"Swedish TYW Hakkapelis Cavalry" Topic

I am trying to determine the best way to represent the Finish Hallapelis cavalry in the Swedish army of the TYW. The only pictures I've seen of them are from the Osprey book on the battle of Lutzen and the Osprey book on The Swedish Cavalry of Gustavus Adolphus, and are bit conflicting. One shows them as more of an Eastern looking light cavalry similar to the Croats , and the other as very Western looking cavalry with a floppy hat and a long coat. Both indicate little or no armor and one says that pistols were uncommon so the sword was the primary weapon. Gush in his classic work only describes them as being very good cavalry, but offers no description.

I am seeking information on how these guys might have looked and possibly the best figure to represent them in an army, using 15 MM figures, and preferably Essex? Thanks for any help or advice you can offer.

Terry.

The description of the Finns in both Osprey books are the same, the Croat look alikes in the Lutzen book are indeed Croats with a Finn firing a pistol as blurry figures behind them. Said Fiinn is dressed in a long blue coat and wears a floppy hat.

Bascily the Osprey description of the Finnish cavalry are based on incomplete or outdated information as well as conatianin some claism which are pure fantasy. There was indeed a shortage of pistols and armour but this was during the Livonian campaign of 1621-1622. When the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth resumed in 1625 the Finns were far better equipped. Vast stock of arms&armour was imported by the Crown and was issued at cost to any man who was missing part of the reuglation equipment. Before the entry of the main Swedish army into Germany all native cavalry regiments were rested and refited and the Finnish cavalry went into Germany was fully equipped with armour and pistols.

The cherished image of the TYW Finns as unarmored cavalrymen armed only with swords is a myth created by poor research.

Daniel, I hate to admit this, and although I have studied that picture many, many times, I never noticed the guy in the blue coat in the back!!!! I kept trying to figure out which one of those red coated guys was the Finn!!! I probably would not have asked my question had I seen him. However, a little in my defense, in my copy that figure is really obscured in the binding and you have to really crank it open to even see him.

Now the additional information about their armor and weapons is also of great help and will make it much easier to consider a figure for these guys.

Do you know of or have any information that might tell if they wore a uniform coat color, like blue or red as depicted in the two Osprey books?

Thank you very much for helping me out here!

Terry

Like all Swedish units, cavalry regiments received regular issues of cloth to be turned into coats by regimental tailors. It seems reasonable to assume that as in the infantry, these coats were of a uniform color within each regiment, at least as long as the Swedish supply system worked more or less adequately (i.e until the death of Gustavus Adolphus in 1632). Unfortunately, the color of the cloth shipments does not seem to have been recorded, Shoud you opt for a uniform coat color, you are pretty much left to your own devices : grey, blue and red seem reasonable options, as these were the most common hues used for military coats. .

Terry,
The Finn was quite obscured in my binding as well, I only noticed him after seeing the orignal painting at Graham Turners website link

There is no evidence that the native Swedish cavalry wore any kind of regimental uniforms. They did recive annual issues of cloth and the cost of supplying the such cloth is part of expenses recorded for the Swedish Crown in 1630-1631. However no detailed documents connected to this supply of cloth survive today.
Nor do eyewitnesses describe the Swedish cavalry as dressed in uniform colours. The single exception is a description of a Swedish company of cavalry all dressed in blue. (A description which is wrongly connected to the mounted Jaegers in the Osprey)

So essentialy you can paint them as you want but if you want to be as historical as possible you should avoid painting entire regiments in the same colour.

Gentlemen, many thanks for the additional info re the wearing of uniforms for the Swedish Horse. I think I'll go with some variety in all but one element of horse.

And Daniel I am so glad you mentioned also having a tough time seeing the Finn in the Osprey tome. Man I was feeling really kind of dumb there!

Thanks again for all the help!

Terry

Daniel :

The argument works both ways : the fact that no eyewitness account describes Swedish horse wearing coats of a uniform color does not disprove that this did not happen either, though I agree it probably wasn't standard practice.

In the end, it was certainly all down to availability : we know from surviving infantry records that some units drew shipments of cloth of varying colors, which would have precluded uniformity. It would appear that Swedish agents purchased cloth in large batches (ideally in lots of a single color), but would not hesitate to buy 'any colored cloth' to meet their quotas if their suppliers could not provide them with enough material of a given color. The growth of the Swedish army after Breitenfeld and the common use of captured Imperial stocks would also have added to the complexity of Swedish logistics.

