).
Except for the cases when it is simply looting...
>I
> would not think that raiding forces on horses would be caught by
> pikemen on foot.
Quite often the raiding forces were a "mixed" army and not simply a
band of the cavalrymen.
>
> > How would flemish pikemen defend a city? Would they fortify themselves
> > outside the city, or would they stand on the walls?
>
> In 1302, the Flemish defended the walled town Courtrai
AFAIK, it was a little bit more complicated: French (or pro-French faction)
held town's citadel and the Flemish army was besieging it. Part of their
forces (on the right flank) were blockading citadel both inside and outside
the town. With citadel being in the enemy's hands, staying _inside_ city
walls was not a feasible solution.
>by fighting
> outside the walls, with the city wall covering one flank and,
> IIRC, a river covering the other. Either they would be attacked to
> the front or not at all. In a later era they would have been
> pounded into dogfood by artillery.
Well, in the later era things were considerably different but more than
once a relieving army failed to break a blockade.
[]
> > I am asking all this because I want to understand the reasons for
> > anybody wanting to attack pikemen in open field. Wouldn't it be easier
> > to ride around them? :)
>
> The circumstances surrounding the battle of Coutrai required the
> French to fight immediately (and quell the Flemish rebellion) or
> go home in disgrace. On another occaision they might have been
> able to "besiege" the Flemings and force the Fleming to advance.
Which happened later at Kassel: Flemish army was annihilated. As the
initial post suggests, French more or less "rode around them". :-)
There was a clear and obvious tactical difference between a phalanx
formation with its exposed flanks and column-based Swiss formation.
1st had vulnerable flanks and Courtrais is one of the few examples when
it could achieve a substantial success. 2nd was pracically invulnerable
to anything but another similar formation as long as artillery was not
a substantial factor.
Alex
This verse sounds distinctively different in a Russian translation. :-)
David Read
"Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "David Read" <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<cggf8g$i5s$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
<snip>
> >
> > _Scots Wha Hae_ by Robert Burns [1759-1796]
>
> This verse sounds distinctively different in a Russian translation. :-)
I'm sure it does, Alex. _Scots Wha Hae_ even sounds distinctly different in
an English translation. I don't suppose a Russian translation exists of the
Great McGonagall's _Battle of Bannockburn_, which is definitely a Prime
Sauce and entirely Original too...
Sir Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn
Beat the English in every wheel and turn,
And made them fly in great dismay
From off the field without delay.
The English were a hundred thousand strong,
And King Edward passed through the Lowlands all along.
Determined to conquer Scotland, it was his desire,
And then to restore it to his own empire.
King Edward brought numerous waggons in his train,
Expecting that most of the Scottish army would be slain,
Hoping to make the rest prisoners, and carry them away
In waggon-loads to London without delay.
The Scottish army did not amount to more than thirty thousand strong;
But Bruce had confidence he'd conquer his foes ere long;
So, to protect his little army, he thought it was right
To have deep-dug pits made in the night;
And caused them to be overlaid with turf and brushwood
Expecting the plan would prove effectual where his little army stood,
Waiting patiently for the break of day,
All willing to join in the deadly fray.
Bruce stationed himself at the head of the reserve,
Determined to conquer, but never to swerve,
And by his side were brave Kirkpatrick and true De Longueville,
Both trusty warriors, firm and bold, who would never him beguile.
By daybreak the whole of the English army came in view;
Consisting of archers and horsemen, bold and true;
The main body was led on by King Edward himself,
An avaricious man, and fond of pelf.
The Abbot of Inchaffray celebrated mass,
And all along the Scottish lines barefoot he did pass,
With the crucifix in his hand, a most beautitul sight to see,
Exhorting them to trust in God, and He would set them free.
Then the Scottish army knelt down on the field,
And King Edward he thought they were going to yield,
And he felt o'erjoyed, and cried to Earl Percy
"See! See! the Scots are crying for mercy."
But Percy said, "Your Majesty need not make such a fuss,
They are crying for mercy from God, not from us;
For, depend upon it, they will fight to a man, and find their graves
Rather than yield to become your slaves."
Then King Edward ordered his horsemen to charge,
Thirty thousand in number, it was very large;
They thought to o'erwhelm them ere they could rise from their knees,
But they met a different destiny, which did them displease;
For the horsemen fell into the spik'd pits in the way,
And, with broken ranks and confusion, they all fled away,
But few of them escap'd death from the spik'd pits,
For the Scots with their swords hack'd them to bits;
De Valence was overthrown and carried off the field,
Then King Edward he thought it was time to yield.
And he uttered a fearful cry
To his gay archers near by,
Ho! archers! draw your arrows to the head,
And make sure to kill them dead;
Forward, without dread, and make them fly,
Saint George for England, be our cry!
Then the arrows from their bows swiftly did go,
And fell amongst them as thick as the flakes of snow;
Then Bruce he drew his trusty blade,
And in heroic language said,
Forward! my heroes, bold and true!
And break the archers' ranks through and through!
And charge them boldly with your swords in hand,
And chase these vultures from off our land,
And make King Edward mourn
The day he came to Bannockburn.
So proud Edward on his milk-white steed,
One of England's finest breed,
Coming here in grand array,
With horsemen bold and archers gay,
Thinking he will us dismay,
And sweep everything before him in his way;
But I swear by yon blessed sun
I'll make him and his army run
From off the field of Bannockburn.
By St. Andrew and our God most high,
We'll conquer these epicures or die!
And make them fly like chaff before the wind
Until they can no refuge find;
And beat them from the field without delay,
Like lions bold and heroes gay
Upon them! -- charge! -- follow me,
Scotland's rights and liberty!
Then the Scots charged them with sword in hand,
And made them fly from off their land;
And King Edward was amazed at the sight,
And he got wounded in the fight;
And he cried, Oh, heaven! England's lost, and I'm undone,
Alas ! alas! where shall I run?
Then he turned his horse, and rode on afar,
And never halted till he reached Dunbar
Then Bruce he shouted, Victory!
We have gained our rights and liberty;
And thanks be to God above
That we have conquered King Edward this day,
A usurper that does not us love.
Then the Scots did shout and sing
Long live Sir Robert Bruce our King'
That made King Edward mourn
The day he came to Bannockburn!
_The Battle of Bannockburn_ by William Topaz McGonagall
[1830-1902]
--
cheers,
David Read
Alex
IIRC, these formations were considerably smaller than the initial Swiss
columns and their role was different.
BTW, IIRC, at least some of its charges against Cossack infantry during
Khmelnitsky Wars were not successful. Neither were they uniformely successful
against reformed Swedish army (with the shallow pikemen formations). BTW,
when did they dissapear? IIRC, they were still around during the Northern
War but clearly not as a "miracle branch".
> Hussars used lances longer than pikes.
IIRC, by the end of the "Swiss era" (which includes Spanish and German
pikemen as well) lenght of the infantry pike was something up to 20 feet.
How much longer hussar's lance could be? The next question is what was the
lenght of a Western-european lance at the times of Italian Wars because
this could give at least some material for a comparison.
Unfortunately, in the movies "Polish hussars" are riding with rather short
lances so this important historical source is not very educational. :-)
>Those lances had short behind-elbow
> ends and forward part of the lance was hollow inside so as to provide long
> weapon necessary lightness.
AFAIK, this was a standard thing for the knights' lances by the late XV.
But it could not grow longer to the infinity because it still had to be
strong enough to cause some damage at the impact.
I strongly suspect that the cavalry lances, even with the hollow centers,
had to be shorter than the infantry pikes at their maximum lenght.
> Riders wore plate armour lighter than knghts in
> medieval ages but strong enough to impervious for rare muskets fire, at
> least until the reforms of Swedish king Gustav Adolf II .
Again, nothing really unique but I'm afraid that there is a certain
confusion: the armour of the early firearms times changed from a whole
"armoured suit" to a somewhat "abbreviated" set just because of an increased
weight of the cuirass: to protect against the bullets, it had to be
considerably ticker and heavier. Delbruck quoted numerous contemporary
complaints about increased total weight of this new armour. So, if anything,
it was not "lighter".
Neither, by itself, did it guarantee a definite advantage: look at the
Battle at Courtrais where French gendarmes had been beaten by the lighter
troops of Henry of Navarra. Of course, in this particular encounter, the
firearms were more important than the pikes or lances.
OTOH, even in more advanced times, the pikemen columns demonstrated a
great stability: at Breitenfeld a surrounded Imperial column eventually
capitulated to a combination of artillery and musket fire (and to a hoplessness
of a situation in general) but it was not broken.
Paul J Gans
I can attest to that. Others seem to like him as well.
Some even praise what he has written.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
What you describe here is also described as the way medieval
cavalry in the west charged. I suspect that it makes sense
to the cavalrymen.
The bit about simply using longer spears is interesting. It
could have led to a medieval arms race of sorts where instead
of fighting the pikemen on one side simply measured their
pikes against the lances on the other side. A neutral
party, perhaps a bishop, could then simply announce the
winner. And everyone could then go home happy.
>Husars also used sabres, pistols, and cavalry muskets (so called bandolets).
>It was a very flexible type of troops without lances and armour they were
>employed as a light cavalry for reconaissance and even to defend defensive
>camps as both cavalry or fighting on foot.
>Most famous victories achieved through successful charges of hussaria
>victories were Obertyn 1531, Lubiesz?w 1577, Kircholm 1605, Kluszyn 1610,
>Trzciana 1629, Chocim 1672, Vienna 1683.
----- Paul J. Gans
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
They also had excellent cavalry trained in skirmishes with Tartars. Cossacs
infantry fought using defensive camps and armed lagguage wagons (so called
tabor).There had numerical advantage and Poles often lacked
unity in command as it was a cvil war, actually. Noblity of eastern ends of
Poland were mostly gens Rutheni.
>Neither were they uniformely successful
> against reformed Swedish army (with the shallow pikemen formations).
I said so. First spectacular defeat in 1626 battle of Gniew.
BTW,
> when did they dissapear? IIRC, they were still around during the Northern
> War but clearly not as a "miracle branch".
Are you asking about pikemen disapperance? In Swedish army it happened at
the turn of XVII and XVIII century when bayonettes fixed at long carabines
with new type of lock (I don't know its English name) where introduced.
>
> > Hussars used lances longer than pikes.
>
> IIRC, by the end of the "Swiss era" (which includes Spanish and German
> pikemen as well) lenght of the infantry pike was something up to 20 feet.
> How much longer hussar's lance could be?
Length of hussar's lance was about 5,5 meters =around 18 feet but pikemen
had to prop a pike against the grounds and held it, I think, at about 1/3 of
its length.
The next question is what was the
> lenght of a Western-european lance at the times of Italian Wars because
> this could give at least some material for a comparison.
> Unfortunately, in the movies "Polish hussars" are riding with rather short
> lances so this important historical source is not very educational. :-)
As many films, although frankly I have seen a few movies in which hussars
were depicted and they always had pretty long lances with long flags fixed
just behind spearheads.
>
>
> >Those lances had short behind-elbow
> > ends and forward part of the lance was hollow inside so as to provide
long
> > weapon necessary lightness.
>
> AFAIK, this was a standard thing for the knights' lances by the late XV.
> But it could not grow longer to the infinity because it still had to be
> strong enough to cause some damage at the impact.
> I strongly suspect that the cavalry lances, even with the hollow centers,
> had to be shorter than the infantry pikes at their maximum lenght.
May be they were but the way the weapon is employed also counts. In that
case critical was point of holding a pike /lance
>
>
>
> > Riders wore plate armour lighter than knghts in
> > medieval ages but strong enough to be impervious for rare muskets fire,
at
> > least until the reforms of Swedish king Gustav Adolf II .
>
> Again, nothing really unique but I'm afraid that there is a certain
> confusion: the armour of the early firearms times changed from a whole
> "armoured suit" to a somewhat "abbreviated" set just because of an
increased
> weight of the cuirass: to protect against the bullets, it had to be
> considerably ticker and heavier. Delbruck quoted numerous contemporary
> complaints about increased total weight of this new armour. So, if
anything,
> it was not "lighter".
> Neither, by itself, did it guarantee a definite advantage: look at the
> Battle at Courtrais where French gendarmes had been beaten by the lighter
> troops of Henry of Navarra. Of course, in this particular encounter, the
> firearms were more important than the pikes or lances.
That's the point Polish XV-XVIII cavalry tactics was to charge vhemently so
as to employ lances, sabres etc as quick as possible. In XVI and at the
beginning of XVII century western armies used cavalry as formation using
fire weapon (pistols)They fouhgt in deep formations called 'karakol', in
which riders having their horses trotting shoot at teh enemy. After firing
they went to the back of the formation where they prepaired guns for next
shooting. Tactics very similar to infantry tactics used before Gustav Adolf
reforms. This king also told his raitars and cuirarssiers to charge at teh
enemy's cavalry. Despite the fact that Swedes changed their cavalry tactics
Polish cavalry kept its superiority (Trzciana 1629, Warka, Warsaw 1656,
Prostki 1657) until the outbreak of III Northern War when hussaria became
outdated (Kliszow 1702) and Polish noblemen lost their spirit to fight.
>
> OTOH, even in more advanced times, the pikemen columns demonstrated a
> great stability: at Breitenfeld a surrounded Imperial column eventually
> capitulated to a combination of artillery and musket fire (and to a
hoplessness
> of a situation in general) but it was not broken.
It is just boceuse of my curiosity. Do you know an example of western
cavalry charging successfully at infantry and artillery formation in XVII
century?
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:cgjlcj$9mr$3...@reader1.panix.com...
From XVIII century on yes. It was accepetd by the cavalry of all European
countries.Not western medieval knight cavalry used this tactics though. Most
often knights charged galloping in a rather loose formation estblishing
individual fights (a bit similarly to dogfighters). Knight orders used so
called column tactics, a deep formation of many ranks with triangular
avant-guarde. It was devised to fight with Saracens, who used tactics of
repeated attacks. In battle of Grunwald 1410, both sides used column
tactics.
a.spencer3
taken!
Surreyman
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik "a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:aChXc.33$Pr6...@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
You mean Preussisch Eylau 1807 or Borodino 1812? It were
slaughterhauses!!!!
Arkadiusz
>
>
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > "David Read" <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<cggf8g$i5s$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > _Scots Wha Hae_ by Robert Burns [1759-1796]
> >
> > This verse sounds distinctively different in a Russian translation. :-)
>
> I'm sure it does, Alex. _Scots Wha Hae_ even sounds distinctly different in
> an English translation.
But what language R.B. had been using? Was he writing in a conventional
English or in some "Scottish" version of it? Or did he use Gaelic?
Russian translation, of course, sounds different by a pure virtue of being
on a different language but a rhytm is very close to the original, which is
not always the case with other translations. Person who did this one was
usually very careful about being close to the original but this was not
universally the case and, as a result, translations of the same source may
look like completely independent verses.
>I don't suppose a Russian translation exists of the
> Great McGonagall's _Battle of Bannockburn_, which is definitely a Prime
> Sauce and entirely Original too...
No, I never heard about him or his poem. Obviously, he was not such a
popular object of translation as R.B.
Thanks for the original. The picture given looks like a Scottish traditional
view of the battle: very similar to Tranter's (sp) description of the
Bannockburn in his Bruce trilogy.
[]
Alex
>
> The bit about simply using longer spears is interesting. It
> could have led to a medieval arms race of sorts where instead
> of fighting the pikemen on one side simply measured their
> pikes against the lances on the other side. A neutral
> party, perhaps a bishop, could then simply announce the
> winner. And everyone could then go home happy.
I'm afraid that you are a little bit too optimistic regarding the
intellectual abilities of the medievals (running for cover):
there was competition of the pikes with Swiss starting with the
relatively ...er... short ones, then Spaniards and Germans coming
into a play with the longer pikes to compensate for the lack of
a reputation (compare warranties of Honda and Hyinday), Swiss picking
up the trend (extended Toyota's warranty), etc. All this without
break in fighting (other then one necessary for getting the new
pikes).
BTW, I'm not sure that the described hussar lances made it into XVII:
whatever pictures I saw had the "normal" long lances, not the medieval
knightly ones with a short heavy butt. An infinite lenght of these
lances is also, I suspect, a little bit on a legendary side because
only very rarely did these hussars deal with the Western style long
pikes: most of their enemies were eastwards and the long pikes were
not widely used either by the Ottomans or Russians. The Tatars were
simply not an issue because they did not have an infantry. Swedes came
into the picture when the hussars and their equipment had been already
settled and I'm not sure if even pre-Gustav Swedes had these massive
Swiss/Spanish style formations of the pikemen (or how good they were
before Gustav).
David Brewer
>
> "David Read" <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cgielo$shi$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >I don't suppose a Russian translation exists of the
> > Great McGonagall's _Battle of Bannockburn_, which is definitely a Prime
> > Sauce and entirely Original too...
>
> No, I never heard about him or his poem. Obviously, he was not such a
> popular object of translation as R.B.
The poetry of the McGonagall is the object equally of derision and
awe.
Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv'ry Tay!
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That ninety lives have been taken away
On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
Which will be remember'd for a very long time.
http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/poems/pgdisaster.htm
David Brewer
>
> David Brewer <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<412BB514...@blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > An army (in Western Europe, reachable by Flemings) rarely consists
> > of horsemen alone, and generally arrives with a slow moving
> > baggage train and the intention of seizing something permanently
> > by assault or siege (neither is the speciality of cavalry).
>
> Except for the cases when it is simply looting...
>
> > I
> > would not think that raiding forces on horses would be caught by
> > pikemen on foot.
>
> Quite often the raiding forces were a "mixed" army and not simply a
> band of the cavalrymen.
Bruce's Scots, who would have fought on foot in battle, raided
England on ponies, the English in turn mounted archers for raiding
France. Who are you thinking of as the walking raiders of Medieval
Western Europe?
a.spencer3
Nah - Balaclava
Surreyman
Arkadiusz Bugaj
The charge of the Light Brigade. Heh. Coulaincourt's charge at Shevardin's
Redoubt was also an exccellent carnage!!!
Arkadiusz
Alex
Well, their national roots are not of importance in this context and, IIRC,
Jeremiah Wishnevetski can't be accussed in an unsufficient zeal when it came
to fighting against the rebels.
What I'm saying is that the attacks of the hussars:
(a) were not, AFAIK, always successful during Khmelnitsky Wars
(b) most of the time their opponents did not have long western-type pikes.
> >Neither were they uniformely successful
> > against reformed Swedish army (with the shallow pikemen formations).
>
> I said so. First spectacular defeat in 1626 battle of Gniew.
>
> BTW,
> > when did they dissapear? IIRC, they were still around during the Northern
> > War but clearly not as a "miracle branch".
>
> Are you asking about pikemen disapperance?
No, I'm obviously talking about the hussars.
> >
> > > Hussars used lances longer than pikes.
> >
> > IIRC, by the end of the "Swiss era" (which includes Spanish and German
> > pikemen as well) lenght of the infantry pike was something up to 20 feet.
> > How much longer hussar's lance could be?
>
> Length of hussar's lance was about 5,5 meters =around 18 feet but pikemen
> had to prop a pike against the grounds and held it,
You are not talking about the Swiss and other "attacking infantry" who
did not prop their pikes against anything. What you are describing is a purely
defensive use of the pikemen, which was quite different from the old-style
attacking columns. BTW, judging by the old engravings, even in these more
recent formations not all pikemen had their weapons propped to the ground but
these formations look much less dense than the older ones. Which means that
they were easier to break than those under initial discussion.
>I think, at about 1/3 of
> its length.
Of course, I'm not a big specialist but this looks a little bit suspicious:
the infantry pikes reached their practical maximal lenght and it was difficult
enough to handle them with two hands. Now you are saying that the cavalry
lances of the same lenght had been efficiently handled with one hand, while
being strong enough not to be broken at the 1st impact.
>
> The next question is what was the
> > lenght of a Western-european lance at the times of Italian Wars because
> > this could give at least some material for a comparison.
> > Unfortunately, in the movies "Polish hussars" are riding with rather short
> > lances so this important historical source is not very educational. :-)
>
> As many films, although frankly I have seen a few movies in which hussars
> were depicted and they always had pretty long lances with long flags fixed
> just behind spearheads.
Sorry but these lances (I suspect that we are talking about appr. the same
movies) are nowhere close to 5 meters and look like the modern cavalry
lances, not those with a short butt you described. BTW, IIRC, in these
movies flags are on the other side of a lance so that it had to be turned
for an attack (not 100% positive because it was a while sinse I watched any
of them but something peculiar attracted my attention). Which, if
correct, "ate" a considerable part of a lenght.
> >
> >
> > >Those lances had short behind-elbow
> > > ends and forward part of the lance was hollow inside so as to provide
> long
> > > weapon necessary lightness.
> >
> > AFAIK, this was a standard thing for the knights' lances by the late XV.
> > But it could not grow longer to the infinity because it still had to be
> > strong enough to cause some damage at the impact.
> > I strongly suspect that the cavalry lances, even with the hollow centers,
> > had to be shorter than the infantry pikes at their maximum lenght.
>
> May be they were but the way the weapon is employed also counts. In that
> case critical was point of holding a pike /lance
I never saw it hold by the end.
I'm aware of this but all the above has absolutely nothing to do with what
I wrote because caracolle had been done by the light cavalry with the
firearms and not by the French gendarmes who relied on a traditional
charge with a lance. Their experience against the contemporary pikemen
formarions was not very impressive, unless they were backed by a strong
artillery or acted together with the pikemen of their own (as at Cheressola).
Can you please stick to the subject at hands?
> >
> > OTOH, even in more advanced times, the pikemen columns demonstrated a
> > great stability: at Breitenfeld a surrounded Imperial column eventually
> > capitulated to a combination of artillery and musket fire (and to a
> hoplessness
> > of a situation in general) but it was not broken.
>
> It is just boceuse of my curiosity. Do you know an example of western
> cavalry charging successfully at infantry and artillery formation in XVII
> century?
In XVIII it happened all the time. I don't know enough about XVII to tell for
sure but my impression is that Great Conde did this more than once during
Fronda and that things like this happened routinely during 30YW. Probably
some of the guys can tell more about experience of English CW.
Arkadiusz Bugaj
> > > > Polish heavy cavalry of XV-XVII called 'husaria' charged succesfully
> > against
> > > > guadrilaterals of pikemen defending musketeers.
> > >
> > > IIRC, these formations were considerably smaller than the initial
Swiss
> > > columns and their role was different.
> > > BTW, IIRC, at least some of its charges against Cossack infantry
during
> > > Khmelnitsky Wars were not successful.
> >
> > They also had excellent cavalry trained in skirmishes with Tartars.
Cossacs
> > infantry fought using defensive camps and armed lagguage wagons (so
called
> > tabor).There had numerical advantage and Poles often lacked
> > unity in command as it was a cvil war, actually. Noblity of eastern ends
of
> > Poland were mostly gens Rutheni.
> >
>
> Well, their national roots are not of importance in this context and,
IIRC,
> Jeremiah Wishnevetski can't be accussed in an unsufficient zeal when it
came
> to fighting against the rebels.
Note that Wishnovietsky wasn't a commander in chief of all Polish troops.
