"Any errors in Brzezinski's Osprey Polish winged hussar?" Topic

He has his sycophants, doesn't he? Puts me in mind of someone else

BTW

link

Which country has a yard longer than a metre?

Can't help, I know almost nothing about eastern European soldiery

I do find mr cegorach's 'research' a bit disconcerting – he never mentions sources.

Always a tiny bit suspicious that, maybe someone should enquire what they are? Even if they are in Polish :0)

'cegorach' seems a bit arrogant, himself. He also took it upon himself to republish certain Osprey plates …

You threw out a bucket of chum for "nationalists or romanticists", and surprise! One jumped into the boat. No big deal. I'd just ignore him: he's hyperbolic, his English is not nuanced, he's got a chip on his shoulder. Nothing but trouble.

Allen

In my opinion Brzezinski's booklet, given the limitation of Osprey booklets, is the first unbiased, objective treatment of this subject. It is stripped of nationalitic agenda that seems to permeate most discussions of Polish Hussars. It is curious, although by no means unusual, that most Polish writers seem to concentrate on the victories, while ignoring all of the defeats. Most of the illustrious Hussars were destroyed by the Cossacks during the rebellion 1648- 1654.

I also find it curious, but understandable knowing who cegorach is, that all non-Polish sources are biased, while Polish sources are not. One has to take his ranting with a grain of salt.

I would ignore him from right after the "you may be new to the historical period…" comment.

There are a lot more horse's asses in the world than there are horses.

Condottieri,

You can't win with this guy. No matter how reasoned your argument, he will ignore it. There will be no end to it. I recommend you just drop it.

"AFAIK, Brzezinski is Polish and most of the selected primary and secondary sources are in Polish…"

Yep.

'…I don't want to give him the satisfaction of being the "winner."'

"You can't win with this guy."

I'm with Stenbock. It's a cultural thing, too. If you could meet the guy in person, he'd probably be your best buddy after the first bottle of wodka. But as long as he has a partisan position to maintain, you'll never convince im otherwise.

Allen

"In my opinion Brzezinski's booklet, given the limitation of Osprey booklets, is the first unbiased, objective treatment of this subject. It is stripped of nationalitic agenda that seems to permeate most discussions of Polish Hussars. It is curious, although by no means unusual, that most Polish writers seem to concentrate on the victories, while ignoring all of the defeats. Most of the illustrious Hussars were destroyed by the Cossacks during the rebellion 1648- 1654."

Stenbock,

While I will agree with you that given the limitations of the Osprey format Brzezinski has produced a objective work that try's to set straighter the historical record. Unfortunately you follow that point by suggesting that the Polish writers ignore "all the defeats". First, there weren't that many significant defeats…in order evaluate the performance of the Polish winged hussars you cannot consider their battle performance outside larger issues such as leadership, tactial deployment and the relative size of the forces engaged. Any given battle is ultimately determined by some combination of those factors.

"Most of the illustrious Hussars were destroyed by the Cossacks during the rebellion 1648- 1654."

That statement is both a generalization and wrong. The Cossacks had some success during the rebellion, usually because of poor leadership of the Polish leaders, bad tactical deployment or overwhelming enemy forces, or some combination of the three. Without support from the Tatars, Turks or Russians the Cossacks would have been overwhelmed.

db

As long as the pictures are pretty and colourful,

Tally Ho!

Pancerni,

Ok. Pretty dogmatic don't you think?. Why so angry? What do you consider a significant defeat? At the time of the Swedish invasion in 1655 there were only about 900 Hussars left in the Polish Crown Army. I would consider the defeat at Yellow River and Korsun to be significant. You say that the "The Cossacks had some success during the rebellion". I would call it more than "some success". The Poles lost considerable portions of the Ukraine, which they were never able to reconquer. You state that "Without support from the Tatars, Turks or Russians the Cossacks would have been overwhelmed. A subjective opinion at best; although you are certainly entitled to it. Finally, you stated that "usually because of poor leadership of the Polish leaders, bad tactical deployment or overwhelming enemy forces, or some combination of the three." Aren't these factors that usually lead to defeat in any battle? My main point is that one needs to be objective when dealing with Polish Hussars. They were not the invincible force that many would have us believe. Yes, they were a superb fighting force, and man for man were probably better than their opponents, but they were dinosaurs by the middle of the 17th Century who were becoming increasing incapable of dealing with Western opponents, i.e. Swedes. While combined arms tactics were being developed and used in the West, the Poles and their Hussars still clung on to outdated tactics and never truly developed a combined arms approach.