Each cavalry company may have received jackets of the same color (as your example would indicate), or coats may have been made and distributed to troopers regardless of color. But some regiments, especially the smaller ones, may have drawn issues of cloth large enough to provide all troopers in jackets of the same color : we simply don't know for certain. After 1632 however, and given the chaos that followed Gustavus Adolphus' death, I agree that troopers probably wore whatever clothing was available, with little regard for uniformity.

Weren't the Finns, though, the Swedish "equivalent" of the Imperial Croats? In other words, they were the Swedish "Cossacks" (I use the term in its 17th Century connotation, which was applied to Poles and other eastern, non-Croat, light horse).

As such, and given their history of campaigning vs the Poles and proximity to the Muscovites, I always wondered if they wouldn't have been similarly garbed (ie, in a more "Polish Cossack" type of outfit, at least as far as headgear went: the Western hat always seems to contradict what was the norm for this type of cavalry, with this type of background, during this era).

They most certainly were not. Gustavus' Finnish horsemen were battle cavalry with the same equipment, training and tactics as their Swedish and German counterparts. As such they followed Western fashions. "Eastern" style dress would not become fashionable among western troops until the mid 18th century with the widespread introduction of hussars.

Prof. Korhonen's seminal work "The History of the Hackapells" doesn not contain a a single shred of evidence which supports the notion that the Finns were light cavalry or "Swedish Cossacks". Nor can such evidence be found in the work other Swedish or Finnish historians. Infact this notion can only be found in poorly researched English sources.

FYI The name Hakkapeliitta is evolved from their battlecry: "Hakkaa päälle!" which translates to "At 'em!"

Heh, Nokia manufactures car tires which have the name Hakkapeliitta.

Daniel, were the Finns an elite or specialized unit at all? Or are we talking about simply another Swedish regiment, recruited from a Finnish-speaking part of the Swedish empire?

Daniel,

You read your sources. I'll read mine.

Huevans,
Yes and no. The Finns were not specialized unit in any way, they were organized and equiped in the same way as the other units of native Swedish cavalry. The only diffrences was that many of them spoke Finnish instead of Swedish and that the Finns managed to get a reputation for being ferocious.

As with the other native units the quality of the Finnish cavalry varied. The largest unit of Finnish cavalry serving in Germany with Gustavus was led by Torsten Stålhandske who was one of Gustavus' best regimental commanders. His well trained unit contained a significant number of veteran troopers from the long war with Poland and preformed at a level that might be considered "elite".

But not all Finnish units were of that quality, if you look at the war with Poland-Lithuania were the entire Finnish cavalry force served the performance of the Finnish units was mixed. Nor were the Finns automaticly better than their Swedish speaking counterparts. Some naitve Swedish units such as the Vastgota regiment led by Erik Soop was just as good as Stålhandske's unit.

Edmuel,
By all means keep rereading the Osprey if you want to. I'll stick to reading sources like the actual regimental records of the Finnish cavalry regiments, "Sveriges krig 1611-1632" and "Hakkapeliitain Historia".

Thanks again, Daniel. I was just curious as GA seemed to have singled Stalhandske's unit out for 1 of the key cavalry attacks at the beginning of the Battle of Lutzen.

What would the level of armour be for the Swedish cavalry? Many of the TAG Swedish cavalry figures are unarmoured.

Daniel,

I read other texts as well, besides Osprey, and I read your informative posts, too.

The Osprey's assessment in the Army of Gustavus Adolphus, Book 2 (Cavalry), though, makes sense to me, that Finnish horse, given their experience in Russia, were skilled at "Tartar" style operations and were employed as light cavalry because of it, and that their appearance in this role could reflect Polish/Cossack influence. "The Swedes have the Finns as the Poles have the Tartars" (the quote in the book of the French Ambassador's secretary on the topic).

This does not necessarily contradict the record or use of the battle cavalry regiments drawn from Finland. The histories for this time period are sketchy, as you know, and hardly comprehensive. I think that a person would be on solid ground if they wished to produce both standard Finnish battle cavalry and some light Finn horse with a "Cossack" look to them to include in their Swedish Army.

We may not come to agreement on that, though.