He had a few thousands his private army soldiers.
>
> What I'm saying is that the attacks of the hussars:
> (a) were not, AFAIK, always successful during Khmelnitsky Wars
> (b) most of the time their opponents did not have long western-type pikes.
As yu surely know military success depends on many factors during the battle
of Zolte Vody it was
raining and steppe ground had gerat numerical advantage and were alllied
with Tatars you may even
blame that hetman Potocki was a poor commander and If he hed been replaced
by someone more similiar to Chodkiewicz or Zolkiewski, the result would have
been different. In the battle of Pilawce the rout of Polish army was caused
by
undisciplined noblemen levy which panicked and run away.
It weren't only hussaria which fought theses battles and you cannot put
blame only on one branch of military for defeat. They did what they could in
certain circumstances when employed properly they were successful in most
cases. Remember Vienna 1683
also in the battle of Beresteczko1651 they crushed Cossacks cavalry also
Cudnów, Ochmatów, Połonka etc. there are plenty of examples of victories of
Polish cavalry to which hussaria added much
Here is a list of major battles won by Polish and Lithuanian forces in the
16th and 17th centuries, some won solely by cavalry. Where the army was led
by Lithuanian commanders, a note is made.
a.. 1514 - Orsza, against Russia. Pictures of this battle show hussaria
already equipped with wings. Commander Konstanty Ostrogski of Lithuania
b.. 1531 - Obertyn, against Moldavia. Commander Jan Tarnowski
c.. 1579-1581 - three succesful wars against Russia with cavalry raids.
Commanders King Stefan Batory, Jan Zamoyski, Mikolaj, and Krzysztof Radziwil
of Lithuania. During Stefan Batory's reign King's Regulations were issued
giving hussaria its final shape
d.. 1588 -Byczyna, against domestic rebels and Austrian troops. Commander
Jan Zamoyski
e.. 1595 - Solonica, against Ukrainian rebels. Commander Stanislaw
Zolkiewski
f.. 1605 - Kircholm, pure cavalry battle against Swedes. Commander Karol
Chodkiewicz of Lithuania
g.. 1610 - Kluszyn, pure cavalry battle against Russians. Commander
Stanislaw Zolkiewski. The battle in which some hussaria units attacked ten
times
h.. 1621 - defense of trenches near Khotin against Turkish army. Together
with other troops, hussaria were used in and outside the trenches.
Commanders Karol Chodkiewicz of Lithuania and Stanislaw Lubomirski
i.. 1629 - Trzciana, pure cavalry battle against Swedes. Commander
Stanislaw Koniecpolski
j.. 1637 - Kumejki, against Ukrainian rebels. Commander Mikolaj Potocki
k.. 1644 - Ochmatow against Tatars, Commanders Stanislaw Koniecpolski and
Jeremi Wisniowiecki
l.. 1649 - defense of trenches of Zbarazh against Ukrainian rebels and
Tatars. As in Khotin, hussaria were used with other troops in and outside
the trenches. Commander Jeremi Wisniowiecki
m.. 1651 - Beresteczko against Ukrainian rebels and Tartars. Commanders
King Jan Kazimierz and Jeremi Wisniowiecki
n.. 1656 - battle of Warsaw against Swedes. An incredible charge of
hussaria led by Aleksander Polubinski of Lithuania saved the
Polish-Lithuanian army despite their losing the battle
o.. 1660s - battles against Swedes and rebelling Ukrainians. Commander
Stefan Czarniecki
p.. late 1660s - numerous battles against Tartars and Turks. Commander Jan
Sobieski
q.. 1673 - Khotin again. This time besieging an entrenched Turkish army.
Hussaria were used
r.. for the final assault once breaches in the trenches were done.
Commander Jan
s.. Sobieski was crowned King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania next
year.
t.. 1683 - relief of Vienna besieged by Turkish army. One of the battles
that decided the fate of Europe. Commander Jan III Sobieski King of Poland
>
> > >Neither were they uniformely successful
> > > against reformed Swedish army (with the shallow pikemen formations).
> >
> > I said so. First spectacular defeat in 1626 battle of Gniew.
I must add that it was because of changing musketeer tactics and
employing
light infantry guns, which resulted in intensifying fire.
> >
> > BTW,
> > > when did they dissapear? IIRC, they were still around during the
Northern
> > > War but clearly not as a "miracle branch".
> >> Are you asking about pikemen disapperance?
>
> No, I'm obviously talking about the hussars.
They disappeared at tehe beginning of XVIII century. Their last big battle
was by Klishov 1702 near Warsaw. They were fighting against Swedes under
Charles XII
> > > > Hussars used lances longer than pikes.
> > >
> > > IIRC, by the end of the "Swiss era" (which includes Spanish and German
> > > pikemen as well) lenght of the infantry pike was something up to 20
feet.
> > > How much longer hussar's lance could be?
> >
> > Length of hussar's lance was about 5,5 meters =around 18 feet but
pikemen
> > had to prop a pike against the grounds and held it,
>
> You are not talking about the Swiss and other "attacking infantry" who
> did not prop their pikes against anything. What you are describing is a
>purely defensive use of the pikemen, which was quite different from the
old-style
> attacking columns. BTW, judging by the old engravings, even in these more
> recent formations not all pikemen had their weapons propped to the ground
>but these formations look much less dense than the older ones. Which means
>that they were easier to break than those under initial discussion.
Well, I cannot imagine pikemen attacking cavalry even Swiss pikemen facing
charging cavalry must have taken defensive stance.
>
> >I think, at about 1/3 of
> > its length.
>
> Of course, I'm not a big specialist but this looks a little bit
suspicious:
> the infantry pikes reached their practical maximal lenght and it was
difficult
> enough to handle them with two hands. Now you are saying that the cavalry
> lances of the same lenght had been efficiently handled with one hand,
while
> being strong enough not to be broken at the 1st impact.
They were broken they were used only to thrust at the ful speed later
hussars employed sabres and other 'white weapon' , handling with a lance for
a hussar wasn't complex he had to keep it udner his armpit and aim a the
enemy he rode when pikemen had to walk. Hussars had a few spare lances in
their baggage train
Well, I only answerd to your example of French gendarmes being defeated by
light 'fire' infantry. I just explained what tactics Polish cavalry, not
only hussaria, would have employed if they had met cavalry of Henry of
Navara comparing it to the tactics of western cavalry known to me at the
example of Swedish Army. BTW, those gendarmes were beaten solely by Henry's
cavalry? I don't know details of this battle, could you explain me how they
were beaten?
> In XVIII it happened all the time. I don't know enough about XVII to tell
for
> sure but my impression is that Great Conde did this more than once during
> Fronda and that things like this happened routinely during 30YW.
Pappenheim surely could say something about this
Probably some of the guys can tell more about experience of English CW.
Yes it seems that New Model Army much relied on massive employement of
cavalry.
I don't know much about it as I am mainly intersted in medieval history
William Black
> Probably some of the guys can tell more about experience of English CW.
>
> Yes it seems that New Model Army much relied on massive employement of
> cavalry.
No, it seems to have been mainly an infantry army with the cavalry acting
more against other cavalry most of the time.
They only seem to have attacked infantry after the enemy cavalry was beaten
off.
Because the cavalry seems to have had more politically radical voices within
it we see them as having more significance.
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> napisał w wiadomości
news:cglb3l$hh0$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
Alex
> Alex wrote:
> >
> > David Brewer <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<412BB514...@blueyonder.co.uk>...
> [...]
> > > An army (in Western Europe, reachable by Flemings) rarely consists
> > > of horsemen alone, and generally arrives with a slow moving
> > > baggage train and the intention of seizing something permanently
> > > by assault or siege (neither is the speciality of cavalry).
> >
> > Except for the cases when it is simply looting...
> >
> > > I
> > > would not think that raiding forces on horses would be caught by
> > > pikemen on foot.
> >
> > Quite often the raiding forces were a "mixed" army and not simply a
> > band of the cavalrymen.
>
> Bruce's Scots, who would have fought on foot in battle, raided
> England on ponies, the English in turn mounted archers for raiding
> France. Who are you thinking of as the walking raiders of Medieval
> Western Europe?
The English armies you mentioned did not consist, AFAIK, exclusively of
archers, mounted or not. Neither were Scotts and English the only people
who lived in Western Europe and were raiding opponent's territories: this
was the most common form of a warfare.
David Brewer
>
> David Brewer <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<412DF14B...@blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > Alex wrote:
> > >
> > > David Brewer <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<412BB514...@blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > [...]
> > > > An army (in Western Europe, reachable by Flemings) rarely consists
> > > > of horsemen alone, and generally arrives with a slow moving
> > > > baggage train and the intention of seizing something permanently
> > > > by assault or siege (neither is the speciality of cavalry).
> > >
> > > Except for the cases when it is simply looting...
> > >
> > > > I
> > > > would not think that raiding forces on horses would be caught by
> > > > pikemen on foot.
> > >
> > > Quite often the raiding forces were a "mixed" army and not simply a
> > > band of the cavalrymen.
> >
> > Bruce's Scots, who would have fought on foot in battle, raided
> > England on ponies, the English in turn mounted archers for raiding
> > France. Who are you thinking of as the walking raiders of Medieval
> > Western Europe?
>
> The English armies you mentioned did not consist, AFAIK, exclusively of
> archers, mounted or not.
Of course not, but they were all forces on horses.
> Neither were Scotts and English the only people
> who lived in Western Europe and were raiding opponent's territories: this
> was the most common form of a warfare.
Indeed. Give examples for me to mull over. An inquiring mind
wishes to know.
Alex
> > >At the beginning of a charge hussars rode in loose formatiom was done in
> 3
> > >ranks. Formation gathered momentum gradually starting with walk, then
> trot,
> > >galloping at full speed at the end. Formation of hussars at the end of a
> > >charge got closer with riders riding knee to knee. The same tactics was
> > >useds against cavalry. If firts attack was unsuccessful they losened
> ranks
> > >wenta back and charged again. They could repeat charges a few times.
> >
> > What you describe here is also described as the way medieval
> > cavalry in the west charged. I suspect that it makes sense
> > to the cavalrymen.
>
> From XVIII century on yes. It was accepetd by the cavalry of all European
> countries.Not western medieval knight cavalry used this tactics though. Most
> often knights charged galloping in a rather loose formation estblishing
> individual fights (a bit similarly to dogfighters). Knight orders used so
> called column tactics, a deep formation of many ranks with triangular
> avant-guarde. It was devised to fight with Saracens, who used tactics of
> repeated attacks. In battle of Grunwald 1410, both sides used column
> tactics.
Actually, what you described in your initial post is only remotely related
to what you are saying now. The most confusing part of the initial post is
a statement that attack started in a loose and rather shallow (3 ranks)
formation then, on a gallop, reformed into knee-to-knee arrangement, then,
if necessary, "loosened" again, etc.
From my completely amateurish point of view, the tightening on a full speed
could easily result in riders bumping into each other and a general havoc.
Add to this the very long lances they were alledgedly carrying and the
picture looks even less realistic.
AFAIK (hopefully, David Read will come with some clarification on the
subject, one way or another), the common problem was to keep cavalry
together during the attack: the dense formation had been set _before_ riding
started and the drilling was targeted on teaching the soldiers to keep
together. What you described looks too much as circus-quality riding rather
than something routinely done by the big masses of a cavalry on uneven
ground.
The old paintings are often misleading: they are routinely showing the
solid masses of the foot and mounted soldiers not because this was actually
the case but because this was one of the art "conventions" (you can choose
the better term). The other ....er.... "source" (Polish movies) never
show the hussars in knee to knee formation (in the case when a Cavalry
Regiment of Mosfilm was deployed this is easy to understand: its horses
rarely, if ever, did the close riding on a high speed).
David Read
<snip>
> AFAIK (hopefully, David Read will come with some clarification on the
> subject, one way or another), the common problem was to keep cavalry
> together during the attack: the dense formation had been set _before_
riding
> started and the drilling was targeted on teaching the soldiers to keep
> together. What you described looks too much as circus-quality riding
rather
> than something routinely done by the big masses of a cavalry on uneven
> ground.
Repost of mine from 2002:
The terms "knee-to-knee" and "boot-to-boot" are both perfectly valid
ways of emphasising just how close a rider should be to his neighbour
when formed up in close order. J. F. Verbruggen and Philippe Contamine
offer some late 12th and 14th C. equivalents, and the latter writes that
in "comparisons which were in current texts at the time, horsemen and
lances should ride so close to one another that if a glove, an apple or
a plum had been thrown amongst them, it would not have fallen to the
ground but on to the vertical lances". _War in the Middle Ages_
pp.229-30.
Christopher Duffy, writing of 18th C. Austrian heavy cavalry says "the
files were closed up if possible knee-to-knee, and in any event tightly
enough to prevent an enemy rider from barging through." __The Army of
Maria Theresa_ p.99
Emanuel von Warnery, a very experienced cavalry officer and general in
the Prussian army of Frederick the Great, wrote a book intended to
supplement the official regulations for the enlightenment of cavalry
officers. He makes some pertinent points about the need for keeping
close together, and the problems therewith.
"Formerly when two squadrons charged forward sword in hand, the most
rapid pace was the trot only, here the largest horses afforded the
greatest advantage over small ones; files were pressed together very
close, which they were enabled to do, from the circumstances of all
troopers being furnished with strong and stiff boots, which with much
reason in several services they begin to resume. The King of Prussia's
Garde de Corps have them, as well as the officers of his regiments of
cuirassiers; they must not however be too heavy, it is sufficient if
their weight should not be so great as to prevent those who wear them
from walking with ease." p.14
"When it is reflected what bruises a trooper is liable to in his
legs, with the present suple [sic] boots, from the holsters, knees,
carbines, scabbards, &c. of each other, when the squadrons charge
close and firm as it ought to do, to give it weight and effect. I
think it will not be denied that stiff boots, which will defend the
trooper from such accidents, ought to be given to him; they will at
the same time enable him to charge closer in line, than they have ever
been able to do since suple [sic] boots has been adopted, will give
him greater firmness and confidence on horseback; and allow him to fix
his whole attention upon his enemy, instead of being obliged to divide
it to parry the wounds he might receive from in front, and the bruises
from the troopers on each side; strong boot-tops remedy, in a small
degree, the evil above mentioned but does not entirely remove it; both
those and the boots should be worn much higher, such as the regiment
of Seydlitz has began to make use of. pp.48-9
_Remarks on Cavalry_ tr. Lieutenant-Colonel Köhler 1798
So how would this requirement to protect the legs have influenced
armour design for medieval mounted knights ? At Hastings in 1066, the
lower limbs and knees of most knights had no protection. By the mid 12th
century, the use of full mail leg armour was widespread. It was only by
the mid 13th century that poleyns, knee protectors, were becoming
common, but they were still not universal. These would have provided a
similar protection to that afforded by the stiff top-boot as recommended
by Warnery.
In other words, the better the leg protection, the better chance there
is of maintaining close order formation and, perhaps, the more likely
that cavalry would seek to maintain a close order formation in the first
place. Indeed, other developments in armour, particularly the
development of helmets providing full face protection, encouraged and
reflected the employment of close order formations during the Middle
Ages. Conversely, the closer the order, the more difficult it is to
manoeuvre. Manoeuvrability would also have been a factor in determining
the employment of "feigned retreat" tactics at Hastings in 1066 as Oman,
Bachrach _et al_., describe (but not Delbrück).
As Oman says in a footnote, "I cannot agree with Dr Delbrück
(Kriegwesen, iii. p. 162) that such a manoeuvre was impossible with such
troops. After all, Guy of Amiens, an absolute contemporary, describes it
clearly." Oman I p.162
Oman is, I believe, well on top of matters here. The level of armour
amongst western knights at this period was still generally on a par with
that of most, if not all, Byzantine heavy cavalry, who routinely used
and encountered "feigned retreat" tactics in their struggles with horse-
archer based enemies. The Normans in Sicily were familiar with fighting
the Byzantines, although that would not in itself have to have been the
direct inspiration for William's tactics at Hastings. Whatever, the fact
the William felt able to attempt to dupe the English at Hastings with
such tactics should not be seen in isolation from the fact that
westerners were similarly fooled during their encounters with their
Moslem foes during the Crusades.
The loss of manoeuvrability resulting from forming up in close order
can be improved by the employment of smaller tactical sub-units, but the
smaller the unit - conroi, squadron, or whatever - the more likely it
is to be overwhelmed by larger numbers, and the less decisive impact the
cavalry is likely to have on the battle as a whole. At one extreme one
sees Frederick the Great attempting to use his heavy cavalry _en
muraille_, a solid wall with no gaps between regiments and squadrons,
launched in one mass charge. This was deprecated by contemporaries,
including von Seydlitz, Frederick's great cavalry general, and thus,
gaps were nearly always left between squadrons, which might also be
employed in echelon as well as in line. Getting the maximum effect from
the number of troops available, while retaining an adequate reserve has
always been a juggling act for cavalry commanders, and is especially
important in the use of shock cavalry, whose power can be as brittle as
it is devastating.
So could shock cavalry "charge" while mounted knee-to-knee ? What this
question really asks is are the riders still knee-to-knee at the moment
of physical contact with the enemy. Obviously, the faster a unit is
advancing, the less likely that a close order could be maintained for
very long, hence the existence of schools of thought which recommended a
gradually increasing pace in the advance to contact, with possibly the
horses being given their head when 'x' number of paces from the enemy.
In the mid-nineteenth century Ardant du Picq argued that the power of
"shock" was not so much in the "shock" itself, but in the threat of
shock. In other words, the fear of the threat of being hit by shock
cavalry will induce various reactions. With infantry who are confident
in their training, their formation, their discipline, their leadership,
their position, the support of their own cavalry, etc., the threat of
the cavalry shock will be low. If their confidence in any or all of the
above is unsteady, then the more likely it is that they will make a
mistake, or break formation, or flee, or whatever, and the charging
cavalry are more likely to be successful. Good cavalry commanders should
forever be on the lookout for signs of unsteadiness in infantry which
they can exploit.
Against other cavalry, the threat of cavalry shock could lead to
neither side wishing to be the slower at point of contact. Being caught
stationary almost always led to disaster. This fear of being caught at a
disadvantage will create a battle of nerves between the leaders and
individuals on the opposing sides, which might involve voluntary or
involuntary reactions leading to the breaking of formation, or perhaps
in a premature charge, or in confusion and rout, unless discipline holds
throughout the approach to contact.
Writing of the cavalry of his own day at the very end of the 19th C.
the veteran German general Frederick von Bernhardi wrote:-
"In the Charge against cavalry cohesion is the first and dominating
condition. It must be absolutely impossible for the horses to swerve
either to right or left. Accurate dressing and the maintenance of
the two ranks come only in the second place. Against Infantry or
Artillery, on the other hand, the essential is that every horse
should have room to gallop in his own form, so that no crowding or
jostling arises, thus giving the horses a chance of avoiding or
jumping clear over fallen men or animals. Hence, although on the
level drill ground the requirement of the regulations as regards
dressing and the maintenance of two well-defined lines must be
attended to, one must remember that it may be impossible to comply
with these demands across country and be prepared in such cases to
stick to the spirit, not the letter, of the law.
In both cases it will hardly be of advantage to lay too much stress
on dressing and touch. Against cavalry it is rather a case of
jamming the files together by pressure from the flanks, and the men
must hold as a vital article of faith that only the closest knee-to-
knee riding will guarantee either victory or their personal safety.
Against Infantry, on the contrary, the files must be loosened, and
every horse go in his normal stride, as in hunting; nor must anyone
allow himself to be squeezed out of the ranks or remain behind as
long as the strength of his horse holds out.
Utmost speed consistent with closely-locked files against Cavalry, a
natural extended gallop against Infantry or artillery - these are
the two cardinal points to be observed in attacking. Maintenance or
dressing of ranks become positive evils if the above are sacrificed
to either." _Cavalry in Future Wars_ pp.221-2 [1899, tr. 1906]
So much to remember, so much at stake, so much that can go wrong. Above
all it will be the clever commander's sense of timing, appreciation of
the ground and of the enemy's morale and dispositions that will
determine success or failure in a cavalry charge. Opportunities to
exploit the full potential of a cavalry charge can be but fleeting, and
the temptation of premature action can sometimes be overwhelming. 'Twas
ever thus.
--
cheers,
David Read
David
> whatever pictures I saw had the "normal" long lances, not the medieval
> knightly ones with a short heavy butt. An infinite lenght of these
> lances is also, I suspect, a little bit on a legendary side because
> only very rarely did these hussars deal with the Western style long
> pikes: most of their enemies were eastwards and the long pikes were
> not widely used either by the Ottomans or Russians. The Tatars were
> simply not an issue because they did not have an infantry. Swedes came
> into the picture when the hussars and their equipment had been already
> settled and I'm not sure if even pre-Gustav Swedes had these massive
> Swiss/Spanish style formations of the pikemen (or how good they were
> before Gustav).
Ahh...I was always under the impression that Hussars used the sword only. That Lancers
carried a lance!
Hussars were light cavalry and in the British army converted from light dragoons see
http://7.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HU/HUSSAR.htm
no mention of lances or actually of swords either but dragoons carried light firearms and
swords.
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
Don't understnd your point. Initial post related to post medieval cavalry
of XVI-XVII century. Here I am spaking about tactics of medieval knight
hevay cavalry. Hussars in the time context can be misleading as they existed
for a while with heavy knight cavalry at the end of XV century. Then they
were perceived then as 'light cavalry' as they didn't use full armour
> From my completely amateurish point of view, the tightening on a full
speed
> could easily result in riders bumping into each other and a general havoc.
> Add to this the very long lances they were alledgedly carrying and the
> picture looks even less realistic.
Supposedly that was what people who devised caracolle tactics thought so
> AFAIK (hopefully, David Read will come with some clarification on the
> subject, one way or another), the common problem was to keep cavalry
> together during the attack: the dense formation had been set _before_
riding
> started and the drilling was targeted on teaching the soldiers to keep
> together. What you described looks too much as circus-quality riding
rather
> than something routinely done by the big masses of a cavalry on uneven
> ground.
Cavalryman and horses training long and exhaustive. Hussars horses were
trained for 3 years. You may say that both riders and horses had to obtain
circus -quality formation riding skills
>
> The old paintings are often misleading: they are routinely showing the
> solid masses of the foot and mounted soldiers not because this was
actually
> the case but because this was one of the art "conventions" (you can choose
> the better term).
Many of those paintings were painted by men who spent their life in a saddle
and served in cavalry formations of Russian, Prussian or Austrian armies.
Paintings or other depictions from XVI-XVIII century were made by people who
saw battles and they are serious source of information.
The other ....er.... "source" (Polish movies) never
> show the hussars in knee to knee formation (in the case when a Cavalry
> Regiment of Mosfilm was deployed this is easy to understand: its horses
> rarely, if ever, did the close riding on a high speed).
Of course can you imagine a year or longer training of a few hundred riders
for a few minute film shot. These riders aren't as trained as people who
served in the army for years and were born in saddles.
Cheers
Arkadiusz
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik "David" <dro...@fuse.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:gBtXc.22$Ft4...@fe37.usenetserver.com...