There are practical reasons for the lack of hussar successes post 1620. Not much mention is ever made of the disaster at Cecora (the Polish 'Rocroi') where a polish army was destroyed by the Turks – prior to this, Poland could field up to 5,000 or so hussars, after this, they numbered in the hundreds, and Frost in his Northern Wars book indicates that by the time the Gustavus invaded Prussia in the later 1620's, the remaining hussars were less experienced and probably not of the same quality.

This should be kept in mind in battles such as teh battle of Warsaw in 1656, where there were only about 900 or so hussars, but the Swedes and Brandenburgers fielded 12,500 reiters between them. Even then, an unsupported charge by hussars broke through the first line of reiters, even though outnmbered – and the battle is seen by many as evidence that hussars were past their use by date.

I would like to have seen this issue addressed by Brzezinski, as I think a historian should look to all factors.

Stenbock,

Let me answer this from my other account…I am neither angry nor dogmatic…I'm not sure why you note that there were only 900 hussars left in 1655…after 7 years of almost constant warfare and civil war the Polish army was indeed worn down.

The converse of my arguement about poor leadership and deployment is that when properly led and with even numbers, the Polish cavalry, not just hussars, were difficult to defeat. They taught Adolphus everything he came to know about the use of cavalry, lessons he put to good use in the west.

Yellow River was a defeat born of treachery…the smaller Polish force fought the Cossacks to a standstill and then once an armistace was concluded that would allow the Poles to withdraw the Tartar bullied their Cossack allies into allowing them to ambush and butcher the Poles. Korsun was a perfect example of poor leadership and flawed tactical deployment. I could list the subsequent Polish victories but that would be tedious.

Dinosaurs by the middle of the 17th century…I don't think so. Once they overcame their political divisions they were able to drive the Swedes out of Poland and then went on to defeat the Russians and Turks over the next 30 years, culminating with the Austrian emperor relying on the Poles to save him and ultimately Western Europe from the last great Turkish threat when they broke the siege of Vienna.

Unfortunately the military history of the Poles from that point on is more a failure of political will than military skill.

db

Mellechovich,

Well, while I should be painting, Poles and Turks coincidentally, I can't let your selective listing of Polish military history go unanswered. Setting aside the Polish successes prior to 1620, which you choose as a point of departure, let's summarize a more complete history of the next 60 or so years.

In 1621 the Polish cavalry was successfully defending the trenches near Khotin against those very Turks that beat them at Cecora.

1629 sees the Poles fighting Adophus to a standstill and then destroying the Swedish cavalry at Trzciana. In 1632-33 a Polish army, composed for the first time with significant numbers of dragoons and pike/shot infantry break the seige of Smolensk and force the Russians to surrender. In 1637 the Poles put down another Cossack insurection and in 1644 they defeat the Tartars. In 1649 the Polish cavalry fights inside and outside the trenches to defeat the Cossacks and Tartars at Zbarazh and in 1651 they crush the Cossacks and Tartars at Beresteczko. While fighting the rebellious Cossacks the Poles defeat the Muscovites at Ochmatow in 1655. At Warsaw, as you note the small number of hussars break the first line and while the Tartars, now Polish allies, attack the rear, the Polish nobles who are arguing again, fail to exploit the opportunity and the Poles retreat. At Prostki, 2656 a Polish-Tartar army beats the Swedish-Brandenburg defenders. In 1658 Czarniecki's cavalry captures the Swedish island of Alsen. The Poles defeat the Russians in 1660 at Cudnow and Polonka and on and on….

A couple of things to note in describing the small numbers of hussars over the course of the 17th century. First, they were very, very expense to maintain and pancerni, while not as heavily armored, were more flexible and ultimately a better investment. Their numbers and the number of dragoons increased over the period at the expense of the hussars due to economics rather than devestating battefield losses. Second, focusing just on the royal army ignores the reality that most of the Polish armed forces during periods of crisis were not royal troops but the private armies of the nobles. Once mobilized these private armies provided the bulk of the cavalry, including the hussars. As the cost of the care and feeding of hussars increased the nobles economized with pancerni and dragoons.

db

Condottiere, you review far excelled anything Cegorach wrote. Good grief, everyone knows the hussars were only great because they didn't have to fight good Dutch pikes. ?)