Best,
Ed M

Ed,
Unfortunately the description of Finnish cavalry in the Osprey is filled with errors and unsupported conclusions.
Fro exampel the yeomen who were the majority of the troopers in the Finnish companies would have taken great insult at being called "lawless cattle-rustlers"

What experience in Russia?
Only a few of the men serving with Gustavus in Germany had ever fought in Russia. It had been almost 14 years since the last war with Russia when Gustavus landed in Germany in 1630. The Finnish cavalry serving in the 1611-1617 war with Russia were mostly "old" troopers which Gustavus had inherited from his father. After the prace of Stolbova a large part of the Finnish cavalry were disbanded in order to save money
It was then rebuilt with mostly younger men during the war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Of the 24 companies of Finnish cavalry only 4 predated 1618.

Now if the Finns were "skilled at "Tartar" style operations " why did Gustavus repeatedly hire Polish mercenaries for such duties during the Ingrian war with Russia? He did this despite an acute shortage of money which seriously impeded his operations against the Russians. Why spend hard earned cash on mercenaries if you have cheap, effective and reliable native light cavalry available?

Furtheremore how do you explain the poor performance of the Finns in countering the tartar style raids of the Poles&Lithuanians? The Finnish cavalry had no more success at this than the Swedes or Germans.

If the Finns were intended for use as light cavalry why were they not equiped for the task?
All of the Finnish cavalry companies were raised as "Lätta ryttare"/Light horsemen equiped with helmet, breast and back plates, sword and a pair of pistols. Hardly the equipment of true light cavalry operating in the "cossack style". Indeed Gustavus abolished all use of the carbine at a time when the Croats carried carbines and the Commonwealth cossack-style cavalry were armed with carbine or bow.

Actually the records of the Swedish army of the period is anything but sketchy. The collection of documents in the Swedish archives is both vast and comprehensive. I could even tell how many and which types of nails the Swedish army brought with it to Germany in 1630. Or the names of the 1000 horsemen in the Vastgota regiment.

Ogier is indeed an interesting source but he was traveling in 1634-1635 i.e post-Gustavus and he was not a proffessional soldier. If he actually did encounter Finnish cavalry he did so in Prussia in 1635 were Printz' squadron was a part of the Swedish army. It was a raw and poorly equipped unit which had been hastily sent to Prussia. Hence it was not typical of the Finnish units in Swedish serive in the time of Gustavus Adolphus. (And before you leap to any conclusions,Printz unit were battle cavalry albeit poorly equipped battle cavalry)

Huevans,
If you are refering to the order quoted in the Swedish Intelligencer it should probably be interpreted as an order from Gustavus to Stålhandkse the wing commander rather than an order from Gustvus to Stålhandske the regimental commander.

All Swedish cavalry was supposed to be equipped with helmet pistol proof breastplate and a backplate. The "F2" figure in the Osprey on gustavus cavalry is a a good reconstruciton of what a trooper wearing Swedish made armour would have looked like. The odd helmet design was based on the "Kapalin" helmet used by Poles&Lithuanians.

"C2" shows the kind armour that was imported from the Netherlands or Germany.
Samples of TYW armour kept in the Swedish army museum
link
link

The big questions is how well the regulations were followed. I'll try to answer that in my next post.

"The big questions is how well the regulations were followed. I'll try to answer that in my next post."

Thanks. My next TAG order may depend on what you tell me :)

Do you mind if I upload the armour photos to the PanMark Yahoo Group? I'm trying to collect armour photos, as they are hard to find at random.

Huevans,
By all means use the photos, they are teacher's aids put online by the Army museums staff for free non-comercial use.

The native Swedish & Finnish troopers were expected to provide and pay for their own horse, arms&armour and other basic equipment. These private pruchases were not recorded and thus we have to rely of fewer and less complete sources than those that exist for the infantry.

The best source if it has been preserved is the detialed muster roll. In it was recorded not only the number of men and their names but wether they were "old" or "new" troopers, the size of their horses and any deficiencies in their equipment.
On the 10/20th of April 1627 the newly raised cavalry company commanded by Lars Larsson was mustered. It had 123 troops, of these 72 were "old" and 51 "new". The "old" troopers were almost all veternas who had served with Larssson in Livonia in 1625-1626. Muster reveal a serious shortage of equippment particularly among the "new" troopers. 17 men had no horses, 76 lacked armour and 20 had no pistols. The men were told to aquire the missign equipment before the company was shipped to Prussia.
When the company arrived in Prussia it recived 60 sets of armour and 10 pairs of pistols from the armoury in Elbing.
The end result was a company were all but a small minority had both armour and pistols.