Sorry David to disappoint you but hussars I am talking about it is totally
different story. You are talking about huzars Hungarian type of light
cavalry popular in XVIII -XX century. Hussars I am talking about are called
in Polish husaria and a rider husarz.
Lances were re-introduced in English cavalry, in light dragoon regiments
renamed lancier-regiment, after Napoleons fall due bad experoences in
contacts with Polish and French lanciers. Earler lance was introduced in
French army, when appeared how effective are Polish ulans, using lances,
fighting in Napoleon forces in Spain. Those regiments were called lanciers
Poles called them ulans (germ. die Uhlanen). The French, since 1808, started
quckly froming new branch cavalry regiments
Read this part of website dedicated to husaria :
There is no English equivalent for "hussaria", Polish armored cavalry of the
16th and 17th centuries. This name should not be confused with that of the
huzars, the light cavalry used in the 18th and 19th centuries by European
armies. The name "husar" in the 14th century denoted a mounted knight in
southern Slavic languages. As the Turkish empire expanded deeper into
Southern Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries, many refugees found
themselves in Hungary, where they were welcomed because of their experience
in fighting against Turks. Troops of "husars" were then formed in Hungary.
Thanks to their contact with the advanced military arts of the East, the
"husar" troops fought as units capable of maneuvering on the battlefield.
The technique was quite new in Europe at the time: a typical knights' battle
was a series of duels which commanders had very little influenced over once
started.
Poland had very close ties with Hungary, and by the end of the 15th century
the first hussar troops were created to serve as light cavalry. In a few
generations they evolved into armored assault cavalry, which was unique in
all of Europe, the pride of the Polish army until the end of the 17th
century. The Polish warfare evolved differently than that of western
Europeans, whose infantry was becoming much more important than cavalry.
Several factors caused this unique evolution:
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik "David Read" <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> napisał w
wiadomości news:cgll80$u3a$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Close order formation was possible for well trained units. It seems to me
that 2 pragaraphs above refer to miliatry orders (column tactics?) or
mercenary units not units of undisciplined levy of noblemen. It is quite
widely accepted that ley of knights fought in a loose formation at least
untile teh battle of Bouvines 1214, but I think that in France it was still
valid until at least Crecy and Poitiers battles of 100 YW. Altough Polish
levy of noblemen, which is thought to fight in the columns in XV century,
did it well in the battle of Grunwald. On te other hand, French concept
of a knight of later medieval ages seems to be have more in common with
romances and fairy tales than with blood and dirt of a war
Cheers
Arkadiusz
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > AFAIK (hopefully, David Read will come with some clarification on the
> > subject, one way or another), the common problem was to keep cavalry
> > together during the attack: the dense formation had been set _before_
> riding
> > started and the drilling was targeted on teaching the soldiers to keep
> > together. What you described looks too much as circus-quality riding
> rather
> > than something routinely done by the big masses of a cavalry on uneven
> > ground.
>
> Repost of mine from 2002:
[]
David, thanks for the insight - interesting as usual. However, I asked a
little bit different question:
Is it practical to start with a loose formation and to change it into a
"knee-to-knee" one while galoping toward the enemy?
Certain difficulty of maintaining the _existing_ dense formation is quite
obvious from your quotations so how about this exercise I mentioned?
Alex
What I was referencing to is what you wrote. I quote:
"At the beginning of a charge hussars rode in loose formatiom was
done in 3 ranks. Formation gathered momentum gradually starting with
walk, then trot,
galloping at full speed at the end. Formation of hussars at the end
of a charge got closer with riders riding knee to knee."
This has nothing to do with a historic context, knights, etc. The
question
is rather simple: is it practical for the cavalry armed with the
lances to
switch from a loose formation to a knee-to-knee one while "galloping
at full
speed"?
> > From my completely amateurish point of view, the tightening on a full
> speed
> > could easily result in riders bumping into each other and a general havoc.
> > Add to this the very long lances they were alledgedly carrying and the
> > picture looks even less realistic.
>
> Supposedly that was what people who devised caracolle tactics thought so
Caracllse is a completely different issue because:
(a) it did not usually involve a galloping on a full speed
(b) did not involve knee to knee formations
(c) caracolling troops had been armed with the firearms and not the
lances.
In other words, what you said, has nothing to do with an issue under
discussion.
>
> > AFAIK (hopefully, David Read will come with some clarification on the
> > subject, one way or another), the common problem was to keep cavalry
> > together during the attack: the dense formation had been set _before_
> riding
> > started and the drilling was targeted on teaching the soldiers to keep
> > together. What you described looks too much as circus-quality riding
> rather
> > than something routinely done by the big masses of a cavalry on uneven
> > ground.
>
> Cavalryman and horses training long and exhaustive. Hussars horses were
> trained for 3 years. You may say that both riders and horses had to obtain
> circus -quality formation riding skills
Cavalry of the European armies of XVIII-XIX had been trained for
years.
I'll wait for David's opinion about feasibility of this exercise of
tightening on a gallop.
IIRC, Swedes of Charles XII arranged their cavalry into the tight
formations
BEFORE attack.
>
> >
> > The old paintings are often misleading: they are routinely showing the
> > solid masses of the foot and mounted soldiers not because this was
> actually
> > the case but because this was one of the art "conventions" (you can choose
> > the better term).
>
> Many of those paintings were painted by men who spent their life in a saddle
> and served in cavalry formations of Russian, Prussian or Austrian armies.
I don't think that this was often the case for the old paintings of
XVI-XVII centuries: two professions rarely mixed at these times.
However, even if
this was the case, the art conventions remained the same, especially
for the
bad painters: groups of the soldiers routinely had been shown in the
packed
and highly idealized formations: a lot of the engravings of the late
XVIII - early XIX centuries will show a cavalry in the _ideally_
straight
shoulder-to-shoulder formations in the middle of a battle.
> Paintings or other depictions from XVI-XVIII century were made by people who
> saw battles and they are serious source of information.
Examples will be greately appreciated but quite a few paintings of the
Polish cavalry in action had been done century or more after the
events.
Not sure that there were numerous professional painters in Poland
during
the times you mentioned and even less sure that they were present on
the
battlefields in any noticeable numbers. Of course, I can be totally
worng
on this.
>
> The other ....er.... "source" (Polish movies) never
> > show the hussars in knee to knee formation (in the case when a Cavalry
> > Regiment of Mosfilm was deployed this is easy to understand: its horses
> > rarely, if ever, did the close riding on a high speed).
>
> Of course can you imagine a year or longer training of a few hundred riders
> for a few minute film shot. These riders aren't as trained as people who
> served in the army for years and were born in saddles.
Actually, I can imagine something completely different and it does not
even
requires any stretch of my imagination: Cavalry Regiment of Mosfilm
was
(don't know if it still is) a _professional_ army unit attached to to
movie
studio. AFAIK, it was filled with the people who had a riding
experience
before they entered the unit and, if you watched "Potop" or "Pan
Wolodiwewsky",
you can easily figure out that some of them _had been_ "born in a
saddle".
They may not have a lot of knee-to-knee riding experience (which
clearly
shows in "Waterloo", "War and Peace", etc.), but most of them had been
clearly very good riders.
BTW, the leading actors in the movies made by Sienkewich Trilogy
clearly
demonstrated a very high degree of riding and fencing skills while
hardly
any of them was "born in saddle".
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Well, my statement pasted above has historical context sense. I was
answering to Paul Gans statement:
What you describe here is also described as the way medieval
cavalry in the west charged. I suspect that it makes sense to the
cavalrymen.
This was Gans' reaction to my 'gathering and thickness' explanations.
In a statement in the question I explained, according to my best knowledge,
that tactics of medieval cavalry was diffrerent from the tactics of Polish
cavalry of XVI-XVII centuries. Cavalry tactics was changiing throughout
centuries and I have no knowledge of complex tactics used by medieval
novlemen cavalry.
My proposal is: Please do read carefully everything you want to criticise
>
>
> > > From my completely amateurish point of view, the tightening on a full
> > speed
> > > could easily result in riders bumping into each other and a general
havoc.
> > > Add to this the very long lances they were alledgedly carrying and the
> > > picture looks even less realistic.
> >
> > Supposedly that was what people who devised caracolle tactics thought so
>
> Caracllse is a completely different issue because:
> (a) it did not usually involve a galloping on a full speed
> (b) did not involve knee to knee formations
> (c) caracolling troops had been armed with the firearms and not the
> lances.
>
> In other words, what you said, has nothing to do with an issue under
> discussion.
It was merely a comment on your remark that charging knee to knee must have
ended up in a total chaos I thought it was
clear. In other place I brought up a caracolle topic so as to compare
tactics of Polish and western cavalry.
Here is what I wrote:
That's the point Polish XV-XVIII cavalry tactics was to charge vhemently so
as to employ lances, sabres etc as quick as possible. In XVI and at the
beginning of XVII century western armies used cavalry as formation using
fire weapon (pistols)They fouhgt in deep formations called 'karakol', in
which riders having their horses trotting shoot at the enemy. After firing
they went to the back of the formation where they prepaired guns for next
shooting. Tactics very similar to infantry tactics used before Gustav Adolf
reforms. This king also told his raitars and cuirarssiers to charge at teh
enemy's cavalry. Despite the fact that Swedes changed their cavalry tactics
Polish cavalry kept its superiority (Trzciana 1629, Warka, Warsaw 1656,
Prostki 1657) until the outbreak of III Northern War when hussaria became
outdated (Kliszow 1702) and Polish noblemen lost their spirit to fight
Through doing this I wanted to explain why Polish cavalry was so successful
on the battelfields of XVI-XVII centuries and was respected by enemies. I
think you will agree with me that it was pretty good cavalry which secured
many victories
>
>
> >
> > > AFAIK (hopefully, David Read will come with some clarification on the
> > > subject, one way or another), the common problem was to keep cavalry
> > > together during the attack: the dense formation had been set _before_
> > riding
> > > started and the drilling was targeted on teaching the soldiers to keep
> > > together. What you described looks too much as circus-quality riding
> > rather
> > > than something routinely done by the big masses of a cavalry on uneven
> > > ground.
> >
> > Cavalryman and horses training long and exhaustive. Hussars horses were
> > trained for 3 years. You may say that both riders and horses had to
obtain
> > circus -quality formation riding skills
>
> Cavalry of the European armies of XVIII-XIX had been trained for
> years.
> I'll wait for David's opinion about feasibility of this exercise of
> tightening on a gallop.
> IIRC, Swedes of Charles XII arranged their cavalry into the tight
> formations
> BEFORE attack.
Honestly speaking, I am not aware of it and I don't have a source at hand to
check it. I only remember that Charles's Swedes charged in really thick
ranks often a knee behind knee of neighbouring riders in a wedge shape
formation.
The other thing is that what Swedes at the beginning of the XVIII century
did, doesn't have to be instructive on case of Polish cavalry if XVII
century, which benefited a lot from eastern traditions. It was Swedes who
learnt from Poles not the other way round and it is possible that adopting
Polish way of charging they changed it because they didn't have so much
experience.
Yes you are. There are many CONTEMPORARY paintings depicting Polish army in
XVI- XVII century.
But research do on your own. Try typing words like: Polish cavalry,
hussaria, Kozacy, polish army of XVII, Polish paintings, etc into google or
other browser. You may also go to a good library. There are many Polonica in
Library of Congress
As you noted individual riding skills aren't enough to arrange a charge it
needs special training of both a rider and a horse. There are no units in
any army now to provide such a spectacle. So you cannot use your 'film'
argument as a serious argument. There are many primary written and
iconographic sources which count. Their worth has to be assessed
individually but one may generally claim that they are beter source of
knowledge than any film even the one made in Hollywood .
Cheers
Alex
We had been talking about the Polish hussars, not about those who came
from a Hungarian ancestry.
With A.B. already filling the historic background, I want only to comment
that the closest analog to the _Polish_ hussars would be gendarmes (in their
historic meaning): superheavy armoured cavalry with the lances. Form and
lenght of these lances could differ but an idea is the same. The main
distinctive feature of the Polish variety of these animals were the huge
wings mounted on their backs, which looked very picturesque but probably
created same nasty problems for an unlucky unhorsed fellow.
Of course, usage of the same term for two distinctive types of a cavalry is
rather confusing but, to think about it, the "real" gendarmes also had been
quite different from "Gendarm from St Tropez" (if you saw the movie). :-)
Alex
> Alex wrote:
> >
> > David Brewer <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<412DF14B...@blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > > Alex wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David Brewer <david...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<412BB514...@blueyonder.co.uk>...
> [...]
> > > > > An army (in Western Europe, reachable by Flemings) rarely consists
> > > > > of horsemen alone, and generally arrives with a slow moving
> > > > > baggage train and the intention of seizing something permanently
> > > > > by assault or siege (neither is the speciality of cavalry).
> > > >
> > > > Except for the cases when it is simply looting...
> > > >
> > > > > I
> > > > > would not think that raiding forces on horses would be caught by
> > > > > pikemen on foot.
> > > >
> > > > Quite often the raiding forces were a "mixed" army and not simply a
> > > > band of the cavalrymen.
> > >
> > > Bruce's Scots, who would have fought on foot in battle, raided
> > > England on ponies, the English in turn mounted archers for raiding
> > > France. Who are you thinking of as the walking raiders of Medieval
> > > Western Europe?
> >
> > The English armies you mentioned did not consist, AFAIK, exclusively of
> > archers, mounted or not.
>
> Of course not, but they were all forces on horses.
How about, within BT, Scottish Highlanders raiding the lowlands? Were they
all on horses as well?
BTW, while the English archers (rather privileged troops) had been
routinely riding the horses, what about the ordinary foot soldiers?
They tend to dissapear from the descriptions of 100YW and suddenly
reappear during the Wars of the Roses and other less exciting events.
Were they excluded from all this exciting raiding and looting?
BTW, speaking about speed. Was the army of Henry V all mounted by
the time it reached Agincourt? Was BP's army all mounted at the time
of Poitiers and ditto for Crecy? In all these cases French, who had
at least some infantry, managed to outmarch their, presumably all
mounted, opponents. And, IIRC, at Crecy the crossbowmen managed
to march in a van, and not rear of French army.
>
> > Neither were Scotts and English the only people
> > who lived in Western Europe and were raiding opponent's territories: this
> > was the most common form of a warfare.
>
> Indeed. Give examples for me to mull over. An inquiring mind
> wishes to know.
Well, an inquiring mind may try to figure out how the raids had been
done by, say, the French or Italians. Were the infantrymen completely
excluded or not from at least half of all fighting?
Alex
>
> The charge of the Light Brigade. Heh. Coulaincourt's charge at Shevardin's
> Redoubt was also an exccellent carnage!!!
Was it? A story with this redoubt is less than clear because French
writers insist that it was taken by storm (IIRC, by infantry, not cavalry)
while the Russians are saying that they abandoned it after a nightfall
because it became completely useless.
Caulaincourt was killed, IIRC, during attack on Raevsky Battery
(or was it "Bagration's Flecshes"?), which happened the next day. "Carnage"
related to fighting for this position was terrible on both sides, which
probably fits into the "excellent" category in the sense that it hardly
could be worse. AFAIK, no brilliant tactical achievements that were not
negated within the next half an hour. Just senseless butchery.
Alex
> > > > > Polish heavy cavalry of XV-XVII called 'husaria' charged succesfully
> against
> > > > > guadrilaterals of pikemen defending musketeers.
> > > >
> > > > IIRC, these formations were considerably smaller than the initial
> Swiss
> > > > columns and their role was different.
> > > > BTW, IIRC, at least some of its charges against Cossack infantry
> during
> > > > Khmelnitsky Wars were not successful.
> > >
> > > They also had excellent cavalry trained in skirmishes with Tartars.
> Cossacs
> > > infantry fought using defensive camps and armed lagguage wagons (so
> called
> > > tabor).There had numerical advantage and Poles often lacked
> > > unity in command as it was a cvil war, actually. Noblity of eastern ends
> of
> > > Poland were mostly gens Rutheni.
> > >
> >
> > Well, their national roots are not of importance in this context and,
> IIRC,
> > Jeremiah Wishnevetski can't be accussed in an unsufficient zeal when it
> came
> > to fighting against the rebels.
>
> Note that Wishnovietsky wasn't a commander in chief of all Polish troops.
> He had a few thousands his private army soldiers.
The point was that he had been "gens Rutheni" and was notoriously cruel
toward the rebels.
> >
> > What I'm saying is that the attacks of the hussars:
> > (a) were not, AFAIK, always successful during Khmelnitsky Wars
> > (b) most of the time their opponents did not have long western-type pikes.
>
> As yu surely know military success depends on many factors
>during the battle
> of Zolte Vody it was
> raining and steppe ground had gerat numerical advantage and were alllied
> with Tatars
>you may even
> blame that hetman Potocki was a poor commander
If I understand correctly what you wrote, you are saying that:
(a) Ground was wet due to an overnight rain
(b) Cossacks had a considerable numeric advantage
(c) They had been allied with the Tatars
(d) The Polish leadership was not of a high quality.
(a) - (c) are well-known facts and they ammount to the following: the hussars
were not a miracle weapon (as I wrote in the earlier post) capable to win
no matter what (as seems to be your point). Their heaviness quite
understandably made them more sensitive to the ground condition than a lighter
cavalry. The numeric advantage of the Cossacks was not by itself such a
crucial factor because the Poles managed to defeat all the previous Cossack
upraisings. However, Khmelnitsky's alliance with Crimea _was_ of a crucial
military importance even if the Tatars were not routinely prone to the
headlong attacks against the strong opponent. Which, IMHO, gives some insight
into the usefulness of the various types of a cavalry.
As for (d), it is quite possible that Pototski was not a great general.
Almost definitely he was not if he used his main striking force in such
unefficient manner.
> and If he hed been replaced
> by someone more similiar to Chodkiewicz or Zolkiewski, the result would have
> been different. In the battle of Pilawce the rout of Polish army was caused
> by
> undisciplined noblemen levy which panicked and run away.
> It weren't only hussaria which fought theses battles and you cannot put
> blame only on one branch of military for defeat.
Actually, I'm not doing that. I'm just reacting on your overenthusiastic
description of the hissars and their military abilities and achievements.
IMO, their "legend" grew somewhat out of proportion.
>They did what they could in
> certain circumstances when employed properly they were successful in most
> cases. Remember Vienna 1683
At Vienna they were only one of the numerous contingents of a coalition
army, their opponent was ineptly led (see above your comment on Pototski)
and was in almost undefensible position, etc. And, to think about it, was
not of a high quality.
> also in the battle of Beresteczko1651 they crushed Cossacks cavalry also
> Cudnów, Ochmatów, Połonka etc. there are plenty of examples of victories of
> Polish cavalry to which hussaria added much
> Here is a list of major battles won by Polish and Lithuanian forces in the
> 16th and 17th centuries, some won solely by cavalry.
Of course: on many ocassions Poles simply did not have an infantry.
>Where the army was led
> by Lithuanian commanders, a note is made.
>
> a.. 1514 - Orsza, against Russia. Pictures of this battle show hussaria
> already equipped with wings. Commander Konstanty Ostrogski of Lithuania
Ah yes, I remember the painting (artillerymen look distinctively German, IIRC).
I wonder, how much ineptitude would it take NOT to win this battle: Russian
army of this and following period simply could not fight the field battles
against any serious opponent, unless the numeric odds were fantastically in
their favour.
>
> b.. 1531 - Obertyn, against Moldavia. Commander Jan Tarnowski
Wow! Defeat of the Moldavians!
>
> c.. 1579-1581 - three succesful wars against Russia with cavalry raids.
> Commanders King Stefan Batory, Jan Zamoyski, Mikolaj, and Krzysztof Radziwil
> of Lithuania. During Stefan Batory's reign King's Regulations were issued
> giving hussaria its final shape
The same as above: the Russians were so much behind in the military art and
spirit of their troops that the victory over them was not even a military
achievement. Not to mention that most of the time their commanders were too
busy quarelling about seniority to pay any attention to what was going on.
[]
> l.. 1649 - defense of trenches of Zbarazh against Ukrainian rebels and
> Tatars. As in Khotin, hussaria were used with other troops in and outside
> the trenches. Commander Jeremi Wisniowiecki
>
Mostly as an infantry, AFAIK. And hardly an example of a great victory
won by a cavalry attack.
> m.. 1651 - Beresteczko against Ukrainian rebels and Tartars. Commanders
> King Jan Kazimierz and Jeremi Wisniowiecki
Sorry, but Berestechko was a "political battle" desided by Khan's position
much more than by the military activities of the Polish and Ukrainian leaders.
>
> n.. 1656 - battle of Warsaw against Swedes. An incredible charge of
> hussaria led by Aleksander Polubinski of Lithuania saved the
> Polish-Lithuanian army despite their losing the battle
Or, not winning the battle regardless of the tactical success of this
spectacular attack.... Whatever you prefer. :-)
All the examples of the successful battles in which hussars had been
present (and not necessarily played a crucial role) don't invaluidate
what I said about them not being always victorious.
> >
> > > >Neither were they uniformely successful
> > > > against reformed Swedish army (with the shallow pikemen formations).
> > >
> > > I said so. First spectacular defeat in 1626 battle of Gniew.
>
> I must add that it was because of changing musketeer tactics and
> employing
> light infantry guns, which resulted in intensifying fire.
> > >
> > > BTW,
> > > > when did they dissapear? IIRC, they were still around during the
> Northern
> > > > War but clearly not as a "miracle branch".
> > >> Are you asking about pikemen disapperance?
> >
> > No, I'm obviously talking about the hussars.
> They disappeared at tehe beginning of XVIII century. Their last big battle
> was by Klishov 1702 near Warsaw. They were fighting against Swedes under
> Charles XII
And let me guess which army won.... :-)
>
> > > > > Hussars used lances longer than pikes.
> > > >
> > > > IIRC, by the end of the "Swiss era" (which includes Spanish and German
> > > > pikemen as well) lenght of the infantry pike was something up to 20
> feet.
> > > > How much longer hussar's lance could be?
> > >
> > > Length of hussar's lance was about 5,5 meters =around 18 feet but
> pikemen
> > > had to prop a pike against the grounds and held it,
> >
> > You are not talking about the Swiss and other "attacking infantry" who
> > did not prop their pikes against anything. What you are describing is a
> >purely defensive use of the pikemen, which was quite different from the
> old-style
> > attacking columns. BTW, judging by the old engravings, even in these more
> > recent formations not all pikemen had their weapons propped to the ground
> >but these formations look much less dense than the older ones. Which means
> >that they were easier to break than those under initial discussion.
>
> Well, I cannot imagine pikemen attacking cavalry even Swiss pikemen facing
> charging cavalry must have taken defensive stance.
>
Not necessarily. They were attacking and the rest was cavalry's problem.
It happened routinely during the Burgundian Wars, at Novarra and probably
elsewhere. Even at Marigniano they tried to attack regardless unfavourable
numeric odds and strong French artillery.
Why would they act otherwise? They usually had a numeric advantage, a better
organization and longer pikes.
> >
> > >I think, at about 1/3 of
> > > its length.