As for Cegorach, he wrote a part of a computer game for heck sake. It's not like he ever took the effort to publish anything (not that he indicated anyway). I have no idea of his historical credentials.But I am not impressed with his comments. It is quite clear that what set him off was Richard's introduction. He makes all this blustering noise with no fire. He is not specific on anything. In fact, a close reading of his objections shows that he read the introduction and the bibliography. From his comments there is little evidence he even read the booklet.

His comment about better detailed books in Poland, well duh. Cegorach didn't even stop to consider the format Osprey forced Richard to work in. All he wanted to do was have his little tantrum.

He betrays his Polish jingism: "It is one of those few units which were almost invincible for at least 100 years." No disrespect to those who greatly admire the Hussaria. I do also. However, you must place them in their time and space, especially space. They were the greatest steppe army of their time. Nevertheless, they would not have done well in Italy, France, the Low Countries, western Germany. They had success because of who they were AND where they fought. The two cannot be separated.

I didn't find anything in his comments worthy of a reply. Of course that doesn't mean you don't have to. It all depends on how twisted your sense of fun is. Of course I have never stooped to such levels but I have heard it can be fun. But don't tell anyone that I said that.

Rich

Pancerni, Oldnorthstate, et al:

I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. In fact, it has pulled me out of my winter lethargy. Nevertheless, I don't believe any further discussion will move either of us off our position. We can both continue to cite battles ad nauseum, but to no avail. I failed to follow my own advice (see above).

But to clarify, I used the figure of 900 to show the tremendous losses suffered by the Hussars as a result of the defeats during the Cossack Rebellion, and to show that the simple presence of Hussars in an army did not guarantee victory. They were not the invincible force many would have us believe. They were also not instrumental in the war with Sweden. Someone mentioned Warsaw and how 900 Hussars broke through the first line of the Brandenburg-Swedish Army and then compared 900 Hussars to 12,500 reiters. First, the fact that a cavalry force broke through the first line of an opponents force is not that unusual, and second, 900 Hussars did not face 12,500 opposing cavalry. I believe the Polish-Lithuanian Army number some 40,000 of which the overwhelming majority was mounted. Here we have an example of the Poles outnumbering their opponents, and still not being able to defeat them. Was this treachery or poor leadership also?

Yes, the Poles and Lithuanians were able to recover most of their land from the Swedes by 1660; however, this was accomplished by pancerni and light cavalry without the vaunted Hussars, along with a healthy dose of Imperial Austrian military support. One also has to remember that from 1657 onward, Carl X Gustav's attention (and obsession) was elsewhere – Denmark. In fact, the Poles should be grateful to the Danes for taking the heat off them.

To get back to the question that sparked this thread, Brzezinski's Osprey booklet on the Hussars is, in my opinion, fair and balanced, given the limitations imposed by Osprey. It also does a good job in debunking the myth of the Hussar.

It's snowing outside, 12+" expected. Life is good. It is too nice a day to be overly concerned about Polish Hussars. Again, thanks for a good, lively discussion.

P.S. Pancerni, why two personas?

Stenbock,

I agree we'll not come to complete agreement on this topic. As far as the Danes go, the Poles did not need their intervention to drive the Swedes of of Poland. The pancerni and dragoons, along with a popular uprising was enough. Ironically, the Danes got their noses bloodied by the Swedes while Czarniecki was capturing Swedish territory.

I don't necessarily understand the statement about "debunking the myth of the hussars". What myth…that they were invinceable? They were not invinceable everywhere and everytime, but properly led, they were, man for man, the best cavalry in Europe, eastern or western, in the early to mid 17th century.

The real myth is that there were huge gobs of them in the Polish army. The reality, during the 17th century, is that they never made up more than 20% of the total force, unless it was a small task force, and their numbers continued to decline as the century worn on. The reasons for the decline are varied, battle losses, 50 years of almost constant warfare against someone, limited time to train replacements and most importantly, they were just too damn expensive to raise and maintain, particularly after the years of warfare bankrupted the state and nobles.

db

The island of Als or Alsen is located in Denmark, not Sweden at it was of little significance andf thus heald only by a weak garrison when Czarnecki landed with much larger force. Czarneckis 'liberators' soon distinguised themselves in Denmark by being so rapacaious and violent that the local authorities wished for the return of the Swedes!

