"Trying to nail down quality abilities of TYW Finnish cav" Topic

I am trying to get a handle on Finnish cavalry of Thirty Years War – the famous Hakkaapellit. In spite of my ‘handle' (Finnish for "in the wilderness" – a comment on where I live) I am not Finnish – but could probably be described as a Finno-phile. I have read every past post here I could identify, going back several years and searched on line and checked a few wargames. So here are my observations/questions. As always, hoping Dan S will comment and advise.
1. They were equipped the same way as the Swedish cavalry: breast plate/back plate, helmet and two pistols. A statue in Lahti, Finland has them equipped that way: panoramio.com/photo/24321403
2. Although they were officially known as "light horse" their battlefield role was heavy cavalry. Their tactics didn't seem to be any more aggressive than any of the other native cavalry.
3. There is a question as to how fierce their reputation really was. Some (secondary) sources I have seen suggest the Germans didn't single them out much. Then there is the famous prayer – and the other story where the one ambassador compared them to Croats. As I understand an earlier post, Daniel S has said the ambassador's comment was misleading. Was the prayer quote just because they were viewed as somewhat "exotic?"
4. The couple of wargames I have checked (Lion of the North & Gustav Adolf the Great) give the Finns a morale advantage over other cavalry. However, some things I have read suggest they weren't any better than the Swedish cav. On the other hand, at both big battles, Gustavus (GIIA) put them on the far right – the place of honor. Doesn't that suggest that GIIA thought highly of them? The Osprey book says GIIA ordered them to charge Imperial Cuirassiers. Seems like a suicide mission if they were too lightly equipped or unmotivated.
5. Did they also perform a "light cavalry" function (despite being "battle" cavalry)? There is the quote in the Osprey book that says they were GIIA's best cavalry for "discovery." By the way, being the best doesn't make you "good." At work I often use the phrase, "on a scale of 1 to 10, a 3 beats a 2." So just because they were his best option, doesn't necessarily mean they would compare favorably to other nation's more specialized troops.
6. In wargame terms, was their quality based more on the fact that they were fortunate in leaders (Tott & Stahlhandske) being quite good, rather than some intrinsic value? Meaning that their value/morale should be the same as other similar cav, it is up to you the gamer, to put them in a position to do well.
Thanks – looking forward to a good discussion so I can learn more on the subject.

Here's hoping they turn out to be "killer elite" LC that beat Croats like an anteater eats ants! Even if not true I want it to be so.

Couldn't agree more!

In FoG-R, the Finns are rated as "cavaliers" rather than the "Horse" or " Determined horse" of the normal Swedish cavalry.

In game terms, this makes them a touch more effective in the charge but harder to rally after they win a Melee as they need to be brought back into command before they stop auto-pursuing.

I have no idea how historical this is but it's a lot of fun.

All Swedish provincial cavalry were "lätta ryttar" i.e "light horse" but this only identifies them as lighter than the "heavy cavalry" i.e cuirassiers. In the same way French 17th Century "Chevaux-legers" were battle cavalry, not light cavalry.

Which ambassador compares them to Croats? I think you are refering to the comments by the French ambassador Ogier which compared them to Tartars but as mentioned previously that comment has been quoted out of context and had nothing to do with their battlefield role. He is simply describing two detachments of men performing escort duty during the negotations between the Swedes & Poles in Prussia in 1635

The famous prayer is a myth, Professor Lappalainen was not able to find any evidence for it's use in German sources when he investigated it's origin.

Anyone could do "light cavalry" functions, keep in mind that most armies did not have esoteric troops like Croats, Hungarian hussars or Polish Cossack style cavalry to carry out such duties. They made do with what was available i.e western style "light cavalry" which in theory was everyone who wasn't a fully armoured man-at-arms/Gendarme or a Cuirassier. In practice the duties were first and foremost carried out by mounted arquebusiers supported as needed by detachment of shot, dragoons and 'heavier' light cavalry. And this was not an ad-hoc or improvised solution, professional western armies had well functioning doctrine and tactics for carrying out those functions.

Just about any western cavalry that was reasonably professional could and would beat Croats. Croat cavalry simply could not withstand the shock of combat with even "light" battle cavalry and would sooner or later dissolve into flight.

Dan, you were right, I meant Tartars – that is what I get for posting at work away from the source

Do you have any further comments on numbers 4 &b 6?

With regards to number 4 it is not so much a case of Gustavus placing the Finns on the right, it is more a case of him placing_Stålhandske_on the right. (And the Breitenfeld deployment was affected by other factors as well))
Considering their experience, cohesion and leadership the Finns should get above average morale in two of the battles in the board games you mentioned (Lutzen and Breitenfeld) But they are overrated in the Polish battles found in Gustav Adolf the Great.

The order to charge cuirassiers is not from an eyewitness source, and if true would only happen after the curiassiers had been shot up by commanded shot and regimental cannon.

As to number 6 leadership was a major factor together with experience, the unit cohesion and the espirit de corps that grew during the wars. Tott can not claim much credit for their success since he was frequently absent from the units due to having his hands full with other tasks.