> >
> > Of course, I'm not a big specialist but this looks a little bit
> suspicious:
> > the infantry pikes reached their practical maximal lenght and it was
> difficult
> > enough to handle them with two hands. Now you are saying that the cavalry
> > lances of the same lenght had been efficiently handled with one hand,
> while
> > being strong enough not to be broken at the 1st impact.
>
> They were broken they were used only to thrust at the ful speed later
> hussars employed sabres and other 'white weapon' , handling with a lance for
> a hussar wasn't complex he had to keep it udner his armpit and aim a the
> enemy he rode when pikemen had to walk. Hussars had a few spare lances in
> their baggage train
Does not sound very convincing. The (shorter) knights' lances were usually
strong enough to be used for more than one strike. If hussar's lance was
always broken at a 1st impact, he was at a disadvantage against any opponent,
mounted or on foot: in an interval necessary to change the weapon he was
helpless and all this advantage given by a long lance was lost within a
fraction of a second.
IMO, their lances were of some "reasonable" lenght and strong enough to be
used during the battle. The advantage was due to the pure factor of a heavy
cavalry mass riding on a high speed. They did not deal with anything
similar to the Swiss colimn or Spanish tercio and against the looser formations
and shorter pikes they did just fine. Except the cases when they did not.
[]
I did not write anything of the kind because they had been defeated by a
combination of a light cavalry, infantry and artillery. The issue at hand
is an armoured cavalry and its chances against the pikemen formations.
> I just explained what tactics Polish cavalry, not
> only hussaria, would have employed if they had met cavalry of Henry of
> Navara comparing it to the tactics of western cavalry known to me at the
> example of Swedish Army.
Experience of the Swedish army is irrelevant because, AFAIK, G-A did not
have gendarmes. Neither is experience of Henry's army of any relevance
because not he but his opponent, Duke de Juayez (sp) had a strong force
of the gendarmes at Courtrais.
> BTW, those gendarmes were beaten solely by Henry's
> cavalry? I don't know details of this battle, could you explain me how they
> were beaten?
>
As I wrote before, combination of artillery, cavalry with the firearms and
infantry with a high percentage of the musketeers.
> > In XVIII it happened all the time. I don't know enough about XVII to tell
> for
> > sure but my impression is that Great Conde did this more than once during
> > Fronda and that things like this happened routinely during 30YW.
>
> Pappenheim surely could say something about this
He probably could but I'm not sure if he ever managed to break Swedish
infantry formations.
Alex
What I'm asking/saying/criticizing is not Paul's post but a rather
confusing statement of yours that the hussars had been tightening their
formation while riding on a full gallop.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > > From my completely amateurish point of view, the tightening on a full
> speed
> > > > could easily result in riders bumping into each other and a general
> havoc.
> > > > Add to this the very long lances they were alledgedly carrying and the
> > > > picture looks even less realistic.
> > >
> > > Supposedly that was what people who devised caracolle tactics thought so
> >
> > Caracllse is a completely different issue because:
> > (a) it did not usually involve a galloping on a full speed
> > (b) did not involve knee to knee formations
> > (c) caracolling troops had been armed with the firearms and not the
> > lances.
> >
> > In other words, what you said, has nothing to do with an issue under
> > discussion.
>
> It was merely a comment on your remark that charging knee to knee must have
> ended up in a total chaos
No, I did not say this. What I wrote (please pay attention) is that
switching from a loose formation to a tight one while riding on a full
speed looks like a rather risky exercise to me. I would not have any
objections if you wrote that the hussars started attack in a tight formation
and maintained it during the attack.
[]
>
> The other thing is that what Swedes at the beginning of the XVIII century
> did, doesn't have to be instructive on case of Polish cavalry if XVII
> century,
No, they are not instructive to the specifics of Polish cavalry but they
are instructive in understanding of what a well-drilled cavalry is capable
of.
> which benefited a lot from eastern traditions.
AFAIK, the eastern traditions did not usually involve the tight cavalry
formations and rarely involved heavy armoured cavalry. The Mongols in XIII
century and up to a certain degree Ottoman "sipahi" (I can be wrong on these
ones).
[]
I saw quite a few of these pictures and the issue is not what is depicted
but who did the painting. You claimed that most of the painters were
the soldiers and that they were painting things they saw. Burden of proof is
on you if you insist on this point.
OTOH, you may not bother because the lances shown on these paintings
usually have too small diameter to support your idea about them being
hollow.
Well, the unit I was talking about existed with an explicit purpose to provide
it.
>So you cannot use your 'film'
> argument as a serious argument.
I'm not using it in such a way. Just trying to show that your argument about
being born on saddle is of no importance.
>There are many primary written and
> iconographic sources which count. Their worth has to be assessed
> individually but one may generally claim that they are beter source of
> knowledge than any film even the one made in Hollywood .
Sinse when Mosfilm moved to LA and sinse when Hoffman became an American?
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
So what? He was a magnate they were peasants who wanted to rob him and kill
not necessary in that order. What kind of relevance does you remark have to
the issue of Polish command organization?
Well you cannot stop the rain at least in XVII century
>
>
>
> > and If he hed been replaced
> > by someone more similiar to Chodkiewicz or Zolkiewski, the result would
have
> > been different. In the battle of Pilawce the rout of Polish army was
caused
> > by
> > undisciplined noblemen levy which panicked and run away.
> > It weren't only hussaria which fought theses battles and you cannot put
> > blame only on one branch of military for defeat.
>
> Actually, I'm not doing that. I'm just reacting on your overenthusiastic
> description of the hissars and their military abilities and achievements.
> IMO, their "legend" grew somewhat out of proportion.
I am not overenthusiastic I amcritical over Polish army when it is needed.
Hussars are legendary branch of the Polish military as well as Polish
cheavau-legers du guarde, lanciers of Napoleon era. As any legend they can
and are idealized but not by me.
>
> >They did what they could in
> > certain circumstances when employed properly they were successful in
most
> > cases. Remember Vienna 1683
>
> At Vienna they were only one of the numerous contingents of a coalition
> army,
There were 28 000 of Poles in about 70 000 army among them there were about
3000 hussars. Leopol I begged Poles for help answer why. We weren't the one
there but our participation was crucial. Last charge in which hussars
palyed decisive
role as the most efficient breaking cavalry. Nothing similar to thet weaopn
was in Austrian army and German contingents there.
No they fought in and as well outside the trenches it is written above.
Check it in your sources.
>
> > m.. 1651 - Beresteczko against Ukrainian rebels and Tartars.
Commanders
> > King Jan Kazimierz and Jeremi Wisniowiecki
>
> Sorry, but Berestechko was a "political battle" desided by Khan's position
> much more than by the military activities of the Polish and Ukrainian
leaders.
Sorry but here you are confusing two battles Zborow 1649 and Beresteczko
1651. In the latter battle Islam Girey had run away from the battlefield in
the third day of the battle after his brother was killed and Wisniowiecki's
cavalry crushed right wing of Cossack-Tatar army. In the battle were
involved about 160 000 comabatants of both sides and it was complete defeat
of Cossacks who lost even their defensive luggage train (tabor). You cannot
diminish that victory.
>
>
> >
> > n.. 1656 - battle of Warsaw against Swedes. An incredible charge of
> > hussaria led by Aleksander Polubinski of Lithuania saved the
> > Polish-Lithuanian army despite their losing the battle
>
> Or, not winning the battle regardless of the tactical success of this
> spectacular attack.... Whatever you prefer. :-)
Swedes and Germans also couldn't destroy Polish army which retreated in
order. Polubinski's 900 hussars didn't get enough back up but it was king
Jan Kazimierz decision and it wasn't their fault they crushed many squadrons
of Swedish and Geraman cavalry.
>
> All the examples of the successful battles in which hussars had been
> present (and not necessarily played a crucial role) don't invaluidate
> what I said about them not being always victorious.
I didn't say they were always to prove that even it was victory it was
achived by some kind of stroke of luck or weakness of the enemy. Luck as
well as God is on better battalions side, let me traveste tjhis famous
saying by A.Thiers
If Polish army had been weaker they would have lost battles with Russians,
Tartars, Turks and Swedes but most of them Poles won and until the 20 's of
XVII century husaria was perceived by its contemporaries as a invincible
weapon, which distinguished in thebeckground of European cavalry. Take look
at Inflant war battles, because yo seem to apreciate only western enemies of
Polish army, in battles of Kokenhausen, Paide and Kircholm Swedes were
helpless in fight with Polish cavalry and most notably with hussaria. Have
you ever heard about staropolska sztuka wojenne (Old Polish art of war)?
>
> > >
> > > > >Neither were they uniformely successful
> > > > > against reformed Swedish army (with the shallow pikemen
formations).
> > > >
> > > > I said so. First spectacular defeat in 1626 battle of Gniew.
> >
> > I must add that it was because of changing musketeer tactics and
> > employing
> > light infantry guns, which resulted in intensifying fire.
> > > >
> > > > BTW,
> > > > > when did they dissapear? IIRC, they were still around during the
> > Northern
> > > > > War but clearly not as a "miracle branch".
> > > >> Are you asking about pikemen disapperance?
> > >
> > > No, I'm obviously talking about the hussars.
> > They disappeared at tehe beginning of XVIII century. Their last big
battle
> > was by Klishov 1702 near Warsaw. They were fighting against Swedes under
> > Charles XII
>
> And let me guess which army won.... :-)
Then hussaria was outdated and I stated that ine one of my previous posts.
BTW how much numerical adavantage needed Peter I to defeat Swedes by
Poltava?
I see claerly that what are you trying to do is to deny historical evidence
of hussaria being efficient weapon. Surely they weren't invincible as th US
Amy is (Somalian guerilia are even less honourable enemy than Moldavians)
but they help to win many battles which Polish army fought in XVI-XVII
century and you can't deny it.
Did they attack cavalry? Charging at it?
I know only two examples of infantry charging at cavalry: the Ismailov Guard
bayonet charge (successful) against French cavalry in the battle of Borodino
the second during the Polish-Soviet war in 19201 when a Russian infantry
division attacked a Polish cavalry brigade and was slaughtered.
> > They were broken they were used only to thrust at the ful speed later
> > hussars employed sabres and other 'white weapon' , handling with a lance
for
> > a hussar wasn't complex he had to keep it udner his armpit and aim a the
> > enemy he rode when pikemen had to walk. Hussars had a few spare lances
in
> > their baggage train
>
> Does not sound very convincing. The (shorter) knights' lances were usually
> strong enough to be used for more than one strike. If hussar's lance was
> always broken at a 1st impact, he was at a disadvantage against any
opponent,
> mounted or on foot: in an interval necessary to change the weapon he was
> helpless and all this advantage given by a long lance was lost within a
> fraction of a second.
> IMO, their lances were of some "reasonable" lenght and strong enough to be
> used during the battle. The advantage was due to the pure factor of a
heavy
> cavalry mass riding on a high speed. They did not deal with anything
> similar to the Swiss colimn or Spanish tercio and against the looser
formations
> and shorter pikes they did just fine. Except the cases when they did not.
From written sources I know that lances of Polish knights got broken in the
first thrust. BTW How could you fight with such a weapon at close range,
after breaking lances they used swords, axes etc the same designates to
hussaria which tactical role was similar to heavy knight cavalry.When they
were 'inside' enemies' formation they HAD to used different weapon because
it wa fight at CLOSE RANGE. Only after coming back to their positions they
could replenish their equipment. Knights and hussars had servants who ware
at hand at the exit positions having neccesary equipment to replenish. In
the end you cannot compare an infantryman pike and a rider lance!!! For an
infatryman -a pikemen his pike was main weapon a rider had to emply
different kinds of weapon.
<snip>
>
>
> > > In XVIII it happened all the time. I don't know enough about XVII to
tell
> > for
> > > sure but my impression is that Great Conde did this more than once
during
> > > Fronda and that things like this happened routinely during 30YW.
> >
> > Pappenheim surely could say something about this
>
> He probably could but I'm not sure if he ever managed to break Swedish
> infantry formations
Swedish not but Danish many times.
David Read
I've not heard of such a thing, and I doubt that it was practicable in the
way you describe.
---
cheers,
Davis Read
David Read
> Close order formation was possible for well trained units. It seems to me
> that 2 pragaraphs above refer to miliatry orders (column tactics?) or
> mercenary units not units of undisciplined levy of noblemen. It is quite
> widely accepted that ley of knights fought in a loose formation at least
> untile teh battle of Bouvines 1214, but I think that in France it was
still
> valid until at least Crecy and Poitiers battles of 100 YW. Altough Polish
> levy of noblemen, which is thought to fight in the columns in XV century,
> did it well in the battle of Grunwald. On te other hand, French concept
> of a knight of later medieval ages seems to be have more in common with
> romances and fairy tales than with blood and dirt of a war
>
I'd generally go along with that, (except to nitpick about your use of the
word levy as applied to noblemen). Keeping close order is largely a
function of training. discipline and unit size. However, general rules
applied to examples from individual battles are notoriously fraught with
problems.
--
cheers,
David Read
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
It was Raevsky Redoubt involved II and IV cavalry corpse (including Polish
14 cuirassier regiment and a few Polish light regiments). Coulaincourt who
tok place of killed commander of 2 corps gen. Montbrun was also killed at
the same day i.e. October 7 main day of the battle during the charge at
Raevsky redoubt.
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
David Read
<snip>
>
> I know only two examples of infantry charging at cavalry: the Ismailov
Guard
> bayonet charge (successful) against French cavalry in the battle of
Borodino
> the second during the Polish-Soviet war in 19201 when a Russian infantry
> division attacked a Polish cavalry brigade and was slaughtered.
There are others, certainly well enough known from the annals of British
military history. I dare say many more examples from other countries could
be found with little effort. The point is, however, that such feats were
usually remarked upon at the time because they were seen as being unusual.
--
cheers,
David Read
David Read
>
> I am not overenthusiastic I amcritical over Polish army when it is needed.
> Hussars are legendary branch of the Polish military as well as Polish
> cheavau-legers du guarde, lanciers of Napoleon era. As any legend they can
> and are idealized but not by me.
Quite. And I've seen Poles over the years on Usenet turn notable feats of
arms by Polish troops into a legendary deeds of valour which have had little
to do with the reality, the battles of Albuera and Somosierra during the
Peninsular War in Spain both being cases in point. The Poles are by no means
unique in this susceptibility - everyone does it, and the British are right
up amongst the leaders when it comes to mythologising their own military
accomplishments.
--
cheers,
David Read
David Read
night previous to the main battle after some fierce fighting, (including
night-fighting during the withdrawal) and Poniatowski had turned its flank.
During the battle of Borodino itself, the Russians managed to extricate six
guns from the Raevsky redoubt during the cavalry attack. French infantry
followed close behind and secured the redoubt after the cavalry captured it,
and the Russians had abandoned thirteen cannon in the redoubt.
--
cheers,
David Read
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Yes and you wanted to contatradict my statement in reference to medieval
cavalry when I was talking about column formation which I understood as
being an argument that if knight charged all the way in a tight formation
it susggests taht hussars had to to the same. I denied it.
Only to some degree
I sent you links where such a lance is photographed (a few have survived)
and described. There are many written contemporary references speaking about
the way hussars lance was constructed. It is not a XII or XIII that
information of primary sources is scarce. Do you want to deny what is well
known and accepted by historians? Do they live in Shangri-la? If so, on what
grounds do you think so?
What I am saynig about husaria I am only repeating what is known to me from
secondary sources based on historical evidence. Are you suggesting that
Polish military historians are stupid morons making up stories for small
children and I am bombastic nationalist to repeat every stupidity I read?
Are there secondary or primary sources known to you which deny my
statements? What do American books say about hussaria and wars in XVII
century in which Poland was involved?
"Poles had lousy cavalry but their enemies had even lousier. We cannot say
much about Polish cavalry tactics and deployement because there are no
written sources for that. You know Poles didn't write then, yet"
Is that the line?
> > > Actually, I can imagine something completely different and it does not
> > > even
> > > requires any stretch of my imagination: Cavalry Regiment of Mosfilm
> > > was
> > > (don't know if it still is) a _professional_ army unit attached to to
> > > movie
> > > studio. AFAIK, it was filled with the people who had a riding
> > > experience
> > > before they entered the unit and, if you watched "Potop" or "Pan
> > > Wolodiwewsky",
> > > you can easily figure out that some of them _had been_ "born in a
> > > saddle".
> > > They may not have a lot of knee-to-knee riding experience (which
> > > clearly
> > > shows in "Waterloo", "War and Peace", etc.), but most of them had been
> > > clearly very good riders.
> > > BTW, the leading actors in the movies made by Sienkewich Trilogy
> > > clearly
> > > demonstrated a very high degree of riding and fencing skills while
> > > hardly
> > > any of them was "born in saddle".
And your source of knowledge about their horseriding training and experience
is..............?
Of course a newbee riders are able to provide picturesque cavalry charge in
a flawless formation.
Note those guys in films you mentioned didn't provide a charge we are
talking about
> >
> > As you noted individual riding skills aren't enough to arrange a charge
it
> > needs special training of both a rider and a horse. There are no units
in
> > any army now to provide such a spectacle.
>
> Well, the unit I was talking about existed with an explicit purpose to
provide
> it.
>
> >So you cannot use your 'film'
> > argument as a serious argument.
>
> I'm not using it in such a way. Just trying to show that your argument
about
> being born on saddle is of no importance.
>
> >There are many primary written and
> > iconographic sources which count. Their worth has to be assessed
> > individually but one may generally claim that they are beter source of
> > knowledge than any film even the one made in Hollywood .
>
> Sinse when Mosfilm moved to LA and sinse when Hoffman became an American?
Well... every asshole wants to go to Hollywood if one has enough kitsch
sense of taste.
It dosen't change validity of my statement. Modern films are no source of
serious knowledge and every source whatever writen or icongraphic needs to
be assessed individually. Eveything what is known about hussaria and you are
trying to deny it is based on historic evidence and was worked out by
professional historians.
I think that Poles did thicken their ranks at the end of achrage because:
1. They wanetd to save their knees unnecessary injuries
2. They didn't want to provide to early a good objective for musket and
artilery fire
3. They needed space to manoeuvre if quick retreat was needed
To manoeuvre that way is difficult enough that even Mosfilm regiment isn't
able to do it not being made by neccessities of war to train it. You like
"film argument'. Don't you?
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Here is description of husaria charge and tightening ranks practice:
Hussaria was considered to be heavy assault cavalry only by the Polish and
Lithuanian army. The West did not have this type of cavalry, and hussaria
was considered light by western standards of speed and tactics. The main
task of hussaria during battle was to breach enemy formations. Polish
commanders of the 16th and 17th centuries realized that the effectiveness of
firearms was still very limited, so a charge by good horsemen had to endure
at most one salvo before reaching the enemy with lances and sabers. This was
sound reasoning, and hussaria won most battles they fought, in many cases
against foes of far greater numbers. Victory by outnumbered forces is
nothing special in the history of warfare provided that the troops used are
well trained and bolstered with high morale. This was the case of hussaria
for the span of nearly two centuries.
In the initial phases of a charge, hussaria loosened and tightened their
formation a few times in order to diminish the effect of enemy fire. The
charge was started at low speed and riders accelerated during its progress,
reaching top speed just before the enemy. This not only preserved the horses
' strength, but also had psychological effects on the enemy who saw the
preliminaries to the charge. Extremely long but light lances were used to
break opponents' formations, and were supposed to break during the clash.
After the lances were gone, sabers and estocs were used.
When the first charge was not successful, hussaria withdrew and charged
again. There were battles in which the same troops charged 10 times and
later helped pursue the enemy. This was possible only with highly trained
units that could withdraw and regroup in an orderly manner.
Bibliography (selection):
1.. Cichowski, Jerzy. Husaria /, Jerzy Cichowski, Andrzej Szulczynski.
Wyd. Warszawa : Wydawn. Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej, 1977
2.. Ksiega jazdy polskiej /, [autorzy Boleslaw Wieniawa-Dlugoszowski ...
et al.]. Warszawa : [s.n.], 1938
3.. Jasienica, Pawel. Rzeczpospolita obojga narodów. English. The
Commonwealth of both nations/, by Pawel Jasienica ; translated by Alexander
Jordan. Miami : American Institute of Polish Culture ; New York: Hippocrene
Books, 1987
4.. Rosciszewski, Piotr. Szlak Husarii Polskiej : przewodnik /, Piotr
Rosciszewski. Wyd. Gliwice : Polskie Towarzystwo Turystyczno-Krajoznawcze.
Oddzial w Gliwicach, 1984
5.. Microsoft Encarta 2000, keyword: Sobieski
David Read
<snip>
>
> I think that Poles did thicken their ranks at the end of achrage because:
> 1. They wanetd to save their knees unnecessary injuries
> 2. They didn't want to provide to early a good objective for musket and
> artilery fire
> 3. They needed space to manoeuvre if quick retreat was needed
What makes you think that what you describe above is not just the result of
the natural bunching together of men and, where applicable, horses, so
commonly found in the chaos of battle, rather than a deliberate tactical
manouevre, such as one might find described in detail in a military treatise
or manual?
---
cheers,
David Read
Arkadiusz Bugaj
No they got closer on purpose. That is what secondary sources say. Check my
answer for your previous post. There is selscted bibligraphy o secondary
sources, for the time being. I am still looking for primary sources
reference.
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
David Read
What you describe sounds similar to the "lava" type attacks used by Cossacks
to sometimes great effect against the French and their allies during the
Napoleonic Wars, and is perhaps a more sophisticated and "heavier" version
of those.
> Bibliography (selection):
>
> 1.. Cichowski, Jerzy. Husaria /, Jerzy Cichowski, Andrzej Szulczynski.
> Wyd. Warszawa : Wydawn. Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej, 1977
>
> 2.. Ksiega jazdy polskiej /, [autorzy Boleslaw Wieniawa-Dlugoszowski ...
> et al.]. Warszawa : [s.n.], 1938
>
> 3.. Jasienica, Pawel. Rzeczpospolita obojga narodów. English. The
> Commonwealth of both nations/, by Pawel Jasienica ; translated by
Alexander
> Jordan. Miami : American Institute of Polish Culture ; New York:
Hippocrene
> Books, 1987
>
> 4.. Rosciszewski, Piotr. Szlak Husarii Polskiej : przewodnik /, Piotr
> Rosciszewski. Wyd. Gliwice : Polskie Towarzystwo Turystyczno-Krajoznawcze.
> Oddzial w Gliwicach, 1984
>
> 5.. Microsoft Encarta 2000, keyword: Sobieski
>
I don't read Polish, but translated quotation or two from some of them might
make matters clearer.
--
cheers,
David Read
C A Candy
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>BTW, while the English archers (rather privileged troops) had been
>routinely riding the horses, what about the ordinary foot soldiers?
>They tend to dissapear from the descriptions of 100YW and suddenly
>reappear during the Wars of the Roses and other less exciting events.
>Were they excluded from all this exciting raiding and looting?
I would not use the phrase 'rather privileged' troops in comparison with
anything but your most basic peasant levy. Certainly the English archers
required more in the way of economic support, but they were still drawn
from the yoemanry and commons, not from the aristocracy and gentry.