As for the supposed destruction of the Swedish cavalry at Honigfelde/Trzciana it's another of those myths spead by Polish historians to this day despite being contradicted by an overwhelming amount of evidence. The muster rolls form before and after the battle survive in the Swedish War archive and clearly show that between 580 to 630 troopers out of a force of 5500 were captured or killed in the battle. I.e a loss of 10.5% to 11.5% of the commited force, by comparison the victorious Poles lost about 6% of their force.

Captain Gars,

I have no doubt you are correct in the first case…the important point being Czarnecki's force swam to the island…

As for Trzciana, the word "destruction" does not necessarily imply captured or killed, but the rending of the cavalry incapable of resisting…Adolphus was forced to sacrifice his cavalry, which was not match for the Polish cavalry, in order to save his infantry.

db

The supposed sacrifice is just as much myth as the alledged destruction, the infantry was never threatend by the Poles or Imperials. Hence no need for any sacrfice.
Playing around with semantics will not change the hard facts about Honigfelde
1. The Swedish cavalry wasn't 'destroyed'.
2. Nor was it rendered incapable of resistance, had it been incapable of resisting it would have lost more heavily than it did.
3. It was definitely a match for the Polish cavalry under most but not all circumstances. At Honigfelde it was Von Arnims Imperial Cuirassiers which decided the battle, not the Polish cavalry which was thrown back no less than 3 times during the battle by their Swedish counterparts.

A study of the other battles durign the 1620's reniforces the fact that the claim the Swedish cavalry was not match for the Polish cavalry has no support what so ever in the primary sources.

The Kozacky who made up a significant part of the Polish cavalry hade proved bo be inadequat against the Swedish cavalry as is proved by Polish letters from the time. (Prince Zbaraski)
The Hussaria still retained an advantage in the inital impact due to their lances and furious charge. But once the lances were expended much of their superiority was gone.

At Dirschau the Hussaria enjoyed some success against the native swedish cavalry and routed a couple of suqadrons only to be routed themselves in return as Erik Soop's reserve squadron went into battle. On the other flank the Poles made no imperssion what so ever on Wrangel's German cuirassiers.

At Gorzno much of the vaunted Hussaria were broken and routed by a single charge by the Rhinecounts German Reiters.

To the battles in Prussia one could add the Livonian battles of Wallhof, 1626, Drobbusch 1626 and Erlaa, Wenden and Lemsal (all fought in 1628) in which the Swedish cvalry also proved to be a match, indeed more than a match for the Polish cavalry.

I think the previous quote in this thread: "You can't win with this guy. No matter how reasoned your argument, he will ignore it. There will be no end to it. I recommend you just drop it." applies to the growing number of pro-Swedish posters on this thread as well.

The reality is that the number of hussars from the 1620's onwards were not significant, especially where battles were getting much larger and hussars were getting even fewer. Any wins or losses of the polish army would be difficult to credit or blame on the hussars.

It would be like blaming the 200 lancer bodyguard of Wallenstein in the battle of Lutzen for the loss, ie, the Imperials failed to beat the Swedes, the imperials had lancers (albiet 200), therefore the lancers are rubbish.

It is an error in logic.

My Dear Mellechovich,

Thank you. You have proven my point, "You can't win with this guy. No matter how reasoned your argument, he will ignore it. There will be no end to it. I recommend you just drop it." Also, just because one disagrees with the Hussar myth or doesn't agree with Polish interpretation of events, does not make one "pro-Swedish" or pro any other nationality. It does mean, that one is trying to be objective and balanced, giving credit where it is due. Something that I find is missing with the Polish supporters.

A few other points. First, no one blamed the Polish defeat at Warsaw on the Hussars. You are reading something that is not there. You made the statement that 900 Hussars broke through the Swedish-Brandenburg first line. I merely pointed out that that event was not unusual in the annals of warfare. The Hussar charge momentum was absorbed, the second line stopped the charge, and supporting troops, and the Hussars were forced to retreat. An opportunity lost for the Poles? Probably.