In 1628 Erik Soop raised a new 4-company squadron for the Vastgota regiment. It mustered some 427 troopers when it arrived in Prussia were the following shortages were recorded.
10 Pairs of pistols
87 Breast and backplates
135 Helmets
So 68% of the men had both body armour and helmet.
Another 12% had body armour but not helmets
And 20% had no armour at all.

Other units show similar numbers in the late 1620's, roughly one can say that between 10 and 30% of the troopers in a native squadron or regiment had no body armour during that period. (In 1621-1622 the situation was very diffrent, some Finnish units are recorded as having no armour at all)

Several high level documents records that all native troopers sent to Germany in 1630 were fully armoured. However I not yet verified this by checking the muster rolls for the indivdual companies.

The unknown factor in all of this are the troopers themselves. Did they actually wear the armour in action?
After all there are examples of TYW cavalry discardign most of their armour. A letter exists which describes how all the troopers in a Cuirassier regiment from Colonge simply thre away their body armour and only kept the gauntlets and helmets which so for all his expense the Elector ended up with a regiment that was almost unarmoured.

Considering that the high level of discipline mantaiend by Gustavus and the fact that the native troopers owned their gear (and would have to pay for any replacements out of their own pocket)I'd say that it is almost certain that armoru was worn by those that had it. This would change in the post-Gustavus period, particulary after Nordlingen but in 1630-1632 armoru was still in extensive use.

Thanks, Daniel.

Ao similar records exist for the post-Nordlingen period? And if so, do these support the idea that the Swedish horse largely dispensed with armour after 1634?

"On the 10/20th of April 1627 the newly raised cavalry company commanded by Lars Larsson was mustered. It had 123 troops, of these 72 were "old" and 51 "new". The "old" troopers were almost all veternas who had served with Larssson in Livonia in 1625-1626. Muster reveal a serious shortage of equippment particularly among the "new" troopers. 17 men had no horses, 76 lacked armour and 20 had no pistols."

This narrative indicates that some of the veteran troops were without armour. This leads one to speculate that either their prior unit had been poorly equipped or that the men themselves had sold their armour, perhaps back to the Swedish government or perhaps to other soldiers. Any comment?

Several possibilites exist. The most likely is that the armour had been damaged or worn out during two years of hard campaigning in Livonia with Larsson's men having fought in two battles as well as in numerous skirmishes.
Of course there is always the possibility that some men had sold, pawned or otherwise lost their armour less honoruable ways while in Livonia.

It's unlikely that the men had been poorly equipped at the start of the 1625 campaign. The armoury in Stockholm had had enough armour on had to equipp 25 companies of cavalry but only issued 779 sets of armour.

"The most likely is that the armour had been damaged or worn out during two years of hard campaigning in Livonia with Larsson's men having fought in two battles as well as in numerous skirmishes."

I don't know. Steel takes a lot of wearing out :) It's possible the harness could have been damaged, but every unit must have had men well able to repair leatherwork. Even if the armour was dented, a little hammering by the blacksmith could probably make it wearable again.

I just wonder if there wasn't a semi-organized trading system wherein new troopers could buy armour from "retiring" veterans. It would seem to make sense.

Huevans,
When you aska about the post-Nordlingen "Swedish horse" are you asking about all cavalry in Swedish service? Or just about the native units? Even in Gustavus day the mercenary units are much less well documented than the native regiments.

The post-Nordlingen is not as well documented as the previous decade. The surviving records are not as detailed as those of Gustavus day and fewer of them have survived. On top of that the most research tend to be focused on Gustavus' army rather than those of this successors so we know less about the content of the preserved documents as well.

The question is if the cavalry in Swedish service did largely abandon the use of armour after 1634?
There is a tendency to overinterpret the existing evidence. For example Oxenstierna certainly describes how armour fell out of use and was thrown away during the 1635 campaign. The letter probably gives a fairly accurate depiction of much of the Swedish cavalry in 1636 as well. But using it to describe the Swedish cavalry in 1645 woudl be plain wrong.