The English system tended to use dismounted men-at-arms or equivalents
provided by urban areas as its heavy infantry. Edward III had realized by
the mid-1330's that general mass infantry were not nearly so useful as
having a smaller force that was of higher quality and completely mounted.
That's one reason you don't see them talked about - they weren't there.
>BTW, speaking about speed. Was the army of Henry V all mounted by
>the time it reached Agincourt? Was BP's army all mounted at the time
>of Poitiers and ditto for Crecy? In all these cases French, who had
>at least some infantry, managed to outmarch their, presumably all
>mounted, opponents. And, IIRC, at Crecy the crossbowmen managed
>to march in a van, and not rear of French army.
Even horses can be run into the ground and require rest. There is also
the matter of the baggage train, which depending on circumstances and
local supplies can drastically slow an army from its maximum speed.
However, having the army essentially fully mounted gives you far more
tactical flexibility - even if your normal marches are relatively slow, it
can allow you to react far faster to upcoming battles and sieze
appropriate locations for defense.
As for the crossbowmen marching in the van - surely this has more to do
with initial deployments for battle than simply being marching order. No
use having the Genoese along if you won't be using them appropriately....
oh, wait. That's right. :)
Cheers,
Chris
------------------
Christopher Candy
Department(s) of History
University of Durham
Virginia Commonwealth University
Randolph-Macon College
C.A....@durham.ac.uk
C A Candy
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>David Read <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:cggu9f$a4a$9...@reader1.panix.com...
>>> I gather that you have problems with DeVries?
>
>>I gather he's a rather nice fellow...
>
>I can attest to that. Others seem to like him as well.
>Some even praise what he has written.
I like some of it, but on occasion factual errors lessen the impact of his
statements. I particularly dispute his characterization of the battle of
Halidon Hill, where he portrays the Scots as setting up a defensive
formation on top of the Hill to try to draw the English away from the
siege of Berwick, and the English countering by creating their formation
further down the hill.
In reality, the Scots had no time for such wait-and-see games: by the time
their army had withdrawn from raiding parts of Northumberland and had
formed up to assault the English, there was only a single day left before
Berwick would have to capitulate as part of an agreed truce. Edward III,
not the Scots, was the one who was on top of Halidon, and the Scots
adopted an offensive formation, as they had to either defeat the English
outright or punch 200 men-at-arms through the English formation and have
them reach Berwick, by the truce's terms. A nice chunk of my doctoral
thesis covered this.
It does not necessarily invalidate DeVries' ideas on the role of infantry
in the 14th century, but it does come close to eliminating that battle as
evidence he can draw on, because it is based on events he got wrong.
Alex
> In article <f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com>,
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >BTW, while the English archers (rather privileged troops) had been
> >routinely riding the horses, what about the ordinary foot soldiers?
> >They tend to dissapear from the descriptions of 100YW and suddenly
> >reappear during the Wars of the Roses and other less exciting events.
> >Were they excluded from all this exciting raiding and looting?
>
> I would not use the phrase 'rather privileged' troops in comparison with
> anything but your most basic peasant levy. Certainly the English archers
> required more in the way of economic support, but they were still drawn
> from the yoemanry and commons, not from the aristocracy and gentry.
Of course, they were not on the same social level as knights but they
were not "ordinary" foot soldiers as well.
>
> The English system tended to use dismounted men-at-arms or equivalents
> provided by urban areas as its heavy infantry.
Diad not get this: did the English cities provide a heavy armoured
cavalry
as an equivalent to the knightly one?
>Edward III had realized by
> the mid-1330's that general mass infantry were not nearly so useful as
> having a smaller force that was of higher quality and completely mounted.
> That's one reason you don't see them talked about - they weren't there.
And then they suddenly reappeared in the noticeable numbers? I don't
think so.
I also have difficulties with visualizing all these men-at-arms doing
a dirty
earthwork during the sieges, etc.
>
> >BTW, speaking about speed. Was the army of Henry V all mounted by
> >the time it reached Agincourt? Was BP's army all mounted at the time
> >of Poitiers and ditto for Crecy? In all these cases French, who had
> >at least some infantry, managed to outmarch their, presumably all
> >mounted, opponents. And, IIRC, at Crecy the crossbowmen managed
> >to march in a van, and not rear of French army.
>
> Even horses can be run into the ground and require rest. There is also
> the matter of the baggage train, which depending on circumstances and
> local supplies can drastically slow an army from its maximum speed.
> However, having the army essentially fully mounted gives you far more
> tactical flexibility - even if your normal marches are relatively slow, it
> can allow you to react far faster to upcoming battles and sieze
> appropriate locations for defense.
Sorry, but "fully mounted" army is meaningless:
The Mongols had a fully mounted army and, indeed, they had all extra
flexibility and mobility possible. The English habit of having the
archers
riding the horses (very bad horses, according to de Comnin) did not
give
their army any visible advantage because in the famous encounters of
100YW
it was outmarched and outmaneuvered by the armies that had some foot
soldiers
(at least in 2 cases out of 3).
The very habit of having archers on a horseback can be interpreted as
a
reasonable attempt to preserve strenght of the valuable troops.
What you are saying about a baggage train is quite reasonable and, if
you add
a plunder, this was obviously a slowing factor that would annihilate
any
presumable advantage of the mounted archers. Neither would it allow
for a
tactical flexibility because you still have to move a slow baggage
train into
a position (BP&Co demonstrated obvious unwillingness to abandon their
loot).
>
> As for the crossbowmen marching in the van - surely this has more to do
> with initial deployments for battle than simply being marching order.
Nice try but no cigars. :-)
With this marching order the French had been able to outmarch
presumably
mounted English.
>No
> use having the Genoese along if you won't be using them appropriately....
> oh, wait. That's right. :)
Which tells something about ability of the French army to maintain any
order, including the marching one. :-)
Come on. These heavily armoured guys with their heavy horses hardly
were an
example of a fast-moving ...er.... "mounted army", except perhaps for
the
very short intervals. I strongly suspect that a reasonably lightly
armed
infantry could outmarch them.
Alex
Honor of this description is not mine: I'm simply trying to make some sense
out of what Arkadiusz wrote about the tactical deploymemnt of the Polish
hussars.
Alex
The only problem with this comparison is that Cossacs' "lava" never (to the
best of my knowledge) involved knee-to-knee formation or any noticeable
tightening of the ranks on a full gallop.
I strongly suspect that all these fantasies related to a battlefield circus
are legendary. The whole explanation about "diminishing" effect of the enemy's
fire is extremely fishy: you know very well an effective range and the rate
of fire of the muskets of XVI - XVIII so most of this "loose and tighten"
routine has to happen within 50-200 meters of an opponent to be of any
serious effect. And with the riders wearing alledgedly (judging by A.B.'s
earlier post) "inpenetrable" cuirasses, practicality of the above looks
even more questionable. BTW, A.B. starts with a statement that the fire
was inefficient so why bother and waste time instead of riding straight
ahead?
Ditto for a claim that the pikes _had_ to be broken at a 1st impact. Does not
look very practical, esp. in the case of the repeated attacks: during the
2nd one the hussars would have to use swords only. I'm not sure how light
that lance could be to be still able of doing some damage (lenght given
something in the range of 15-19 feet by different sources).
To add to a general confusion, each hussar had, AFAIK, his own small band of
followers who also participated in the battle. IIRC, they formed a second
line (or rank, Russian translations are sometimes confusing on this issue).
William Black
> Of course, they were not on the same social level as knights but they
> were not "ordinary" foot soldiers as well.
The term 'knight' is a loaded one in the context of fifteenth century
England.
It doesn't mean a mounted heavy cavalryman, it's a social status indicator.
There are a whole raft of levels of equipment relating to social
standing/wealth in England ranging through a half a dozen different levels
of equipment for foot soldiers alone.
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Alex
> > >
> >
> > I saw quite a few of these pictures and the issue is not what is depicted
> > but who did the painting. You claimed that most of the painters were
> > the soldiers and that they were painting things they saw. Burden of proof
> is
> > on you if you insist on this point.
> > OTOH, you may not bother because the lances shown on these paintings
> > usually have too small diameter to support your idea about them being
> > hollow.
>
> I sent you links where such a lance is photographed (a few have survived)
> and described.
So we can safely put to rest your claim that most of the Polish painters of
XVI-XVII were also the soldiers?
>There are many written contemporary references speaking about
> the way hussars lance was constructed. It is not a XII or XIII that
> information of primary sources is scarce. Do you want to deny what is well
> known and accepted by historians? Do they live in Shangri-la? If so, on what
> grounds do you think so?
> What I am saynig about husaria I am only repeating what is known to me from
> secondary sources based on historical evidence. Are you suggesting that
> Polish military historians are stupid morons making up stories for small
> children and I am bombastic nationalist to repeat every stupidity I read?
> Are there secondary or primary sources known to you which deny my
> statements?
Cool down. To start with, "moron" assumes a high degree of a stupidity
and "stupid moron" is an overkill.
Then, I never called any of these historians a moron but neither do I ever
consider _any_ historian as someone beyond any possible criticism unless
this person talks about some _solid_ facts (characteristics of the weaponry,
etc.). The picture you created out of the writings you are referencing to
does not answer a number of obvious questions so, yes, I have great suspicions
about the authors of this picture. The fact that they happen to be Poles
changes nothing because I expressed similar doubts about historians of many
other countries. As for the "making stories", this is what numerous
military historians were/are routinely doing and I don't see why the Polish
ones have to be exception. Especially when they start on a popular national
legend.
>What do American books say about hussaria and wars in XVII
> century in which Poland was involved?
>
Dear Dr. Watson, never make stupid assumptions based on an inadequate
knowledge of opponent's background.
> "Poles had lousy cavalry but their enemies had even lousier. We cannot say
> much about Polish cavalry tactics and deployement because there are no
> written sources for that. You know Poles didn't write then, yet"
> Is that the line?
Can't tell what the American sources are saying on the subject because
I did not read any.
As for the rest, Polish cavalry always had a very good reputation but this
does not mean that everybody should swallow everything you are writing
on this subject without bothering to separate facts from the patriotic
legends.
Regarding the "lousier" part, yes, the Russian army of this time was
considerably "lousier" and tended to run from the field on almost any
convenient ocassion. The Cosasacks most of the time were military inferior
and worse organized than their Polish masters but under Khmelnitsky they
managed to defeat Poles more than once and, one way or another, get their
independence (well, they got themselves into even greater trouble but this
is beside the point). The Tatars were not supossed to fight the pitched
battles and the Ottomans were on a noticeable military decline at the time
of Sobiesski. Swedes, before the reforms of G-A definitely were not a leading
military power of Europe.
> > > > They may not have a lot of knee-to-knee riding experience (which
> > > > clearly
> > > > shows in "Waterloo", "War and Peace", etc.), but most of them had been
> > > > clearly very good riders.
> > > > BTW, the leading actors in the movies made by Sienkewich Trilogy
> > > > clearly
> > > > demonstrated a very high degree of riding and fencing skills while
> > > > hardly
> > > > any of them was "born in saddle".
>
> And your source of knowledge about their horseriding training and experience
> is..............?
"Them" being Olbrihski and Lomnitski or Mosfilm regiment?
In the case of O. and L., their not being "born on a saddle" is quite
obvious and L, AFAIK, learned most of his tricks in riding and fencing after
he got a role of Wolodiewski.
In the case of Mosfilm regiment, they recruited the people with a previous
horsemanship experience (Tatars, Cossacks, etc.).
[]
> > >There are many primary written and
> > > iconographic sources which count. Their worth has to be assessed
> > > individually but one may generally claim that they are beter source of
> > > knowledge than any film even the one made in Hollywood .
> >
> > Sinse when Mosfilm moved to LA and sinse when Hoffman became an American?
>
> Well... every asshole wants to go to Hollywood if one has enough kitsch
> sense of taste.
Well, probably Hoffman does not have this sense and neither does Olbrihski.
The list could be extended to include Fellini, Bergman, Yancho and many
others. To be fair, I don't know if any of them truly qualifies as an
"asshole".
>
> It dosen't change validity of my statement. Modern films are no source of
> serious knowledge
No, theu are not and I started with this statement. However, certain knowledge
can be extracted in the some areas.
> and every source whatever writen or icongraphic needs to
> be assessed individually. Eveything what is known about hussaria and you are
> trying to deny it is based on historic evidence and was worked out by
> professional historians.
And the knowledge of these historians came from where exactly? How many
modern historians have enough 1st hand experience to separate facts from
legend and ocassional events from a tactical system? Some of the military
historians of XIX at least had a cavalry experience and resources of the
experts with teh 1st hand knowledge.
>
> I think that Poles did thicken their ranks at the end of achrage because:
> 1. They wanetd to save their knees unnecessary injuries
Are you seriois? Chances of hitting the knees while performing this
maneuver on a high speed would be much higher.
> 2. They didn't want to provide to early a good objective for musket and
> artilery fire
A complete rubbish because this was hardly a decisive factor in XVI-XVII
and you yourself mentioned it.
> 3. They needed space to manoeuvre if quick retreat was needed
_After_ getting knee-to-knee? With a more or less effective fire range being
under 200 meters a decision to retreat would happen too late for anything
else.
And obvious question: are these assumptions product of your own thinking
or did you get them from these "professionals" you are referencing to?
David gave you a perfectly good explanation of a reason for tightening but
you are too stubborn and arrogant to even consider it. Which is, IMHO, a
big mistake because he is an extremely knowledgeable and intelligent person.
David Read
the
> best of my knowledge) involved knee-to-knee formation or any noticeable
> tightening of the ranks on a full gallop.
Well, I only said that Arkadiuscz's description above sounds like "lava"
type attacks - that is, his description has more kinship with those than it
does with "western" close order attack formation. (He didn't mention
"knee-to-knee" above by the way, although he has done elsewhere). I'd be
interested to know what his Polish sources say *exactly* about just how
XVI/XVII C. husaria "tightened ranks", and just how close that was meant to
be.
As for Cossacks forming and reforming knee-to-knee in a "lava" attack, I
don't think this happened either. However, Cossacks deployed for a lava
attack would form up in two lines, the sotnia(s) of the first line being in
a very open order, (four paces between each rider) with the sotnia(s) of the
second line formed up in close order a few hundred yards behind. The second
line was a reserve, which, if committed to action would also likely deploy
in extended order. I'd also suggest that once a lava attack was showing
signs of success in its envelopment of the enemy force opposed to it, that
order quickly got lost as the Cossacks dashed in among the bewildered enemy
to press their advantage. Such a loss of order would involved both the
natural tightening *and* loosening of files as each individual horseman
sought out his quarry.
Interestingly enough, the Saxon cavalry regulations of the period also
provided for a similar extended deployment, even allowable for kurassiers in
certain situations, and intended for use against unformed infantry and enemy
lancers.
Given the close historical links that had existed between Saxons, Poles and
Cossacks, there does seem to be some relationship between the cavalry
tactics of all three.
> I strongly suspect that all these fantasies related to a battlefield
circus
> are legendary. The whole explanation about "diminishing" effect of the
enemy's
> fire is extremely fishy: you know very well an effective range and the
rate
> of fire of the muskets of XVI - XVIII so most of this "loose and tighten"
> routine has to happen within 50-200 meters of an opponent to be of any
> serious effect. And with the riders wearing alledgedly (judging by A.B.'s
> earlier post) "inpenetrable" cuirasses, practicality of the above looks
> even more questionable. BTW, A.B. starts with a statement that the fire
> was inefficient so why bother and waste time instead of riding straight
> ahead?
>
It probably has more to do with artillery firepower than musketry.
> Ditto for a claim that the pikes _had_ to be broken at a 1st impact. Does
not
> look very practical, esp. in the case of the repeated attacks: during the
> 2nd one the hussars would have to use swords only. I'm not sure how light
> that lance could be to be still able of doing some damage (lenght given
> something in the range of 15-19 feet by different sources).
>
> To add to a general confusion, each hussar had, AFAIK, his own small band
of
> followers who also participated in the battle. IIRC, they formed a second
> line (or rank, Russian translations are sometimes confusing on this
issue).
All of which asks the question - were the successes of the XVI/XVII C.
husaria more to to with their patience, discipline and ability to turn their
enemy's flanks and exploit gaps and errors, rather than bludgeoning frontal
assault?
--
cheers,
David Read
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
Polsh cavalry horses includin hussars horses were specially trained. The
training was called 'przy ziemi' - close to the ground. Horses which were
broke in had to cover path of about 150 meters, last 30 metres in full
gallop then they had to turn back 180 degree within a space of a circle of 3
meters in diameter. They were trained pretty long. Horses usually were used
for military puroposes whena they were about 7 years old. They were had a
lot of eastern blood admicture and matured slower than western horses.
Polish horses were considered so important for the coutry defence that
Polish parliamnet -Seym forbade exporting them in 1550 already. Export ban
was repeated many times in XVI and XVII century
And with the riders wearing alledgedly (judging by A.B.'s
> earlier post) "inpenetrable" cuirasses, practicality of the above looks
> even more questionable. BTW, A.B. starts with a statement that the fire
> was inefficient so why bother and waste time instead of riding straight
> ahead?
>
> Ditto for a claim that the pikes _had_ to be broken at a 1st impact.
Not pikes ........ for God sake!........ lances. These are two different
things. Pike is an infantry weapon. Spears were used Polish pancerni -
armoured (they wore mail armour) and Polish light cavalry
Does not
> look very practical, esp. in the case of the repeated attacks: during the
> 2nd one the hussars would have to use swords only.
You don't read carefuly what I have been writing. They had spare lances at
their exit positions. BTW wht's wrong with a charge with sabres. They did
that if they had to. They also used estocs- long (about 1.5 m) piercing
rapier held fixed to a saddle under de left riders knee.
I'm not sure how light
> that lance could be to be still able of doing some damage (lenght given
> something in the range of 15-19 feet by different sources).
>
> To add to a general confusion, each hussar had, AFAIK, his own small band
of
> followers who also participated in the battle.
What is the source of your confusion. They were so called_ pocztowi_. They
were common folkt soldiers armed and led by towarzysz-i.e. companion who was
a nobleman.
IIRC, they formed a second
> line (or rank, Russian translations are sometimes confusing on this
issue).
Did you read carefully what I wrote above. Hussaria wasn't a heavy cavalry
by western standards. Since 1540 they started using plate armour but far
lighter, because less complete, than contemporary western cavalry armour.
Have you checked links I sent you? Their cuiras was 5-7 mm thick and had
weight of some 7-8 kg. All hussar armour weight was 30-40 kg in comparison
to 65 kg of full plate armour. Such armour proteceted from prymitive
muskets fir in XVI and at the beginning of XVII century. W. Majewski J.
Teodorczyk, Wojsko (Army), [w:] Polska w epoce odrodzenia (Poland in the
epoch of Renaissance) Warszawa 1986, s. 305
Situation changed when Swedes under Gustav Adolf introduced heavier
(longer muskets) and reorganised their tacitcs making their ranks thinner
and fire thicker. All soldiers of a regiment, which was ordained in doubled
formation of 3ranks, fired at a time. L. Podhorodecki, Rapier i koncerz,
(Rapier and estoc), Warszawa 1985
And at the and.
Will you tell me on what grounds are you questioning what I am wrting?
What do you know, except trite sophismates, about for example battles of
Kokenhauzen, Paide, Kircholm, Kluszyn?
What are your sources of knowledge about Polish XVI-XVII army?
If am a liar of what quite openly you are accusing me please quote any book
which deals with Polish art of war and hussaria in XVI/XVII century which
denies my information.
May be instead of just denying my statements you would go to a library and
checked my words? Let's hope there is somethiing in English
Primary sources:
Stanisaw Laski, Spraw i postepków wojskowych opisanie 1545, published 1599
Jan Tarnowski (Polish commander and winner in the battle of Obertyn 1531),
Consilium rationis bellicae 1558
Polskie ustawy i artykuly wojskowe od XV do XVII woikeu (Polish military
acts and articles XV-XVIII centur) ed. S. Kutrzeba, Kraków 1937
L. Bojer, Carolomachia qua felix victoria fuit, Vilnae 1606 (description ob
battle of Kircholm 1605)
Pasek J.C, Pamietniki (Memoires) ed. W. Czaplinski- Pasek was a companion in
a Polish armored cavalry squadron during wars in 1655-1672. Provides a lot
of information about Polish tactics in the second half of XVII when Poles
fought against reformed Swedish army. They also fought against Russians,
Cossacs and Tatars and Turks.
You may also check works of swedish historian Lars Tersmeden may be they are
accessible in English.
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
news:<cgpjsv$pou$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > > >
> > >
> > > I saw quite a few of these pictures and the issue is not what is
depicted
> > > but who did the painting. You claimed that most of the painters were
> > > the soldiers and that they were painting things they saw. Burden of
proof
> > is
> > > on you if you insist on this point.
> > > OTOH, you may not bother because the lances shown on these paintings
> > > usually have too small diameter to support your idea about them being
> > > hollow.
> >
> > I sent you links where such a lance is photographed (a few have
survived)
> > and described.
>
>
> So we can safely put to rest your claim that most of the Polish painters
of
> XVI-XVII were also the soldiers?
I didn't claim that most of them were sldiers but many. All in all it is
only a mnor problem in the dispute.
Probably only American historians are those who count from your
paternalistic point of view.
And something more, have you tried earlier to ridicule and disrepute a whole
country a few generation output of historians working on their own history
BY JUST SAYING NO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE? Without having any historical background
and authority? What you are doing is eaxctly saying that written Polish
primary, secondary, icongraphic sources and survived artifacts lie about the
issue. Their only flaw is that they aren't widely known in the west, which
is a shame for Polish and also western historians (may be except of Swedes)
and that you can't find nowhere confirmation of my words.
>
> >What do American books say about hussaria and wars in XVII
> > century in which Poland was involved?
> >
>
> Dear Dr. Watson, never make stupid assumptions based on an inadequate
> knowledge of opponent's background.
This is not a direct answer. DO YOU KNOW ANY SOURCE WHICH DENIES MY
STATEMNTS OF TACTICS AND ARMAMENT OF HUSSARIA?
>
>
>
> > "Poles had lousy cavalry but their enemies had even lousier. We cannot
say
> > much about Polish cavalry tactics and deployement because there are no
> > written sources for that. You know Poles didn't write then, yet"
> > Is that the line?
>
> Can't tell what the American sources are saying on the subject because
> I did not read any.
This speaks for itslef. You don't know but deny.
>
> As for the rest, Polish cavalry always had a very good reputation but this
> does not mean that everybody should swallow everything you are writing
> on this subject without bothering to separate facts from the patriotic
> legends.
How do you know what is the legend and what is the true admitting that you
have no sources of checking my statements
You must be kidding
>
> > and every source whatever writen or icongraphic needs to
> > be assessed individually. Eveything what is known about hussaria and you
are
> > trying to deny it is based on historic evidence and was worked out by
> > professional historians.
>
> And the knowledge of these historians came from where exactly? How many
> modern historians have enough 1st hand experience to separate facts from
> legend and ocassional events from a tactical system?