Second, it was you who wrote that, "there were only about 900 or so hussars, but the Swedes and Brandenburgers fielded 12,500 reiters between them". I merely pointed out that your comparison was incorrect and gave a false impression. There were indeed only about 900 Hussars, but there were some 35,000 additional Polish, Lithuanian and Tartar cavalry present.

Finally, I never said that the Hussars were trash. If you take the time to reread the posts, you will see I said that, man for man, they were probably better than their opponents. On the other hand, I have noticed that the Poles very seldom give any credit to their opponents' abilities. Polish defeats are attributed to being "outnumbered", to treachery or poor leadership. It's as if the conduct and abilities of their opponents are irrelevant.

I do see where Oldnorthstate has gone to Zagloba's Tavern link to get reinforcements for his argument. It looks like this thread will continue for a long while.

1609, Muscovy
5,556 hussars, 1,670 Cossack cavalry, 4,700 infantry (including a regiment of 1,500 western mercenaries), 700 Hungarians, 500 wybraniecka infantry, 400 guard, the rest were mostly Polish mercenaries with some private units) and 5,000 Zaporozhian Cossacks.

1621, Vs Turks
8,280 hussars, 8,200 Cossack cavalry, 1,400 Lisowski cavalry, 2,160 western cavalry, 6,800 Polish infantry, 5,800 western infantry, 800 Hungarian infantry and 20-30,000 Zaporozhian Cossacks.

1627, Vs Swedes
2,150 hussars, 3,290 Cossack cavalry, 2,515 western infantry, 1,620 Polish infantry, 1,265 dragoons and 2,000 Zaporozhian Cossacks.

1633, Muscovy
3,120 hussars, 4,260 Cossack cavalry, 1,700 western cavalry, 10,500 western infantry, 1,040 dragoons, 2,200 Polish infantry and a few thousand Zaporozhian infantry.

1634, Vs Turks
12,180 cavalry (including 4,180 hussars), 7,500 Polish infantry (large number of private troops), 5,500 western infantry, 3,460 dragoons and 16,000 Zaporozhian Cossacks.

Notes:

Cossack cavalry comprises medium and light Polish cavalry but can also include other light cavalry in small numbers.
'Western troops' are generally German mercenaries pre-1633 and foreign section troops later.
link

The above shows clearly that the number of hussars fielded in both the 1620's and 1630's was significant.

Captain Gars,

I wouldn't think that the source of jasinski.co.uk would be reliable in terms of giving numbers of hussars. Some of the numbers quoted would seem to be in the realms of fantasy.

It would not be any more reliable than the souces you used when you made a number of assertions in a previous post, such as when you wrote "at Honigfelde it was Von Arnims Imperial Cuirassiers which decided the battle, not the Polish cavalry" – this is not supported by modern scholarship, as Frost in The Northern Wars notes that the Swedish general staff "wrongly suggest that the flanking attack was by Arnims Reiters", but rather, "Koniecpolski led his hussars through a valley, hidden from the Swedes, and caught them with a devastating attack in the left flank as they closed with the cossacks."

I'd also be interested on how you came to the conclusion that at Gorzno the "Hussaria (sic) were broken and routed by a single charge by the Rhinecounts German Reiters". I would like to know if there is a source that states this specifically.

Stenbock,

I used the expression "pro Swedish" posters as a counter to the start of this thread where there it seemed acceptable to talk about biased Polish posters.

However, this is an interesting thread. I checked the link to Zaglobas Tavern and noticed that there is a poster there called "The Cegorach". If he is the same person that was the subject of the start of this thread, perhaps he should come across for a reply…

Mellechovich,
As anyone who has studied the battle of Honigfelde knows Koniecpolskisf lank attack was made against the Swedish rearguard in the inital phase of the battle and thus had nothing to do with the final phase.
Indeed Frost supports the view I've presented.
Frost page 111-112:
"When Gustav Adolf rallied them with fresh troops and made a stand at Pulkowitz, the Poles werr already tiring; the battle developed into fierce hand-to-hand combat, in which Arnims fresher reiters, who had not taken part in the earlier clashes , played a notable part."
Frost relies heavily on Saszewski when writting about Honigfelde. Saszewski did not have access to the mos tup to date Swedish research and had a very strong anit-German bias which led him to consistently dowplay the role of the German troops. Frost has simply followed his lead without checking the primary sources.