In 1643 Montecuccoli describe breast and backharness as well as helmet as the typical equipment of the 'Swedish cuirassier' which suggests that there had been a revival in the use of armour. But how many of the Swedish cavalrymen were equipped this way? He doesn't say.

These and other sources such as Turner suggest that far from being static the use the use of armour varied during the last 14 years of the TYW.

To bad for the Swedes that their armour was wrought iron rather than steel ;-) The iron munitons armour used in the 17th Century wore out faster than the steel armour used in the 15th or 16th centuries. Rust was an ever present problem and over time the armours would have become "old and decayed" to quote a diffrent muster roll.
In the 1620's, particularly in the early years a set of armoru could easily have been 5-15 years old. Gustavus complained that the trooper's loack of uniform arms&armour caused the enemy to scorn them and hold them in low regard.
Hence he issued orders that all company commanders were to ensure that the men had arms& armour which presented an uniform apperance.

By damage I meant batte damage. Armour took a beasting in battle, particlarly form firearms. Even it it saved the trooper's life it might be damaged beyond use in the process. Tests carried out by the staff of the Graz Armoury show that it was possible for armour to be penetrated withotu the wearer beign injured. At 8,5 meters a pistol shot penetrated a breastplate but did not even damage the linen cloth behind, the ball had spent all of it's energy getting through the plate.

It depends on how you define "retiring"?

Re German mercenary units: I was generally interested in all components of the nominally "Swedish" army. But this brings up an interesting point.

How were the mercenary troops equipped? Did the Colonel supply the armour, in return for a fee or subsidy for the hiring state?

I didn't realize period armour rusted out so quickly.

"Retiring" – I had in mind a soldier who decided to leave the colours and return home for a year or two. Dragging the armour around would be cumbersome. It would make far more sense selling it to a rookie who needed some equipment.

I have been following this thread closely and find he comments and information outstanding. Glad I asked the question now!

OK, so I have a pretty good idea of who these guys were now, so let me take it a step further, and hopefully those of you who are more knowledgeable on the subject will hopefully guide me in my efforts to recreate the Swedish cavalry/horse for my TYW army. Accuracy is a must for me, at least as much as is possible from the references and resources available to us today.

I play DBA-HX, so my regiments of horse for the Swedes are only three figures to a stand. I plan to do one in black full 3/4 armor, and the rest in pots and corslets, or soft hats with or without corslets. I would be very grateful for some sound suggestions about the colors of coats and trousers combinations for these various stands of horse. from this thread that I wnat to avoid too much regimentation of uniforms which is why I am asking this help.

Thanks again for all the help!

Terry

Terry, Swedes would not likely be in full armour. There were 2 specific cuirassier units in Swedish service. The rest would be armoured with cuirasses and helmets only.

If you want, I can check the names of the cuirassier regts for you.

Thanks Huevans, I was only planning n doing one element (stand) of armored cuirassiers. The Osprey book shows a regment and i will consider them to be those guys. Don't have it handy right now, but if you are familiar with it then you'll know who I'm talking about. Now I need to decide how to best represent the other elements I am allowed. Of course they will be less armored and unarmored, but the colors to use is the question right now.

Thanks again for the help,

Terry

FYI: The Lutzen OOB indicates the 2 regts as being in the front line of the left wing. They are the Kurland Horse, under Oberst Hans? Wrangel (4 coys., 230 horse) and the Livonian Horse under Oberstleutnant Karl? von Tiesenhausen (8 coys., 300 horse).

Hope this helps.

The number of cuirassiers would depend on the year and army. For example in late 1630 Gustavus moved agaisnt Gartz with an army that had a cavalry force that was 25% cuirassiers with at least four units being cuirassiers or part-cuirassiers. But on the whole one should avoid having more than few units of full cuirassiers.

Of course there is the fact that Gustavus recruited a number of additional cuirassiers regiments (Tott, Efferen-Halle and so on) which probably never got the full suits. But this an area which is quite murky.

Hans Wrangel leading the Kurlanders would have been an impressive feat as he had been dead for over 3 years. (KIA at Honigfelde 1629) Brzezinski was relying on the Swedis General Staff history of Lützen which managed to get it's Wrangels mixed…
(The Wrangels were a large family and supplied a number of officers to Swedish units.)