Are you accusing 4 or 5 generations of Polish historians of being liars?
Your arrogancy is unlimited. Of you don't belive make an effort and learn
some Polish then read some books, strongly recommend promary sources-forget
films, and decide what is a legend what is the true. You will also need some
Latin as some of those backward Poles knew this language and used it ij
writting.
Have you ever heard about techinques of historcal research|? Probably not
becuse you cannot lead dispute ina proper way.
As I said earlier XVI and XVII century it weren't medieval ages and there
are a lot primary sources which depict Polish army of the time. BTW you
don't have to be a rider to be a military historian. Military practice of
XVII century was much different from XIX and XX century.
Some of the military historians of XIX at least had a cavalry experience and
resources of the
> experts with teh 1st hand knowledge.
Yeeah, go and find a hussar or better all unit of them!! eh This argument
is funny
>
> >
> > I think that Poles did thicken their ranks at the end of achrage
because:
> > 1. They wanetd to save their knees unnecessary injuries
>
> Are you seriois? Chances of hitting the knees while performing this
> maneuver on a high speed would be much higher.
>
> > 2. They didn't want to provide to early a good objective for musket and
> > artilery fire
>
> A complete rubbish because this was hardly a decisive factor in XVI-XVII
> and you yourself mentioned it.
But it was damaging. Why loosing peole and wht is more important horses. The
latter were expensive as they were well treind and well bred. In te
beginning of XVII they usually cost 200 zloty but many were more expensive
up to 1500 (costc of one medium size village). In the battle of Gniew 1626
Polish leading squadron of 220 hussars was shelled by Swedish 1800 musket
bullets and 25 artilellery shelles. This according to J. Teodorczyk, Bitwa
o Gniew (Battle of Gniew 22 IX-29XI 1 X 1626), Studia i Materiay do Historii
Wojskowosci, T. XII/2, 1966. Even earlier musket fire could case pretty
nasty damage especially among horses. First unit chrging at the left Polish
flank commandend by col. Lacki lost 150 horses out of 300,a lthough only 3
people were killed. Horses were easier goals. Cossacks as wel as Turkish
infantry and aretillery fire could alsoe have been damaging. read my repost
to your previous post
> > 3. They needed space to manoeuvre if quick retreat was needed
>
> _After_ getting knee-to-knee? With a more or less effective fire range
being
> under 200 meters a decision to retreat would happen too late for anything
> else.
>
> And obvious question: are these assumptions product of your own thinking
> or did you get them from these "professionals" you are referencing to?
K. Górski, T. Korzon, J. Wimmer, L. Podhorodecki, S. Herbst, J. Teodorczyk,
H. Wisner, E. Majewski
First two of them were proffesional oficers. I know you silently question my
information just because you cannot read Polish. Now you will tell me that
you aren't able to read Polish. Argumentatio ex nostra ignoratia. You have a
nerve!
>
> David gave you a perfectly good explanation of a reason for tightening but
> you are too stubborn and arrogant to even consider it.
You must be kidding David's post backed my statements refering to knee-to
knee charge. Why should I dispute with him
Which is, IMHO, a
> big mistake because he is an extremely knowledgeable and intelligent
person.
Whose information relating to possibility of knee-to knee charge you
initally questioned fiercely you passed by without a comment. Then you
picked up only to a possiblity of loosening and tightening a charging
formation.
David is intelligent and knowledgable indeed, and unlike you doesn't
question my information where he simply does not have his own sources of
knowledge what you doing permamently showing inexplicable disdain and
contempt when dealing with matter (Polish cavalry and army in general in
XVI-XVII ) about which you apparently have no idea and what is worse you
aren't even eager to check my info by doing some research.
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> napisał w wiadomości
news:cgtalb$o08$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
This kind of argumentation is so naive and proves your lack of professional
skills as a historian that I have to ask you some
questions:
Where, in your opinion, is historical knowledge taken from?
Are you implying that it stems from impersonating forgotten social roles of
XVII century like: soldiers, medieaval monarchs, burghers and so on?
What about Vikings? Do I have to kill, rape and burn and drink excessively
so as to have right to
write about them?
To write about medieval peasantry I have to be a peasant himself? Do I have
to have landlord and do all my "feudal" duties to understand how system
worked?
Do I have to be a monk to write about monastery life or developement
of monasteries?
Do I have to kill sb with a sword or a lance to know how
efficient weapon is and how hard is to be a knight?
List can be long.
Cheers
It it weren't mortal wounds opposite to those taken from bullets of muskets
and guns.
> >
> > > 2. They didn't want to provide to early a good objective for musket
and
> > > artilery fire
> >
> > A complete rubbish because this was hardly a decisive factor in XVI-XVII
> > and you yourself mentioned it.
> But it was damaging. Why loosing peole and wht is more important horses.
The
> latter were expensive as they were well treind and well bred. In te
> beginning of XVII they usually cost 200 zloty but many were more expensive
> up to 1500 (costc of one medium size village). In the battle of Gniew
1626
> Polish leading squadron of 220 hussars was shelled by Swedish 1800 musket
> bullets and 25 artilellery shelles. This according to J. Teodorczyk,
Bitwa
> o Gniew (Battle of Gniew 22 IX-29XI 1 X 1626), Studia i Materiay do
Historii
> Wojskowosci, T. XII/2, 1966. Even earlier musket fire could case pretty
> nasty damage especially among horses. First unit charging at the left
Polish
> flank IN THE BATTLE OF KIRCHOLM commandend by col. Lacki lost 150 horses
out of 300,a lthough only 3
> people were killed. Horses were easier goals. Cossacks as wel as Turkish
> infantry and aretillery fire could alsoe have been damaging. read my
repost
> to your previous post
>
> > > 3. They needed space to manoeuvre if quick retreat was needed
> >
> > _After_ getting knee-to-knee? With a more or less effective fire range
> being
> > under 200 meters a decision to retreat would happen too late for
anything
> > else.
Polsh all cavalry horses including hussars horses were specially trained.
The
training was called 'przy ziemi' - or close to the ground. Horses which were
broke in had to cover path of about 150 meters, last 30 metres in full
gallop then they had to turn back 180 degree within a space of a circle of 3
meters in diameter. They were trained pretty long. Horses were usually used
for military puroposes when they were about 7 years old. Horses had a
lot of eastern (Tatar, Kalmuc, Arab, Turk) blood admixture and matured
slower than western horses.
Immature horses could bolt with all upleasant consequences for a rider
The whole tactics followed Tatars tactics of quick attacks and retreats when
necessary. Units charged with having wide intervals between them. When
charge was unsuccesful they turned back almost in place, at the same time
charged second line using intervals between retreating units. First line
reformed quickly and attacked again. Different modifications were applied to
this scheme, which included dragons, infantry, artillery even western type
raitars (Kurland or Prussian whose rulers were vassals of Polish king often
there were alsomercenary troops)
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Michael Kuettner
"Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cgt6cc$8ug$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
>
<snip>
> Polsh cavalry horses includin hussars horses were specially trained.
It might come as a shock to you, but cavalry horses elsewhere also
had special training ;-P
>The training was called 'przy ziemi' - close to the ground. Horses which
were
> broke in had to cover path of about 150 meters, last 30 metres in full
> gallop then they had to turn back 180 degree within a space of a circle of
3
> meters in diameter.
Which contradicts your statement "joining up knee-to-knee in _full gallop_".
And that's the part which I don't believe either.
Joining up while in fast trot and _then_ going into full gallop, OK.
But joining up _while_ in full gallop, no.
<snip>
> > Ditto for a claim that the pikes _had_ to be broken at a 1st impact.
>
> Not pikes ........ for God sake!........ lances. These are two different
> things. Pike is an infantry weapon. Spears were used Polish pancerni -
> armoured (they wore mail armour) and Polish light cavalry
>
Yep; but the length of the spears ....
We'll get to that after we've sorted out the horses. ;-)
<snip>
> And at the and.
> Will you tell me on what grounds are you questioning what I am wrting?
Because we like to quarrel and we like citations.
> What do you know, except trite sophismates, about for example battles of
> Kokenhauzen, Paide, Kircholm, Kluszyn?
> What are your sources of knowledge about Polish XVI-XVII army?
>
> If am a liar of what quite openly you are accusing me
<snip>
Nobody's accusing you of lying.
Alex is rather blunt in that respect. If he thought you were lying, he
would have said so explicitly.
The point under discussion is :
If you can cite a military manual describing joining up knee-to-knee
_IN FULL GALLOP_, ok.
Otherwise I believe that they joined up at fast trot and then went into
full gallop (for the last 30 metres, as you yourself stated above -
otherwise, the training wouldn't make sense).
IOW, I guess it's a misunderstanding (sloppy phrasing on your part).
So, just sit back, take a deep breath and relax a little.
Then reply.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
David Read
"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> wrote in message
news:2pf308F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:cgt6cc$8ug$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
> >
> <snip>
> > Polsh cavalry horses includin hussars horses were specially trained.
>
> It might come as a shock to you, but cavalry horses elsewhere also
> had special training ;-P
>
> >The training was called 'przy ziemi' - close to the ground. Horses which
> were
> > broke in had to cover path of about 150 meters, last 30 metres in full
> > gallop then they had to turn back 180 degree within a space of a circle
of
> 3
> > meters in diameter.
>
> Which contradicts your statement "joining up knee-to-knee in _full
gallop_".
> And that's the part which I don't believe either.
> Joining up while in fast trot and _then_ going into full gallop, OK.
> But joining up _while_ in full gallop, no.
I agree. This need to be demonstrated or proven.
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm
The above link includes a slightly confusing English translation of a Polish
source which describes how the husaria could switch to close order in an
attack, but at what point in the charge it does not say. And although the
term "knee-to-knee" is also used, I'm not sure that this is as close as
Warnery and Bernhardi (for example) have described in my earlier post.
Thus, from the link:
"Sometimes the second rank moved forward to double up with the first. What
did this give? It made up for losses in the first rank but more importantly
it doubled the density of the line. It gave maximum density of troopers in
this moment (distance less than 1.5 meter, contemporary chroniclors say
'knee to knee'), and that provided the greatest formation-breaking power."
<snip>
--
cheers,
David Read
C A Candy
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>c.a....@durham.ac.uk (C A Candy) wrote in message
news:<cgqf6a$e...@altair.dur.ac.uk>...
<snip>
>> I would not use the phrase 'rather privileged' troops in comparison with
>> anything but your most basic peasant levy. Certainly the English archers
>> required more in the way of economic support, but they were still drawn
>> from the yoemanry and commons, not from the aristocracy and gentry.
>
>Of course, they were not on the same social level as knights but they
>were not "ordinary" foot soldiers as well.
Depends on context. As far as England is concerned, you might as well
call them that, as the mounted archers are what were demanded both for
contracted forces and in the forces provided by commissions of array.
>> The English system tended to use dismounted men-at-arms or equivalents
>> provided by urban areas as its heavy infantry.
>
>Diad not get this: did the English cities provide a heavy armoured
>cavalry as an equivalent to the knightly one?
No, but certain cities such as York provided 'armati', which are usually
considered to be heavy infantry, well armed and armoured - roughly
equivalent (in my opinion) to the dismounted men-at-arms in terms of their
use and usefulness.
>>Edward III had realized by
>> the mid-1330's that general mass infantry were not nearly so useful as
>> having a smaller force that was of higher quality and completely mounted.
>> That's one reason you don't see them talked about - they weren't there.
>
>And then they suddenly reappeared in the noticeable numbers? I don't
>think so. I also have difficulties with visualizing all these
>men-at-arms doing a dirty earthwork during the sieges, etc.
What use is it to ship relatively untrained and unskilled troops to France
when you can recruit skilled ones of the type you need in roughly the
numbers you can manage both financially and logistically? The English had
learned mass simply does not make up for quality, given the system of
warfare they use. Simply wishing it away doesn't make it any less true.
>> Even horses can be run into the ground and require rest. There is also
>> the matter of the baggage train, which depending on circumstances and
>> local supplies can drastically slow an army from its maximum speed.
>> However, having the army essentially fully mounted gives you far more
>> tactical flexibility - even if your normal marches are relatively slow, it
>> can allow you to react far faster to upcoming battles and sieze
>> appropriate locations for defense.
>
>Sorry, but "fully mounted" army is meaningless:
I disagree, else I wouldn't have used the term. Using the Mongol example
below is somewhat apples to oranges, as the style of fighting and carrying
on war is very different than the western models. The phrase simply means
what it says - which was relatively unusual for the time.
>The Mongols had a fully mounted army and, indeed, they had all extra
>flexibility and mobility possible. The English habit of having the
>archers riding the horses (very bad horses, according to de Comnin) did
>not give their army any visible advantage because in the famous
>encounters of 100YW it was outmarched and outmaneuvered by the armies
>that had some foot soldiers (at least in 2 cases out of 3).
Having the capacity does not necessarily mean it is used well or
appropriately. Also, in many of the cases I'm guessing your thinking of,
it was to the end of the campaign when the horses would have been as
exhausted as the men.
The horses were pretty bad - horseflesh was expensive, after all. But
they weren't to be in the fight, just get the people to it. While France
may provide poor examples of this working in practice, Scotland does well
to provide examples where it did work, particularly for Edward III's
personal interventions in both 1336 and 1337.
>The very habit of having archers on a horseback can be interpreted as a
>reasonable attempt to preserve strenght of the valuable troops.
All part and parcel of the same aim.
>What you are saying about a baggage train is quite reasonable and, if
>you add a plunder, this was obviously a slowing factor that would
>annihilate any presumable advantage of the mounted archers. Neither would
>it allow for a tactical flexibility because you still have to move a slow
>baggage train into a position (BP&Co demonstrated obvious unwillingness
>to abandon their loot).
The possibility is there. Whether it is used or not is, obviously,
another question entirely.
>> As for the crossbowmen marching in the van - surely this has more to do
>> with initial deployments for battle than simply being marching order.
>
>Nice try but no cigars. :-)
I don't smoke, even if I do live in Richmond VA now. :P
>With this marching order the French had been able to outmarch
>presumably mounted English.
You're assuming that the Genoese were always kept in the van - armies
don't always march in battle order, after all. While I'm not completely
taken by the idea, there is Clifford Rogers' thesis that Edward
was actively seeking battle, so avoiding the fight was the last thing he
was considering.
>>No use having the Genoese along if you won't be using them
>>appropriately.... oh, wait. That's right. :)
>
>Which tells something about ability of the French army to maintain any
>order, including the marching one. :-)
>
>Come on. These heavily armoured guys with their heavy horses hardly
>were an example of a fast-moving ...er.... "mounted army", except perhaps
>for the very short intervals. I strongly suspect that a reasonably
>lightly armed infantry could outmarch them.
Perhaps. But Edward III did make some incredibly fast runs through
Scotland with the same exact type of forces. Much of the speed I suspect
has to do with the size of forces - the larger it is the slower it moves -
and the purpose the various commanders are following.
Michael Kuettner
"David Read" <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cgtnv7$3ed$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
makes sense.
A horse (however well trained) doesn't run in a straight line - it always
slightly veers off to the left or right. Add to that that horses shy when
hearing loud noises. When they're well trained, the riders have them
obeying again _almost_ immediately - which means that they have
strayed from the straight line for half a metre to the left or right.
Thusly I guess that knee to knee can be described as distance
less than 1.5 metres (give every _well trained_ horse about half
a metre for straying in both directions).
And that's what the foot-protection was needed for :
Not constant rubbing but bobbing into your fellow riders.
And given appr. 1.5 m distance between the riders, Arkadiusz's
description of the 3 m diameter turning about also makes sense.
Provided they all turn into the same direction, of course ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
PS : I haven't looked at the link because usually you
extract the relevant points. Should I have a look ?
Alex
> "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > The only problem with this comparison is that Cossacs' "lava" never (to
> the
> > best of my knowledge) involved knee-to-knee formation or any noticeable
> > tightening of the ranks on a full gallop.
>
> Well, I only said that Arkadiuscz's description above sounds like "lava"
> type attacks - that is, his description has more kinship with those than it
> does with "western" close order attack formation. (He didn't mention
> "knee-to-knee" above by the way, although he has done elsewhere). I'd be
> interested to know what his Polish sources say *exactly* about just how
> XVI/XVII C. husaria "tightened ranks", and just how close that was meant to
> be.
>
Yes, this would be interesting, even if it does not have anything to do
with his initial claim about Polish hussars attacking the medieval-style
formations of the pikemen (unless there was some other reason for bringing
them into a discussion) because, as far as I could notice, he did not
gave a single relevant example of such an event (and, to the best of my
knowledge, formations of this type rarely if ever had been used by any of
the Polish neighbours in XVI-XVIII).
> As for Cossacks forming and reforming knee-to-knee in a "lava" attack, I
> don't think this happened either.
Today we are suspiciously in synch. :-)
I _suspect_ that the Cossacks who had been a part of the Imperial Guard
could be drilled in early XIX to act as a regular cavalry just because
they almost definitely passed through a rigorous parade ground drilling
(and both Alexander I and Nicholas I were somewhat obsessed with this
issue) but not the rest of the Cossacks. BTW, IIRC, the Guard Cossacks
at Leiptzig were rather successfully fighting French cuirassires (it is
quite possible that I'm mistaken on this). It would be interesting to find
out which formation they were using (if this happened).
>However, Cossacks deployed for a lava
> attack would form up in two lines, the sotnia(s) of the first line being in
> a very open order, (four paces between each rider) with the sotnia(s) of the
> second line formed up in close order a few hundred yards behind. The second
> line was a reserve, which, if committed to action would also likely deploy
> in extended order. I'd also suggest that once a lava attack was showing
> signs of success in its envelopment of the enemy force opposed to it, that
> order quickly got lost as the Cossacks dashed in among the bewildered enemy
> to press their advantage. Such a loss of order would involved both the
> natural tightening *and* loosening of files as each individual horseman
> sought out his quarry.
>
Indeed, but this was quite different: happened _after_ the enemy's ranks
are broken and was quite natural for the experienced individual fighters
like Cossacks.
> Interestingly enough, the Saxon cavalry regulations of the period also
> provided for a similar extended deployment, even allowable for kurassiers in
> certain situations, and intended for use against unformed infantry and enemy
> lancers.
> Given the close historical links that had existed between Saxons, Poles and
> Cossacks, there does seem to be some relationship between the cavalry
> tactics of all three.
>
>
Interesting idea. As I understand it, the "dispersing" side could benefit
if the individual riders were of a high quality and could be allowed to
act on their own. Something like the "conventional" (Hungarian style)
hussars in XVIII.
As you probably know (even omission of Munchausen's exploits on Russian
service does not disqualify Duffy :-) ), Peter I explicitly forbade his
regular cavalry not only to disperse the ranks but even use a full gallop.
Perhaps he did not trust the newly formed cavalry or perhaps he was simply
too obsessed with "regularity" to pay attention to the disadvantages of
this restriction.
> > I strongly suspect that all these fantasies related to a battlefield
> circus
> > are legendary. The whole explanation about "diminishing" effect of the
> enemy's
> > fire is extremely fishy: you know very well an effective range and the
> rate
> > of fire of the muskets of XVI - XVIII so most of this "loose and tighten"
> > routine has to happen within 50-200 meters of an opponent to be of any
> > serious effect. And with the riders wearing alledgedly (judging by A.B.'s
> > earlier post) "inpenetrable" cuirasses, practicality of the above looks
> > even more questionable. BTW, A.B. starts with a statement that the fire
> > was inefficient so why bother and waste time instead of riding straight
> > ahead?
> >
>
> It probably has more to do with artillery firepower than musketry.
>
I'm not sure that they often faced a serious firepower in XVI-XVII. Russians
had a numerous artillery but it's ability to do something impressive on
a battlefield is something I never heard of (except of course in some
"patriotic" writings). In one recent discussion on shw-if I read an interesting
quotation about Russian artillery fire during the siege of a Swedish fortress
in mid XVII. There was no visible fire control or coordination. On a
battlefield it would be even more chaotic. Or take liberation of Moscow at
the end of the Times of Trouble. A band of Poles shut themselves in Kremlin
and was eventually starved out. With a marginally competent artillery officers
and the existing numeric advantages, Kremlin would be easily taken: it's walls
were obsolete by the time they were built (very high and rather thin) and its
towers are even worse: too narrow for the placement of any numerous artillery
and extremely high. With few properly aimed shots, any of them would crumble
and kill a lot of defenders with its fall.
Russians being out, what's left? The Ottomans? Their _field_ artillery
was not, AFAIK, anywhere close to modern even in XVI. In mid XVIII Russian
infantry of Rumiantsev and Suvorov did not have any noticeable problems
with their artillery fire so surely the Polish cavalry would have even less
by a simple virtue of moving faster.
Tatars? No artillery. Swedish army _before_ reforms of G-A? The hussars'
tactics was pretty much formed by this time and as I understand, pre-reform
artillery was not very efficient.
>
> > Ditto for a claim that the pikes _had_ to be broken at a 1st impact. Does
> not
> > look very practical, esp. in the case of the repeated attacks: during the
> > 2nd one the hussars would have to use swords only. I'm not sure how light
> > that lance could be to be still able of doing some damage (lenght given
> > something in the range of 15-19 feet by different sources).
> >
> > To add to a general confusion, each hussar had, AFAIK, his own small band
> of
> > followers who also participated in the battle. IIRC, they formed a second
> > line (or rank, Russian translations are sometimes confusing on this
> issue).
>
> All of which asks the question - were the successes of the XVI/XVII C.
> husaria more to to with their patience, discipline and ability to turn their
> enemy's flanks and exploit gaps and errors, rather than bludgeoning frontal
> assault?
A very interesting question and I'd add another one: to which degree the
Polish military successes of this period were due to the hussars? Yes,
everybody heard about Kirchgolm and about hussars' attack at Warsaw (the
battle was, however, lost regardless Polish numeric advantage) -- both
frontal attacks. There were other numerous high-quality Polish cavalry units,
which unfortunately looked less picturesque. Most of them were lighter and
perhaps more suitable to do the things you described (and win the battles).
But I'd add one more factor of success. Was it REALLY difficult to defeat
an army about which ruler of the country wrote the following: "We have
lost fifty-one men killed and thirty-five wounded of all ranks. I am thankful
to God that from an army of three thousand only this number has suffered;
all the other men are well because they had fled..."? :-)
You may make an educated guess about which army I'm talking.
Alex
>
> And at the and.
> Will you tell me on what grounds are you questioning what I am wrting?
Because a lot of what you are writing raises the questions. To most of
which you did not give any answer besides repeatedly stating that everything
in Poland was unique and without any analog.
> If am a liar of what quite openly you are accusing me please quote any book
> which deals with Polish art of war and hussaria in XVI/XVII century which
> denies my information.
You know, with this attitude you probably should stop posting on shm. Nobody
called you a liar but nobody placed you above the criticism as well. One
Ingred is quite enough.
Alex
Sorry for the nitpicking, but there was no such thing as "Raevsky redoubt".
It was called "Raevsky Battery", or (less often) "Raevsky Lunet". At least
in Russian military terminology "redoubt" is a completely closed field
fortification (as Shevardino Redoubt) and one in question was open in a rear.