My sources for Honigfelde are those produced by the men who actualy fought or witnessed the battle. I'.e the reports of Koniecpolski, Arnim and Gustav Adolf was well as the letters written by Chemnitz, Heider and Grubber.
Secondary sources used are "Sveriges krig vol. II" and "Kunglig Svea Livgardes historia III:1" as well as Korzon's "Dzieje wojen i wojskowocsi w polsce epoka przedrobiorowa" and Janusz Saszewski's "Bitwa pod Trzciana"

The numbers at jasinski.co.uk are taken from Polish sources, in fact they are based the registers and muster rolls of the Crown Army as published in the Polish works listed at the jasinisk website
link
Let's see some factual evidence on you part that those sources are unreliable.

As for Gorzno the main sources for this particular event is the letter by Axel Oxenstierna to Gustav Adolf and the two reports left by Lars Grubbe who was present at the battle.
The hussars who were part of the Polish centre routed after begin charged in the flank by the Rhinecount and 4 companies of German cavalry. (the "daring flanking manouver" mentioned by Frost on page 111)
This caused the already shaken centre to give away completely and the polish left wing soon joined the rout. In contrast the troops of the Polish right wing fought very hard and had showed impressive courage & skill despite the poor leadership of Potocki.
Gorzno was the worst Polish defeat of the war, according to Korzon a polish source the Poles lost 700 killed and 600 captured as well as 4 artillery pieces. Frost puts their losses even higher at close to 2000.

Captain Gars,

I have some of the sources listed on the Jasinski site, but I have not found those numbers in them. If they are based on registers, theoretical maximums across the country etc, then these figures are inherently unreliable and do not tie in with what was available for specific battles.

With the quote you selected from Frost re Honigfelde, it refers to an action after the actual battle took place and states that the german reiters were fresh because they "had not taken part in the earlier clashes". Your initial assertion was that they did.

On Gorzno, this issue looks like it was once covered on the zaglobas tavern site:
link
This does not seem to support your initial point that there was a fight between the Rhinecount and hussars with the hussars being routed in one charge. IIRC that even in Sveriges Krig, there was no mention of hussars being charged and routed.

Condotierre,

The first quote in your post was mine, the others were from Pancerni AKA oldnorthstate. Though I checked your links and it does seem that Cegorach has an agenda of some sort…

Mellechovich,
Have you read any other other soruces than Fronst as far as Honigfelde is concerned? Honigfelde/Trzciana was a long, drawn out cavalry battle which covered a lot of ground, the battle field was 3-4 kilometers wide and a little over 10 kilometers long. There was extensive fighting at all of the villages located in that area. Honigfelde. Straszewo, Pulkowitz and Neudorf.

What you erronously call the 'the actual battle' was on the first clash which involved only the Swedish rearguard which took place at Honigfelde. Then there was a second clash at Straszewo roughly 2000 meters north of Honigfelde as Fieldmarshall Wrangel commited his Vanguard to battle.
This attack force the Poles back towards Honigfelde were the counterattck was halted by a combination of hussars and Arnims Cuirassiers and Harquebusiers. Both Swedish and Arnims reports makes it quite clear that the Imperial troops were in action at this stage. Hence Frost assertion they "had not taken part in the earlier clashes" is wrong.

Under the cover of Wrangles counterattack the Swedish rearguard and main battle was reformed by Gustavus and together with Wrangles troops an orderly withdrawal was made towards Neudorf and Pulkowitz. This was harrassed by the fast moving Poles who went in pursuit and ther eis a lot of small scale skimishign and charges/countercharges by both sides. At Pukowitz Paulis & Anreps squadrons (native Swedes&Finns) are cut off and surrounded by the Poles and begin to surrender when Streiff charged to the rescue with his squadron and the squadron of Guard cuirassiers.
The Poles are driven back and only the arrival of Arnims Cuirassiers restore the situation in favour of the Polis-Imperial side.

At the same time Pauli and & Anrep reform their shaken squadrons at Neudorf were the Swedish infantry has deployed for battle together with the rest of Swedish cavalry. This bridgehead across the Bach is then attacked 'with great force' by the Polish & Imperial forces but lacking infantry they make little headway and nightfall soon brough a halt to fighting.