With regards to colours there isn't many hard facts available. The single eyewitness accoutn in existence describe a company dressed all in blue. The account books offer little help as they do not record the cloth issued to the cavalry.

The most popular soldierly colours were shades of red and blue. Greys were issued but not as well regarded. Green was not seen as proper colour for a soldier in some areas but the Swedes made use of it at least for the infantry. The Swedes used yellow as well.

Thanks again Daniel and Huevans, just great stuff all round.

Daniel really good help on the colors to use- I'll stick with mostly shades of red and blue, maybe a gray here and there and avoid green.

Would these colors also work for the Hakkapeils? I am assuming so since Osprey shows one in red and the other in blue, but would like to be sure.

How about shades of brown, black and plum, are they acceptable colors?

Again, thank you gentlemen,

Terry

"The number of cuirassiers would depend on the year and army. For example in late 1630 Gustavus moved agaisnt Gartz with an army that had a cavalry force that was 25% cuirassiers with at least four units being cuirassiers or part-cuirassiers. But on the whole one should avoid having more than few units of full cuirassiers."

Daniel, what were the names of the 2 additional cuirassier regiments?

Huevans,
The first is Count Joahn Filip von Ortenburg's regiment aka "The King's German Life Regiment" aka "The King's Life Regiment" It was formed by joining Ortenburgs perosnal company of cuirassiers with the Pfalzgraf's squadron of cuirassiers (3 companies of veterans of the war with Poland) and the so called "Stralsund Horse" (4 companies of unknown type.) Later on another two companies of uncertain origin became part of the regiment.

Ortenburg was a veteran Protestant commander who had led Mansfeld's Life Regiment of Horse in 1620-1622. He entered Swedish service in 1629 but fell illa and died in june 1631. His regiment was then led by Lt-col Georg von Uslar who took over the regiment as colonel after Breitenfeld. Uslar's much reduced regiment was present at Lützen (2nd Line of the Right Wing)

The second unit was Åke Henriksson Tott's regiment which was formed by joining Tott's and possibly Pauli's cuirassier companies with 10 (or 11) new companies recruited in Northern Germany.

Tott was born in Finland and did not only belong to an old and illustrious noble family but was also the cousin of Gustavus Adolphus as his mother was the daughter of King Erik XIV. He egan his military service during the Ingrian war with Russia in 1613, commanded a squadron of finnish cavalry in the war with Poland-Lithuania and by 1630 he was Gustavus General of Cavalry. In late 1631 he was promoted onece more to the rank of Field Marshal followign his conquest of vital provinces in Northern Germany. Such high rank was probably beyond his abilites and plauge by ill health and the energetic Pappenheim he had little further success as an independent commander. In 1632 he resigned his commision and returned t Sweden to recover his health. His regiment was taken over by Karl Joakim Karberg. Another veteran of the Polish war. Karberg's regiment served at Lützen were it fought in the front line of Duke Bernhard's wing.

Terry,
Blue and red would work well for the Finns as would grey.

One thing that is hard to paint is the diffrence the quality of the cloth makes on grey shades. The fine grey broadcloth issued to Gustavus' lifeguards be diffrent in apperance from the homespun grey wool used by peasants.

Black dye was expensive and would only be worn by wealthy men i.e officers. Military men tended to favour bolder coloures though there are examples of officers wearing black.

Grey-ish browns were considered a peasant colour, brighter browns or reddish browns were fit for soldier.

This is from a late 16thC source but it gives a interesting insight into how colours were viwed by soldiers.
"In Warre, be dressede the goode soldier with bright cloth & collorede, like crimsone, white, blue, yellowe, browne, purple, ochre [1], & at times mexing these collors, one withe another, as best as he sees fit, & better lustrous become him, solely black, & greene, have I seene always be despizede by the practicals and veterans"

Thanks Daniel, Just excellent info! Very much appreciated!!!

Terry

Not sure whether this degree of information exists, but anyway…..

When GA raised a mercenary regiment of horse in Germany, how would the men be equipped? Would they follow the Swedish national system of the men supplying their own equipment? Would the Swedish government supply the equipment? Or would the colonel obtain the equipment?

I guess the practical point of the question is whether I should be using TAG's Swedish cavalry in the distinctive kapalin helmets for Swedish-hired German merc units, or just for home-grown Swedish national regts.

Huevans,
I wrote my reply in a new thread so that the information would be easier to find for other readers.