As for the fact of taking the guns, there was nothing really unique about
it.
Alex
> Cossacs
> > > > > infantry fought using defensive camps and armed lagguage wagons (so
> called
> > > > > tabor).There had numerical advantage and Poles often lacked
> > > > > unity in command as it was a cvil war, actually. Noblity of eastern
> ends
> of
> > > > > Poland were mostly gens Rutheni.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, their national roots are not of importance in this context and,
> IIRC,
> > > > Jeremiah Wishnevetski can't be accussed in an unsufficient zeal when
> it
> came
> > > > to fighting against the rebels.
> > >
> > > Note that Wishnovietsky wasn't a commander in chief of all Polish
> troops.
> > > He had a few thousands his private army soldiers.
> >
> > The point was that he had been "gens Rutheni" and was notoriously cruel
> > toward the rebels.
>
> So what? He was a magnate they were peasants who wanted to rob him and kill
> not necessary in that order. What kind of relevance does you remark have to
> the issue of Polish command organization?
Read your own post. You wrote (see above) as an explanation of the
Khmelnitsky's successes: "Noblity of eastern ends of Poland were
mostly gens Rutheni." When I pointed out that they did not suffer from
an inadequate
zeal in fighting rebellion (with Wishnewetsky as an example), you
started
this drivel about him not being in charge and now you are looking for
the
relevance of this fact to the Polish command structure. Can you follow
your own line of thought? Why did you bring this fact about the Polish
nobility into the picture if it is, in your opinion, irrelevant?
[the rest is snipped, one issue at a time]
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
.............?????? Wisniowiecki was a bitter proponent of sinking the
rebellion in blood and you admited this. He head more zeal you can imagine
to o this. I don't understand what is your point here.
you
> started
> this drivel about him not being in charge and now you are looking for
> the
> relevance of this fact to the Polish command structure. Can you follow
> your own line of thought?
Are you talking about yourself. You've just messed around.
Why did you bring this fact about the Polish
> nobility into the picture if it is, in your opinion, irrelevant?
They were the core of Polish cavalry as professional soldiers
Cheers
Arkadiusz
Arkadiusz Bugaj
It was unfinished but the end was closed by a wooden palisade
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
news:<cgt6cc$8ug$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>...
> >
> > And at the and.
> > Will you tell me on what grounds are you questioning what I am wrting?
>
> Because a lot of what you are writing raises the questions. To most of
> which you did not give any answer besides repeatedly stating that
everything
> in Poland was unique and without any analog.
european cavalries at the time.
>
> > If am a liar of what quite openly you are accusing me please quote any
book
> > which deals with Polish art of war and hussaria in XVI/XVII century
which
> > denies my information.
>
> You know, with this attitude you probably should stop posting on shm.
Nobody
> called you a liar but nobody placed you above the criticism as well. One
> Ingred is quite enough.
Thank you for exhaustive answers for my questions.
Cheers
Arkadiusz
David Read
redoubt".
> It was called "Raevsky Battery", or (less often) "Raevsky Lunet". At least
> in Russian military terminology "redoubt" is a completely closed field
> fortification (as Shevardino Redoubt) and one in question was open in a
rear.
As Arkadiusz has pointed out, the rear of the Raevsky redoubt was enclosed
by a wooden palisade. The word "redoubt" may or not be technically incorrect
in this instance, but the Raevsky redoubt was certainly enclosed. Under the
supervision of engineer lieutenant Bogdanov, on 6 September 1812 the redoubt
was strengthened by digging wolfpits to its front, extending the epaulments,
and constructing a double wooden palisade around the rear. The inner
palisade was eight feet high, and the outer palisade was six feet high and
angled outwards.
>
> As for the fact of taking the guns, there was nothing really unique about
> it.
I didn't say there was. More interesting is the fact that guns were
successfully withdrawn from the battery during the thick of the fighting.
--
cheers,
David Read
Soren Larsen
<arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>What about Vikings? Do I have to kill, rape and burn and drink excessively
>so as to have right to
>write about them?
I hope you are not suggesting that the vikings killed, raped, burned
and drunk excessively .
Amateur viking historians otoh!
Cheers
Soren Larsen
David Read
I don't agree. "Knee to knee " should mean just what it says - again, I
refer you to my earlier post, particularly the quotations from Warnery and
Bernhardi.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kuettner
>
> PS : I haven't looked at the link because usually you
> extract the relevant points. Should I have a look ?
Probably. The translator's own comments are interesting, too.
--
cheers,
David Read
David Read
I've only become involved in this discussion because you asked if I might
have something to contribute about the "knee-to-knee" aspect of the cavalry
charge. I doubt whether I have much to contribute in a detailed discussion
on XVI/XVII century warfare in eastern Europe... :-)
>
> > As for Cossacks forming and reforming knee-to-knee in a "lava" attack, I
> > don't think this happened either.
>
> Today we are suspiciously in synch. :-)
>
> I _suspect_ that the Cossacks who had been a part of the Imperial Guard
> could be drilled in early XIX to act as a regular cavalry just because
> they almost definitely passed through a rigorous parade ground drilling
> (and both Alexander I and Nicholas I were somewhat obsessed with this
> issue) but not the rest of the Cossacks. BTW, IIRC, the Guard Cossacks
> at Leiptzig were rather successfully fighting French cuirassires (it is
> quite possible that I'm mistaken on this). It would be interesting to find
> out which formation they were using (if this happened).
I'm largely following George Nafziger here, whose description of the "lava"
attack in theory and in practice comes from Russian regulations and a study
about lava attacks made by an Oberst Balck. Nafziger quotes an extract from
Balck's study in this translation:
"At Luckenwalde, August 19th, 1813, a French Cuirassier regiment
advancing at the trot in column of squadrons, was attacked by Cossacks,
the flankers that it had thrown out being forced back. The French advanced
against the centre of Russians. The latter's thin line at once dispersed,
all the Cossacks throwing themselves against the flanks and rear of the
French. The French column halted when it no longer had an enemy in its
front. Meantime, the Cossacks thrust or fired into the flank files and rear
of the French Cuirassiers. After a while, the French column was in such
confusion that orderly movement was out of the question. The Cossacks,
though numerically inferior and unable to disperse the French column by
charging in close order, were elated because they felt that they were better
horsemen than the French, and continued with great glee to fire their rifles
[sic] and thrust their lances into the French ranks. The flank files and
rear line of the French finally turned to the flank and grasped their
carbines. The Cuirassiers were not relieved from their unhappy predicament
until fresh cavalry arrived.
"At Boragk, September 19, 1813, 1,200 Cossacks attacked 2,000 French
Dragoons. The latter remained passive, received the attack with carbine fire
and sought to form line in place to avoid being enveloped. The action
terminated with the rout of the French cavalry. In a quarter of an hour the
Cossacks made 19 officers and 400 men prisoners.
"During the engagement at Rudnia, August 8, 1812, Count Bismark [sic]
had his troopers form square without dismounting, and repulsed the attack of
the cossacks at a halt. But his situation was not relieved until
reinforcements arrived, otherwise he would, doubtlessly, have succumbed."
Nafziger G., _Imperial Bayonets: Tactics of the Napoleonic Battery,
Battalion and Brigade as Found in Contemporary Regulations_ Greenhill 1996.
>
> >However, Cossacks deployed for a lava
> > attack would form up in two lines, the sotnia(s) of the first line being
in
> > a very open order, (four paces between each rider) with the sotnia(s) of
the
> > second line formed up in close order a few hundred yards behind. The
second
> > line was a reserve, which, if committed to action would also likely
deploy
> > in extended order. I'd also suggest that once a lava attack was showing
> > signs of success in its envelopment of the enemy force opposed to it,
that
> > order quickly got lost as the Cossacks dashed in among the bewildered
enemy
> > to press their advantage. Such a loss of order would involved both the
> > natural tightening *and* loosening of files as each individual horseman
> > sought out his quarry.
> >
>
> Indeed, but this was quite different: happened _after_ the enemy's ranks
> are broken and was quite natural for the experienced individual fighters
> like Cossacks.
Not necessarily - see above.
>
> > Interestingly enough, the Saxon cavalry regulations of the period also
> > provided for a similar extended deployment, even allowable for
kurassiers in
> > certain situations, and intended for use against unformed infantry and
enemy
> > lancers.
> > Given the close historical links that had existed between Saxons, Poles
and
> > Cossacks, there does seem to be some relationship between the cavalry
> > tactics of all three.
> >
> >
> Interesting idea. As I understand it, the "dispersing" side could benefit
> if the individual riders were of a high quality and could be allowed to
> act on their own. Something like the "conventional" (Hungarian style)
> hussars in XVIII.
Indeed.
It was the *range* of artillery guns as opposed to small-arms fire that I
had in mind, not any reference to either the quality or quantity of
artillery present.
Russian? Of course, the equality of the opposition must always be taken into
account, as well as all the other contributing arms, terrain, weather, etc.,
etc., etc. ...
--
cheers,
David Read
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Uzytkownik "Soren Larsen" <wag...@yahoo.dk> napisal w wiadomosci
news:gdi5j0177r7af6u7e...@4ax.com...
Well, they didn't have opinion of teetotalers (e.g Yula holiday) and
faint-hearted souls when came to a battle, which successful end might result
in meeting some women not especially eager to have sex with strangers.
Cheers
Arkadiusz
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> napisał w wiadomości
news:2pf308F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:cgt6cc$8ug$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl...
> >
> <snip>
> > Polsh cavalry horses includin hussars horses were specially trained.
>
> It might come as a shock to you, but cavalry horses elsewhere also
> had special training ;-P
was that horses ued by Polish cavalry in XVII century were trained
specifically and as they had to do complex movements it took quite a time to
prepare s horse for a fight. Vide below
>
> >The training was called 'przy ziemi' - close to the ground. Horses which
> were
> > broke in had to cover path of about 150 meters, last 30 metres in full
> > gallop then they had to turn back 180 degree within a space of a circle
of
> 3
> > meters in diameter.
>
> Which contradicts your statement "joining up knee-to-knee in _full
gallop_".
> And that's the part which I don't believe either.
> Joining up while in fast trot and _then_ going into full gallop, OK.
> But joining up _while_ in full gallop, no.
the tactical unit) gave commad using whistles. Riders turned their horses
back at the same time and withdrew. They could also turn back earlier trying
to ambush enemy forces as Poles did in the batle of Kircholm. Many
descriptions (in praimary sources) of battles speak about repeated attacks
of Polish cavalry units, without an ablilty described above it would have
been impossible. With refernce for that see also in the linked website an
internal link called the battle of Kłuszyn ad the battle of Kircholm
In the link I sent to David and he encolsed it to one of his postes there is
a dscription of such charge with critical reamrks of other person. Polish
cavalry including hussars tactics was flexible and its specific variants
were used depending on situation it refers to a thicknes and depth of a
formation. My previous posts describing hussars charge contain some general
features. here is the link.
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm
>
> <snip>
> > > Ditto for a claim that the pikes _had_ to be broken at a 1st impact.
> >
> > Not pikes ........ for God sake!........ lances. These are two different
> > things. Pike is an infantry weapon. Spears were used Polish pancerni -
> > armoured (they wore mail armour) and Polish light cavalry
> >
> Yep; but the length of the spears ....
> We'll get to that after we've sorted out the horses. ;-)
>
> <snip>
>
> > And at the and.
> > Will you tell me on what grounds are you questioning what I am wrting?
>
> Because we like to quarrel and we like citations.
OK, but doing that it is advisable to obey certain rules for example it is
appeciated to answer for crucial questions and admit for mistakes. Alex
doesn't do neither of these. I quoted some Polish historian statements but
without gaining his respect instead his asked me a naive questtion what are
the sources knowledge of Polish historians implying quite openly that these
are made up stories about an "iron wolf" .
>
> > What do you know, except trite sophismates, about for example battles of
> > Kokenhauzen, Paide, Kircholm, Kluszyn?
> > What are your sources of knowledge about Polish XVI-XVII army?
> >
He doesn' want to tell me even what is his source of knowledge about Polish
army. But it isn't too deep as he mistook battle of Zborowo 1649 with battle
of Beresteczko 1651
> > If am a liar of what quite openly you are accusing me
> <snip>
> Nobody's accusing you of lying.
> Alex is rather blunt in that respect. If he thought you were lying, he
> would have said so explicitly.
>
> The point under discussion is :
> If you can cite a military manual describing joining up knee-to-knee
> _IN FULL GALLOP_, ok.
> Otherwise I believe that they joined up at fast trot and then went into
> full gallop (for the last 30 metres, as you yourself stated above -
> otherwise, the training wouldn't make sense).
> IOW, I guess it's a misunderstanding (sloppy phrasing on your part).
Secondary sources known to me just speak about tightening formation, I don't
know at what stage but it seems logic that at the end of a charge with
purpose of increasing of first thrust force.
Now I can only refer you to the link enclosed above. I don't know if such a
manula even exists because XVII century wasn't a time when military detailed
regulations were widspread. If it exists it must be published in S.
Kutrzeba's book: Polskie ustawy i artykuly wojskowe od XV do XVIII wieku
(Polish military bills and articles XV-XVII centuries). Krakow 1937. As for
now I don't have access to this book because it can be found only in yhe
Library of Polish Academy of Sience in Gdansk
(in the reading room) and I live some 250 km east of Gdansk.
>
> So, just sit back, take a deep breath and relax a little.
I am trying. Heh!
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Your practice of avoiding answers where theu are crucial to the dispute is
even more disqualifying you as a opponent in a dispute. My attitude is
caused by your outrageous behaviour of not admitting to mistakes or lack of
knowledge. You started denying that knee-to knee charge is impossible when
David abcked up muy statement you said nothing just have been pretending
that your point was that it is impossible for charging cavlary to tighten
its ranks. The same thing applies to the issue of hussar lance, which
construction was quite different from knight lance and a shorter lance used
by, for ecample, Polish pancerni (mailed armoured cavalry contemporary to
hussars). Apparently you denied that such thing existed at all, although
some examples of it can be still found in Polish muesums (vide link I sent
you). Not showing a shred of wahtever evidence you insisted that it must
have been a weapon of multiple use, ignoring my explanations based on
reliable secondary sources, which used primary sources, that those lances
were practically disposable and that they were used as thrust weapon at the
beginning of an attack opposite to shorter and lighter lances with which one
can deals blows in different directions. In this case you ignored even
icongraphic soures showing hussars charging with long lances kept under
their armpits. Your persistent denial has been the more outrageous the less
historical competence you showed especially when it came to assessment of
validity of different kinds of sources. Especially naive and thus disarming
was your question about sources of knowledge of Polish military historians.
I gave you their names and in my post dispersed in this therad you may find
some primary sources. You may check them. Here I am also enclosing a link
having litle hope that it will show a good will and study it. There you can
find a lot of information not only about hussars bt about Polish army ov
XVII army as well.
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/PolishHorseArtillery.htm
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Soren Larsen
<arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>
>Uzytkownik "Soren Larsen" <wag...@yahoo.dk> napisal w wiadomosci
>news:gdi5j0177r7af6u7e...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:28:16 +0200, "Arkadiusz Bugaj"
>> <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >What about Vikings? Do I have to kill, rape and burn and drink
>excessively
>> >so as to have right to
>> >write about them?
>>
>> I hope you are not suggesting that the vikings killed, raped, burned
>> and drunk excessively .
>>
>> Amateur viking historians otoh!
>>
>> Cheers
>> Soren Larsen
>
>Well, they didn't have opinion of teetotalers (e.g Yula holiday)
Neither did anybody else this side of Mekka.
> and
>faint-hearted souls when came to a battle,
The killing and burning part was common practise in warfare
even back then - christians and pagans alike.
>which successful end might result
>in meeting some women not especially eager to have sex with strangers.
I can't think of _any _ historical source mentioning raping by
Vikings. ( There are however one or two in legendary tales)
I'm not claiming that it didn't happen, but since most contemporary
sources was written by their victims, then the absense of of
complaints about rape should tell us that they at least wasn't
notorius for it.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik "David Read" <davi...@dreadful.fsnet.co.uk> napisał w
wiadomości news:cgq6fv$veq$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > 1.. Cichowski, Jerzy. Husaria /, Jerzy Cichowski, Andrzej Szulczynski.
> > Wyd. Warszawa : Wydawn. Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej, 1977
> >
> > 2.. Ksiega jazdy polskiej /, [autorzy Boleslaw Wieniawa-Dlugoszowski
...
> > et al.]. Warszawa : [s.n.], 1938
> >
> > 3.. Jasienica, Pawel. Rzeczpospolita obojga narodów. English. The
> > Commonwealth of both nations/, by Pawel Jasienica ; translated by
> Alexander
> > Jordan. Miami : American Institute of Polish Culture ; New York:
> Hippocrene
> > Books, 1987
> >
> > 4.. Rosciszewski, Piotr. Szlak Husarii Polskiej : przewodnik /, Piotr
> > Rosciszewski. Wyd. Gliwice : Polskie Towarzystwo
Turystyczno-Krajoznawcze.
> > Oddzial w Gliwicach, 1984
> >
> > 5.. Microsoft Encarta 2000, keyword: Sobieski
> >
>
> I don't read Polish, but translated quotation or two from some of them
might
> make matters clearer.
>
> --
>
> cheers,
>
> David Read
I will try to find something. bets source supposedly would be a book by S.
Kutrzeba, Polskie ustawy i artykuły wojskowe XV do XVIII w (Polish military
bills and articles XV-XVIII centuries), Kraków 1937 but I don't have access
to this book it is some 250 km from my place of living in the reading room
of Polish Academy of Science Library in Gdansk
I think that llinki I sent you will be also useful and more exshastive than
my quotations.
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Alex
> In article <f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com>,
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >c.a....@durham.ac.uk (C A Candy) wrote in message
> news:<cgqf6a$e...@altair.dur.ac.uk>...
>
> <snip>
> >> I would not use the phrase 'rather privileged' troops in comparison with
> >> anything but your most basic peasant levy. Certainly the English archers
> >> required more in the way of economic support, but they were still drawn
> >> from the yoemanry and commons, not from the aristocracy and gentry.
> >
> >Of course, they were not on the same social level as knights but they
> >were not "ordinary" foot soldiers as well.
>
> Depends on context. As far as England is concerned, you might as well
> call them that, as the mounted archers are what were demanded both for
> contracted forces and in the forces provided by commissions of array.
Two clarifications:
1. I used word 'privileged' in the sense 'elite troops' and strictly in
a military context of this term.
2. I'm not sure that 'mounted archers' is a good term because it is rather
confusing: the Mongols, Tatars, Hunns etc. were mounted archers because
they fought from a horseback. The English archers travelled on a horseback
but fought on foot.
[]
> >And then they suddenly reappeared in the noticeable numbers? I don't
> >think so. I also have difficulties with visualizing all these
> >men-at-arms doing a dirty earthwork during the sieges, etc.
>
> What use is it to ship relatively untrained and unskilled troops to France
> when you can recruit skilled ones of the type you need in roughly the
> numbers you can manage both financially and logistically? The English had
> learned mass simply does not make up for quality, given the system of
> warfare they use. Simply wishing it away doesn't make it any less true.
>
Well, these relatively <whatever> were present in the noticeable numbers
during the WofRoses and I assume that they were professional up to a
certain degree. There were definitely some foot soldiers who were not
the dismounted men at arms.
BTW, your schema does not answer my question: with only elite troops
available, who was doing all the dirty work?
> >> Even horses can be run into the ground and require rest. There is also
> >> the matter of the baggage train, which depending on circumstances and
> >> local supplies can drastically slow an army from its maximum speed.
> >> However, having the army essentially fully mounted gives you far more
> >> tactical flexibility - even if your normal marches are relatively slow, it
> >> can allow you to react far faster to upcoming battles and sieze
> >> appropriate locations for defense.
> >
> >Sorry, but "fully mounted" army is meaningless:
>
> I disagree, else I wouldn't have used the term. Using the Mongol example
> below is somewhat apples to oranges, as the style of fighting and carrying
> on war is very different than the western models. The phrase simply means
> what it says - which was relatively unusual for the time.
>
I see your point but I happen to disagree with it.
> >The Mongols had a fully mounted army and, indeed, they had all extra
> >flexibility and mobility possible. The English habit of having the
> >archers riding the horses (very bad horses, according to de Comnin) did
> >not give their army any visible advantage because in the famous
> >encounters of 100YW it was outmarched and outmaneuvered by the armies
> >that had some foot soldiers (at least in 2 cases out of 3).
>
> Having the capacity does not necessarily mean it is used well or
> appropriately. Also, in many of the cases I'm guessing your thinking of,
> it was to the end of the campaign when the horses would have been as
> exhausted as the men.
Heavy baggage train with a plunder looks like a more realistic explanation
at least at Poitiers.
I don't see a campaigning fatigue as a major factor (was it ever mentioned?)
but absense of a speed advantage is more or less clear. Which leads to
a number of assumptions:
a. "A fully mounted" army English-style did not get any speed advantage
out of this arrangement. Which leads me to an ssumption that the reason was
primary comfort of the archers (as an 'absense of exhaustion") and not a
speed of a march.
b. That there probably was a noticeable foot component, at least in some
of these armies. It may be simply "missed" from the sources as the
rest of the infantry routinely was (one of Paul's favorite topics) due to
its ...er... "insignificance".
>
> The horses were pretty bad - horseflesh was expensive, after all. But
> they weren't to be in the fight, just get the people to it.
Of course, "the horses should be bad so that they can be easily abandoned".
[]
>
> >> As for the crossbowmen marching in the van - surely this has more to do
> >> with initial deployments for battle than simply being marching order.
> >
> >Nice try but no cigars. :-)
>
> I don't smoke, even if I do live in Richmond VA now. :P
>
> >With this marching order the French had been able to outmarch
> >presumably mounted English.
>
> You're assuming that the Genoese were always kept in the van
No, I'm saying that they were in van at Crecy. And in this battle the
French troops entered the battle directly from the march, peacemeal.
> - armies
> don't always march in battle order, after all. While I'm not completely
> taken by the idea, there is Clifford Rogers' thesis that Edward
> was actively seeking battle, so avoiding the fight was the last thing he
> was considering.
>
It is possible but the fight happened at the end of a rather long
retreat. Was he looking for a good position all this time?
> >>No use having the Genoese along if you won't be using them
> >>appropriately.... oh, wait. That's right. :)
> >
> >Which tells something about ability of the French army to maintain any
> >order, including the marching one. :-)
> >
> >Come on. These heavily armoured guys with their heavy horses hardly
> >were an example of a fast-moving ...er.... "mounted army", except perhaps
> >for the very short intervals. I strongly suspect that a reasonably
> >lightly armed infantry could outmarch them.
>
> Perhaps. But Edward III did make some incredibly fast runs through
> Scotland with the same exact type of forces. Much of the speed I suspect
> has to do with the size of forces - the larger it is the slower it moves -
> and the purpose the various commanders are following.