Or if you don't belive me you can always look at this message at Zaglobas
link

As for Gorzno the charge in question is mentioned by Sveriges Krig II, pages 449-450 but SK does not include a quote from Oxenstierna or Grubbe and thus leaves out the identity of the Polish cavalry which was charged by Otto Ludwig.

SK, p. 449-450:
"Då rhengreven iaktog dessa tillbakagående rörelser, red han omedelbart till attack med återstoden av sitt regemente mot mitten av fiendens slagordning. Detta anfall bröt fullständigt polackernas motståndskraft. Panikstämningen utbredde sig med stor hastighet längs hela fronten. Potocki förlorade fullständigt ledningen över de orörda trupper, som skulle haft möjlighet att hejda svenskarna. Musketerarna sträckte vapen, och de övriga förbanden flydde i upplösningstillstånd väster ut, förföljda av det svenska kavalleriet."

As far as the Jasinski numers are concered then they are most likely from the sources you don't have. And I'm still waitn for factual proof that they are wrong, source names, page numbers and so on.

Condottiere,
The 'retainers' were an integral part of the hussar banner, and are always included in the hussar strenght so I don't seen how counting them is "inflating" the number? The Poles themselves counted them as a part of the hussars although with lower status than the 'companions'.

Captain Gars,

Thanks for that additional information, but I think at this stage there is no point in continuing this thread. I wanted to challenge a couple of assertions you made previously, and I can see that your position has changed somewhat from your initial stance.

For instance, with Honigfeld, you initially stated that "it was Von Arnims Imperial Cuirassiers which decided the battle", which you later changed to a "combination of hussars and Arnims Cuirassiers" and now it appears to be a large sort of skirmish, and the additional link you provided does not support your initial statement, as well as Frost who lists used the sources you mentioned.

With Gorzno, you initially stated that "much of the vaunted Hussaria were broken and routed by a single charge by the Rhinecounts German Reiters." which you later changed to "The hussars who were part of the Polish centre routed after begin charged in the flank", the rout then changed to "the already shaken centre to give away" and now has become that you admit that the SK source "leaves out the identity of the Polish cavalry which was charged by Otto Ludwig".

I'm not trying to be clever here, but I was just trying to get you to clarify some of your initial assertions that were exaggerations or guesses on what actually happened, and gave the impression that hussars were easily outmatched by Swedish cavalry. I don't think there is enough information from the 1620's wars to show that whether the Swedish horse or the hussars were better as neither army could land the killer blow on the other, and battles were those of manouvre, flank attacks, using feild defenses etc.

As to the numbers of hussars, my point here was that they formed a minority of the army, and as the numbers of lighter armed irregular cavalry increases, the overall quality of the cavalry is not the same – but this should not be seen aa a failing of the hussars. In Kircholm in 1605, hussars were about 75% of the cavalry, in Klushino in 1610, they were somewhere over 75% of the cavalry. This was when Polish cavalry was at its peak.

In about the 1634 Smolensk campaign against Dariusz Kupisz's orbats show that yes there were 3,220 hussars in a group of 11,550 cavalry, putting their numbers at less than 28% of the cavalry total, meaning that the majority of cavalry where lighter armed skirmish type irregulars. Despite this, the Poles won this particular campaign. Even Brzezinski notes that "by 1630, the hussars rarely formed more than 30 per cent of the cavalry".

If we compare it to the 30 years war, in 1634 (the same year) the protestants at Nordlingen fielded 9,700 cavalry, where at I assume that over 90% would be classified as disciplined heavy cavalry. There is a complete difference in cavalry forces by now.

Mellanovich,

I've never asserted that "that hussars were easily outmatched by Swedish cavalry". What I did in my original post was provide a number of examples that contradicted the claim that the Swedish cavalry "was not match for the Polish cavalry".

In fact there exists a wealth of information from the 1621-1629 Swedish-Polish war, the archives are full of it but one has posses both the time, money and language skills necessary to get to it.

As for the question of which was better, native Swedish light horsemen or the Hussars it's quite clear that hussars were superior in a frontal clash as long as they retained their lances. Without lances the odds were a lot more even and vicotry went to the side wich possesed an advantage such fresh troops, better ordered troops or a superior tactical position.