>
Well, we are in an agreement in this even if you did not convince me in an
absense of infantry in the English army. :-)
Arkadiusz Bugaj
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:17:10 +0200, "Arkadiusz Bugaj"
> <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>
> >
> >Uzytkownik "Soren Larsen" <wag...@yahoo.dk> napisal w wiadomosci
> >news:gdi5j0177r7af6u7e...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:28:16 +0200, "Arkadiusz Bugaj"
> >> <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
<snip>
> >Well, they didn't have opinion of teetotalers (e.g Yula holiday)
> Neither did anybody else this side of Mekka.
Everything is just a mater of proportion
> > and aint-hearted souls when came to a battle,
> The killing and burning part was common practise in warfare
> even back then - christians and pagans alike.
But there were reasons for which Vikings were so much feared? Or they
invasions are exaggerated legend?
> >which successful end might result
> >in meeting some women not especially eager to have sex with strangers.
>
> I can't think of _any _ historical source mentioning raping by
> Vikings. ( There are however one or two in legendary tales)
>I'm not claiming that it didn't happen, but since most contemporary
> sources was written by their victims, then the absense of of
> complaints about rape should tell us that they at least wasn't
> notorius for it
Probably lack of such information steems from mediavel inate sense of
decency and delicacy when came to sex matters. Heh
Short look throuhout centuries of history at victorious armies behaviour
with relation to subjugated civilians allows us to claim that Vikings
weren't any exception. If one takes into considereation their overall
reputation argumentatio ex silentio seems to work fine.
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Alex
> Uzytkownik "Alex" <am...@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:f8e58188.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote in message
> news:<cgpjsv$pou$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I saw quite a few of these pictures and the issue is not what is
> depicted
> > > > but who did the painting. You claimed that most of the painters were
> > > > the soldiers and that they were painting things they saw. Burden of
> proof
> is
> > > > on you if you insist on this point.
> > > > OTOH, you may not bother because the lances shown on these paintings
> > > > usually have too small diameter to support your idea about them being
> > > > hollow.
> > >
> > > I sent you links where such a lance is photographed (a few have
> survived)
> > > and described.
> >
> >
> > So we can safely put to rest your claim that most of the Polish painters
> of
> > XVI-XVII were also the soldiers?
>
> I didn't claim that most of them were sldiers but many. All in all it is
> only a mnor problem in the dispute.
OK, once more: name the names of these soldiers-painters. The issue is not
minor because you referenced to their paintings as a 1st hand evidience.
[]
>> As for the "making stories", this is what numerous
> > military historians were/are routinely doing and I don't see why the
> Polish
> > ones have to be exception. Especially when they start on a popular
> national
> > legend.
>
>
> Probably only American historians are those who count from your
> paternalistic point of view.
Now, this IS a moronic assumption because I never on any ocassion referenced
to any AMERICAN historian and not only on this specific subject.
> And something more, have you tried earlier to ridicule and disrepute a whole
> country a few generation output of historians working on their own history
> BY JUST SAYING NO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE?
If what you wrote about the tightening formations on the full gallop is
a product of work of few generations of Polish historians, then surely
a lot of the technocal details are available on how exactly it was done.
You can easily eliminate any existing doubts by quoting the relevant
regulations or by simply producing a detailed description of a process:
surely it was written down if this was a main point of their concerted
effort for few generations and such an important issue for a national
reputation.
OTOH, if you can't do any of the above, I'm forced to assume that your
sources did not actually study the issue and simply repeated the old
stories without any critical thinking.
> Without having any historical background
> and authority?
> What you are doing is eaxctly saying that written Polish
> primary, secondary, icongraphic sources and survived artifacts lie about the
> issue.
Which artifacts and the primary sources described this tightening on a
gallop process?
>Their only flaw is that they aren't widely known in the west,
Their another flaw is that they are not widely known in the East as well.
And if your style of getting berserk and bringing national honor at each
minor dispute is indicative of a whole picture, I can easily imagine why
exactly they are not known: it is boring and rather counterproductive to
deal with the chauvinists.
[]
Actually, I do not. Infantry formation in a final battle of 'Potop' is
a precise reenactment of a pikemen formation of the late XVI: I happen to
see an original engraving. The actors, AFAIK, had learn so-called
'historic fencing': style based on the period's manuals.
The costumes in this movie are very precise. I compared them with the
Polish and western paintings of the period. Some of them, like one of
the costumes of Janosh Radzivill, _was_ copied from his prtrait.
So yes, some valuable information can be extracted from it if you know
what you are looking for.
>
> >
> > > and every source whatever writen or icongraphic needs to
> > > be assessed individually. Eveything what is known about hussaria and you
> are
> > > trying to deny it is based on historic evidence and was worked out by
> > > professional historians.
> >
> > And the knowledge of these historians came from where exactly? How many
> > modern historians have enough 1st hand experience to separate facts from
> > legend and ocassional events from a tactical system?
>
> Are you accusing 4 or 5 generations of Polish historians of being liars?
I see. You don't have any answer to my question and resolve to the usual
demagoguery.
To enlighten you a little bit:
1. It is OK to question writings of the historians (perhaps not in Poland).
2. Usually within few generations historians' views tend to change
dramatically. If they don't, their quality is suspicious.
3. Usually historians of a rather big and historically rich country have
a wide variety of opinions and reference to all of them as a single-minded
entity should be offensive to them. If it is not, their quality is
suspicious.
4. As soon as someone starts relating the writings of the historians with
a national honor and other similar things, this person automatically
falls in a category of the "hurrah patriots".
5. If a national honor and reputation of the local historians is based
solely on a cavalry tactics, all people involved should visit a shrink.
Preferably a foreign one.
Arkadiusz Bugaj
They didn't make it up. It appears from primary written sources. Have you
ever heard about stating the obvious. Why dipte when sth is well
documented. Do American historians quarrel about colour of Union uniforms in
the Civil War?
> You can easily eliminate any existing doubts by quoting the relevant
> regulations or by simply producing a detailed description of a process:
> surely it was written down if this was a main point of their concerted
> effort for few generations and such an important issue for a national
> reputation.
I don't know if such regulations even existed It was XVII century a teh time
there weren't many regulations. Most of military knowledg was practical one.
You may only find descriptions in narrative sources or military teratises.
You stil thinking in ahistoric modern categories.
> OTOH, if you can't do any of the above, I'm forced to assume that your
> sources did not actually study the issue and simply repeated the old
> stories without any critical thinking.
>
>
> > Without having any historical background
> > and authority?
> > What you are doing is eaxctly saying that written Polish
> > primary, secondary, icongraphic sources and survived artifacts lie about
the
> > issue.
>
> Which artifacts and the primary sources described this tightening on a
> gallop process?
There are no contemprary artifacts for galloping formation of troopds dating
back 300 years. Although you seem to want such thing. Another Mosfilm
Regiment?
>
> >Their only flaw is that they aren't widely known in the west,
Do you know Russian? Turkish? Ukrainian? Lithuanian? Hungarian? May be
German?
On what grounds you assert that these things aren't known in Central Europe?
Have you read Swedish works? For example Lars Tersmeden?Arne Stade? Axela
Norberga may be Ingvar Andersson, History of Sweden.
You could at least read Michael Roberts, Gustavus Adolphus. A history of
Sweden 1611-1632, vo. 1-2, London-New York-Toronto 1952-1958; a lot of
references about Polish cavalry.
>
> Their another flaw is that they are not widely known in the East as well.
> And if your style of getting berserk and bringing national honor at each
> minor dispute is indicative of a whole picture, I can easily imagine why
> exactly they are not known: it is boring and rather counterproductive to
> deal with the chauvinists.
Yeah calling names is best solution when run out of arguments. Argumentum ad
personam is not valid. Sir I can even be an Al Quaeda member and I still
have right to be right. Hehe
>
> >
> > You must be kidding
>
> Actually, I do not. Infantry formation in a final battle of 'Potop' is
> a precise reenactment of a pikemen formation of the late XVI: I happen to
> see an original engraving. The actors, AFAIK, had learn so-called
> 'historic fencing': style based on the period's manuals.
> The costumes in this movie are very precise. I compared them with the
> Polish and western paintings of the period. Some of them, like one of
> the costumes of Janosh Radzivill, _was_ copied from his prtrait.
> So yes, some valuable information can be extracted from it if you know
> what you are looking for.
What can I say? You must be kidding. Any film cannot be a serious source of
knowledge for a professional historian
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > and every source whatever writen or icongraphic needs to
> > > > be assessed individually. Eveything what is known about hussaria and
you
> > are
> > > > trying to deny it is based on historic evidence and was worked out
by
> > > > professional historians.
> > >
> > > And the knowledge of these historians came from where exactly? How
many
> > > modern historians have enough 1st hand experience to separate facts
from
> > > legend and ocassional events from a tactical system?
> >
> > Are you accusing 4 or 5 generations of Polish historians of being liars?
>
> I see. You don't have any answer to my question and resolve to the usual
> demagoguery.
I can only repeat:
Your arrogancy is unlimited. If you don't belive make an effort and learn
> some Polish then read some books, strongly recommend promary
sources-forget
> films, and decide what is a legend what is the true. You will also need
some
> Latin as some of those backward Poles knew this language and used it ij
> writting.
> Have you ever heard about techinques of historcal research|? Probably not
> becuse you cannot lead dispute ina proper way.
> As I said earlier XVI and XVII century it weren't medieval ages and there
> are a lot primary sources which depict Polish army of the time. BTW you
> don't have to be a rider to be a military historian. Military practice of
> XVII century was much different from XIX and XX century.
>
> To enlighten you a little bit:
Enlightment was in Europe in XVIII century
> 1. It is OK to question writings of the historians (perhaps not in
Poland).
So as to question anything you have to have at least a shred of knowledge.
You don't have. You dont evenwant to tell what kind of source obout Polish
army of XVII century you have at hand. Is it Russian Short history of
Poland?
> 2. Usually within few generations historians' views tend to change
> dramatically. If they don't, their quality is suspicious.
When issue is disputable. If it is well documented it would be stupid to
quarrel. They read primary sources and know wht there is.
> 3. Usually historians of a rather big and historically rich country have
> a wide variety of opinions and reference to all of them as a single-minded
> entity should be offensive to them. If it is not, their quality is
> suspicious.
Above.
> 4. As soon as someone starts relating the writings of the historians with
> a national honor and other similar things, this person automatically
> falls in a category of the "hurrah patriots".
I didn't treat this in the category of national honour I only contradicted
your opinions (BASED ON WHAT?) and rather coherent point of view of
professional historians on certain issues you are trying to deny.
> 5. If a national honor and reputation of the local historians is based
> solely on a cavalry tactics, all people involved should visit a shrink.
> Preferably a foreign one.
Above. And once more argumentum ad personam (name calling- vulgariter
nuncupatur). Going to a shrink is an American specialite de la maison. I
wouldn't spent a penny on vulgarised version of behaviourism. eh.
AND TELL ME IN THE END> WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT POLISH XVII
CENTURY ARMY?
Film reviews 1980-2000 issues?
Cheers
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Arkadiusz Bugaj
A lot of information about.
Page dedicated to husaria tactics contains paintings of Peter Sayers
showing battle of Kircholm 1605.
BTW How, in your opinion, Poles won the battle of Kircholm or Kluszyn? How
would you explain this?
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm
Michael Kuettner
Maybe "knee to knee" was dependant on the type of ground the riders
were galloping over ?
And on the country ?
Taking Arkadiusz' claim of joining up in gallop and your cite gave me a
different
picture of Polish knee to knee.
Leaving at most 1.5 metres from rider to rider could be done in full gallop.
> > PS : I haven't looked at the link because usually you
> > extract the relevant points. Should I have a look ?
>
> Probably. The translator's own comments are interesting, too.
>
Thanks.
I'll have a look.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
David Read
>
> Maybe "knee to knee" was dependant on the type of ground the riders
> were galloping over ?
> And on the country ?
> Taking Arkadiusz' claim of joining up in gallop and your cite gave me a
> different
> picture of Polish knee to knee.
> Leaving at most 1.5 metres from rider to rider could be done in full
gallop.
Or perhaps the husaria had very chubby knees...
--
cheers,
David Read
Soren Larsen
news:cgvbul$l3v$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl
> Uzytkownik "Soren Larsen" <wag...@yahoo.dk> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:ala6j0lqe2h0sviri...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:17:10 +0200, "Arkadiusz Bugaj"
>> <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Uzytkownik "Soren Larsen" <wag...@yahoo.dk> napisal w wiadomosci
>>> news:gdi5j0177r7af6u7e...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:28:16 +0200, "Arkadiusz Bugaj"
>>>> <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Well, they didn't have opinion of teetotalers (e.g Yula holiday)
>> Neither did anybody else this side of Mekka.
>
> Everything is just a mater of proportion
Indeed
Can you provide evidence that Vikings drank proportional
more alcohol than say germans, english etc?
>
>
>>> and aint-hearted souls when came to a battle,
>> The killing and burning part was common practise in warfare
>> even back then - christians and pagans alike.
>
> But there were reasons for which Vikings were so much feared? Or they
> invasions are exaggerated legend?
I certainly dont think they were successful because they drank a lot.
Total superiority at sea otoh provided them with protection
of their Scandinavian homeland and the mobility to strike
where their opponents were weak.
>
>
>>> which successful end might result
>>> in meeting some women not especially eager to have sex with
>>> strangers.
>>
>> I can't think of _any _ historical source mentioning raping by
>> Vikings. ( There are however one or two in legendary tales)
>> I'm not claiming that it didn't happen, but since most contemporary
>> sources was written by their victims, then the absense of of
>> complaints about rape should tell us that they at least wasn't
>> notorius for it
>
> Probably lack of such information steems from mediavel inate sense of
> decency and delicacy when came to sex matters.
Early medievals do not demonstrate any inate sense of "decency
and delicacy" when it comes to sex. They are otoh pretty straight
forward about what is kosher and what isn't.
Neither are they afraid of subjects like the crimes of pagans.
>eh
> Short look throuhout centuries of history at victorious armies
> behaviour with relation to subjugated civilians allows us to claim.
> that Vikings weren't any exception.
Probably not.
But your claim was that the vikings raped 'excessively'!
Even their victims didn't mention rape among their sins.
So if you have no other source than the general experience
of victorious armies, why single out the viking for 'excessive'
raping?
> If one takes into considereation
> their overall reputation argumentatio ex silentio seems to work fine.
Ahem! The ex silentio argument works against your claim.
BTW I can be a bit touchy when the old viking stereotypes appear on
shm since this is the place to get rid of them.
You may have discovered that ;-)
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Sheila J
An aside, but speaking of chubby knees....
In our family that is very definately a genetic trait...
In all seriousness.....is there any biological reason for this?
My family is Danish, with a wee bit of Lithuania Jew thrown in....
Did it serve any purpose? Why does it keep showing up?
My boys are toothpicks with the largest knees you will ever come
across.....surely there is a purpose?
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Użytkownik "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> napisał w wiadomości
news:2ph5lvF...@uni-berlin.de...
> "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:cgvbul$l3v$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl
> > Uzytkownik "Soren Larsen" <wag...@yahoo.dk> napisal w wiadomosci
> > news:ala6j0lqe2h0sviri...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:17:10 +0200, "Arkadiusz Bugaj"
> >> <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Uzytkownik "Soren Larsen" <wag...@yahoo.dk> napisal w wiadomosci
> >>> news:gdi5j0177r7af6u7e...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:28:16 +0200, "Arkadiusz Bugaj"
> >>>> <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> Well, they didn't have opinion of teetotalers (e.g Yula holiday)
> >> Neither did anybody else this side of Mekka.
> >
> > Everything is just a mater of proportion
>
> Indeed
>
> Can you provide evidence that Vikings drank proportional
> more alcohol than say germans, english etc?
As you know any such comparison because of non existing data is rather hard
to do. It would require a lot of searching to cover such topic as drinking
habits Europeans had in VIII-XI century
>
> >
> >
> >>> and aint-hearted souls when came to a battle,
> >> The killing and burning part was common practise in warfare
> >> even back then - christians and pagans alike.
> >
> > But there were reasons for which Vikings were so much feared? Or they
> > invasions are exaggerated legend?
>
> I certainly dont think they were successful because they drank a lot.
No I didn't say that. I wanted to point that they had belligerent people who
stirred up fear all over Northern Europe. My question was :Why was that
possible without ... hm, I don't wanna touch you, exact behaviour. They
certainly couldn't behave like a 40 martyrs. Aren't they?
>
> Total superiority at sea otoh provided them with protection
> of their Scandinavian homeland and the mobility to strike
> where their opponents were weak.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>> which successful end might result
> >>> in meeting some women not especially eager to have sex with
> >>> strangers.
> >>
> >> I can't think of _any _ historical source mentioning raping by
> >> Vikings. ( There are however one or two in legendary tales)
> >> I'm not claiming that it didn't happen, but since most contemporary
> >> sources was written by their victims, then the absense of of
> >> complaints about rape should tell us that they at least wasn't
> >> notorius for it
> >
> > Probably lack of such information steems from mediavel inate sense of
> > decency and delicacy when came to sex matters.
>
> Early medievals do not demonstrate any inate sense of "decency
> and delicacy" when it comes to sex. They are otoh pretty straight
> forward about what is kosher and what isn't.
>
> Neither are they afraid of subjects like the crimes of pagans.
>
>
> >eh
> > Short look throuhout centuries of history at victorious armies
> > behaviour with relation to subjugated civilians allows us to claim.
> > that Vikings weren't any exception.
>
> Probably not.
> But your claim was that the vikings raped 'excessively'!
No I said, may be to hastily, that they drank excessively. At least my
intention was to realte an adverb 'excessively' to a verb 'drink'
> Even their victims didn't mention rape among their sins.
> So if you have no other source than the general experience
> of victorious armies, why single out the viking for 'excessive'
> raping?
>
> > If one takes into considereation
> > their overall reputation argumentatio ex silentio seems to work fine.
>
> Ahem! The ex silentio argument works against your claim.
You noted that they rape was usual practice of medieval and I think not only
medieval ) war so when it comes to rape I am pretty sure they raped the
more, the more they conquered. As they conquered a lot so .............
As to sources remaining silent maybe they didn't notice Viking s rapes
becuse it was so usual those days. I don't know but teher are many reasons
for omitting cartain pices information. For example Teutonic Knights and
Polish sources of XIII-XV century don't report rapes their enemies too, at
least now, writting from the top of my head, I cannot cite any such a case.
But they often report abduction of people mainly mulieribus et minores. May
be a rape wasn't worth reporting as loss had no material value? I don't know
may be you will come up with sth reasonable?
> BTW I can be a bit touchy when the old viking stereotypes appear on
> shm since this is the place to get rid of them.
Can see that. But OK, so what were they like? What is the new sterotype?
> You may have discovered that ;-)
Yeah, I have already noticed
Arkadiusz Bugaj
David Read
"Sheila J" <wolse...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:VJJYc.260378$M95.143828@pd7tw1no...
Hmmm...
Could be.
Danish on one side, Lithuanian Jewish on the other. Like the husaria, your
ancestors were literally Poles apart...
Well --- someone had to say it...
--
cheers,
David Read
Arkadiusz Bugaj
Jews didn't fight. They weren't even allowed
Cheers
Arkadiusz
Soren Larsen
> Użytkownik "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> napisał w wiadomości
> news:2ph5lvF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> "Arkadiusz Bugaj" <arca...@gazeta.pl> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:cgvbul$l3v$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl
>>> Uzytkownik "Soren Larsen" <wag...@yahoo.dk> napisal w wiadomosci
>>> news:ala6j0lqe2h0sviri...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 14:17:10 +0200, "Arkadiusz Bugaj"
>>>> <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Uzytkownik "Soren Larsen" <wag...@yahoo.dk> napisal w wiadomosci
>>>>> news:gdi5j0177r7af6u7e...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:28:16 +0200, "Arkadiusz Bugaj"
>>>>>> <arca...@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Well, they didn't have opinion of teetotalers (e.g Yula holiday)
>>>> Neither did anybody else this side of Mekka.
>>>
>>> Everything is just a mater of proportion
>>
>> Indeed
>>
>> Can you provide evidence that Vikings drank proportional
>> more alcohol than say germans, english etc?
>
> As you know any such comparison because of non existing data is
> rather hard to do. It would require a lot of searching to cover such
OTOH do I doubt that there was large differences in the quantity
of grain that could be used for brewing since the agricultural
systems were similar in north western europe.
If we look at the attitudes towards excessive drinking in the
north then the havamál is pretty clear:
A better load none carries off
Than mother-wit can be
No worse provision can you take on your way
Than a skinful of ale
Not as good as they say it is
Is ale for the sons of men.
For the more he drinks the less he knows
Of his mind, that man.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> and aint-hearted souls when came to a battle,
>>>> The killing and burning part was common practise in warfare
>>>> even back then - christians and pagans alike.
>>>
>>> But there were reasons for which Vikings were so much feared? Or
>>> they invasions are exaggerated legend?
>>
>> I certainly dont think they were successful because they drank a lot.
> No I didn't say that. I wanted to point that they had belligerent
> people who stirred up fear all over Northern Europe. My question was
> :Why was that possible without ... hm, I don't wanna touch you, exact
> behaviour. They certainly couldn't behave like a 40 martyrs. Aren't
> they?
Neither did any other army.
The vikings however had two things going against them
1) They were pagans at the onset of the viking wars.
2) Against all traditional rules it was the christian loosers who got
to write most of the history .
OK
>
>> Even their victims didn't mention rape among their sins.
>> So if you have no other source than the general experience
>> of victorious armies, why single out the viking for 'excessive'
>> raping?
>>
>>> If one takes into considereation
>>> their overall reputation argumentatio ex silentio seems to work
>>> fine.
>>
>> Ahem! The ex silentio argument works against your claim.
>
> You noted that they rape was usual practice of medieval and I think
> not only medieval ) war so when it comes to rape I am pretty sure
> they raped the more, the more they conquered. As they conquered a lot
> so .............
What is the first trait that comes to your mind when you think of the very
succesful Polish Hussars?
> As to sources remaining silent maybe they didn't notice Viking s rapes
> becuse it was so usual those days.
Usual or unusual; the vikings didn't stand out.
> I don't know but teher are many
> reasons for omitting cartain pices information. For example Teutonic
> Knights and Polish sources of XIII-XV century don't report rapes
> their enemies too, at least now, writting from the top of my head, I
> cannot cite any such a case. But they often report abduction of
> people mainly mulieribus et minores. May be a rape wasn't worth
> reporting as loss had no material value? I don't know may be you will
> come up with sth reasonable?
It is my understanding that rape foremost was considered a crime against
property and that it could be compensated with money.
>
>> BTW I can be a bit touchy when the old viking stereotypes appear on
>> shm since this is the place to get rid of them.
>
> Can see that. But OK, so what were they like? What is the new
> sterotype?
The two most popular after the drinking and raping berserkers:
Peaceful traders that got tempted beyond reason and went on a looting spree
all over western Europe without being stopped by the locals.
Peaceful farmers that once a year for generations without training,
organisation or military
experience went to France, England and Germany and there surpriced and beat
the local trained
forces.
Take your pick.
Alternatively you might accept that there was many sides to the vikings.
>
>> You may have discovered that ;-)
>
> Yeah, I have already noticed
Cheers
Soren Larsen