Dirschau is a prime example of this, the frontline squadrons of the Swedish right wing (1200 horse) were routed by an attack of 400 Hussars and 200 Kozacky. However the Hussars spent their lances in the intial charges. So when Erik Soop counter-charged with his 500 fresh "light horsemen" it was the Hussars that were broken and routed.

You are indeed trying to be clever,primarily by by changing the text of quotes atributed to me or misrepresenting the content & intent of what I've written.

Gorzno
For example I've never written the following quote you atribute to me
"The hussars who were part of the Polish centre routed after begin charged in the flank"

What I wrote was
"The hussars who were part of the Polish centre routed after begin charged in the flank by the Rhinecount and 4 companies of German cavalry. (the "daring flanking manouver" mentioned by Frost on page 111)"
Followed by
"This caused the already shaken centre to give away completely and the polish left wing soon joined the rout."
Which of course refers to the other troops of the Polish centre, the hussars already being mentioned in the first part.

So the above quotes spell out that not only did the Rhinecounts charge rout the hussars of the Polish centre in actual combat but that the panic caused by this charge caused the the Polish left wing (which had it's share of hussars) to flee without striking a blow. I.e the same as my orignial assertion:
"At Gorzno much of the vaunted Hussaria were broken and routed by a single charge by the Rhinecounts German Reiters."

Furthermore I've cleary shown that SK does mention the Rhinecounts charge at Gorzno with an extensive quote from the orignal SK text. Indeed SK goes much farther than I do and explicitly states that the Rhinecount broke the entire Polish centre with a frontal charge(!).

And in conection with that quote I pointed out which priamry sources indentify the target of the Rhinecoutns charge as hussars. That the author of SK prefered to simply refere to those sources by a footnote rather than directly quoting them doesn change their content :
"Varför rhengreven före ordern kom satte med 4 sina kompanier husarerna i sidan och därmed gick hela fiendens bataille begivande sig på loppet." (Axel Oxenstierna's "relation", one of the sources mentioned in the Gorzno footnotes on page 440 of Sveriges Krig II. )

Honigfelde
At battle involving close to 10,000 cavalry a "large skirmish"? Yeah right!
A "combination of hussars and Arnims Cuirassiers" refered to the Straszewo-Honigfelde phase of the battle. Not as you imply the final and decisive Neudorf-Pulkowitz phase.
And no, Frost doesn't "lists used the sources you mentioned". His notes and bibliography lists_some_of them and of top of that several of the sources list in his biogrpahy are not mentioned in the Honigfelde related notes. Furthermore Frost lists none of the primary sources I've mentioned. nd I'll be happy to provide scanned images of his bibliography and notes to back this up.

Smolensk
The Dariusz Kupisz's orbatscan be found in the File section of Zaglobas tavern.
They list a force of
3220 Hussars
3600 Kozacky
1700 Rajtaria
780 Petyhorcy
2250 Dragonia
All regulars from the National and Foreign Sectiosn of Wladyslaw IV's reformed army.

Now the Dragoons are mounted infantry, not "lighter armed skirmish type irregulars", nor are they cavalry so infact we are left with a cavalry force of 9300 of which the hussars make up 34.6% The Rajtars i.e German Reiters make up another 18,2% The Petyhorcy (Lithuanian cavalry also refered to as Czeremisy) make up 8,3% and the Kozacky 38,7%. Even if we only count the Hussars and Rajtars as heavy cavalry they make up 52,8% of the cavalry.

In fact by West European standards the Protestant cavarly at Nordlingen was light cavalry since they had few if any troops equipped as cuirassiers. An dpporly equipped light cavalry at that as many of them went into battle with little or no armour together with two pistols and a sword).

As the following quote makes clear the Petyhorcy and Kozacky was at least as well equipped as Protestant

"Starowolski wrote – "the light (and medium) cavalry is of two types, one using spears and being armoured – calling themselves Czeremisy and a second which uses arquebuses or bows or both and is armoured or unarmoured – calling themselves Cossacks."….. "Czeremisy in mail coats and shields, use long firearms or bows, sabres and spears four elbows long, which are tied to their right side and used to good effect against the enemy at close quarters. Cossacks are of two types, one dressed in cuirass or mail and helmet with two short and one long firearm and a sabre. The other Cossacks are unarmoured being dressed only in cloth and using the same weapons."