CORRECTION about the origins of the hussars is below! For all the people waiting for the meme: well, wait for it. Also: These videos take us an immense amount of time to research, review, double-check and animate. If you think this work is valuable then please do consider supporting us on Patreon. My job at the university as a teaching assistant has come to an end (you can only do the job for 4 years). So a lot of my income is now reliant on TH-cam. Also please let us know whether you would like to see more videos on warfare or more videos like the series on sieges where we do more story telling. Edit: Link www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhistory Edit 2: (correction) We accidentally merged together a few lines about different light cavalry units and their origins (which were cut from the script in the end) with the origins of the hussars. That' s why it is messed up in the video. In the beginning they were exiled Serbian mercenaries (some sources also simply say "balkan". Also, the early Hussars were modeled off the Hungarian Hussars.
More warfare, please. There are many channels out there, who have a significant focus on sieges, and storytelling, but not nearly as many, that not only goes into types of units, but also their tactics
So a comment from Polish historian (me, greetings from Kraków guys): The way our hussars charged was also very different from a medieval style charge- at the beginning a unit of polish cavalry is forming in a very loose formations- 100 horses in a 500 meters front, few hundreds meters from enemy ranks- way outside muskets fire range. Then they're slowly advancing and 100 meters from enemy ranks gallop begin. 20 (!) meters from enemy ranks hussars are closing their ranks from 500 to less than a 70 meters front in a full speed (cwał, faster than gallop). Enemy musketeers had no chance to fire effectivly in such a loose formation and once formation was close it was too late. Prussian army made a trial at the end of XVIII (!) century- from 70meters only 60% of bullets shout from a battalion of musketeers hit a BARN SIZE target (25x2 meters) so effective range of early XVI-XVII century musketeers was around...20 meters. So a key factor for a Polish Hussars strike was to attack the weakest point in enemy ranks with one massive strike, like German panzer formations in 1939-1942. Enemy simply couldnt stand that. Another intresting fact missed in this great video- almost all of hussars beside of an arch has a pair of pistols or a cavalry musket as well. But why Moskovites and other powers of the central/eastern Europe didnt muster their own hussaars regiments as well? Money, money, money. Equipment + a horse for a hussar was an equivalent in price to a FEW VILLAGES. Very- fu*king expensive. In XVII century Polish nobility was EXTREMLY rich- they didnt have to pay taxes (really :/) but instead they has to defend the country and service in a hussars regimant was a highest distinction. Plus cause of that they were trained in warfare basically from early childhood, while in the west armies consist in that period not rich nobility but poor pasants. Unfortunately for us constatn wars in XVII century ruined Poland economicly- XVIII century and a fall of hussars was a result of economic decline. Most HARDCORE Polish hussars battle? HODÓW. 100 Hussars + 300 lighter pancerni cavalry againsr 40000 tatars. OFC we won :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hod%C3%B3w Traditions of Polish lancers didnt die in XVIII century- in XIX century Polish nobility fought alongisde Napoleon against well, everyone in Europe doing some great job as well- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Polish_Light_Cavalry_Regiment_of_the_Imperial_Guard If You have any questions guys- feel free to ask. PS: The greatest source of infos about Polish Hussars are Radosław Sikora's books- he is a historian specialized in this field. Sadly his books are not translated into english (I guess) pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rados%C5%82aw_Sikora
a little question: musket effective range were 20 m. Hussar close knit their formation at 20 m, that is, less than a meter for a horse (100 hussars in a 70 m wide front). that's quite a large target that musket were definitely good at. no accuracy needed since the enemy are grouped together at 20 m (an old "shoot when you could see the white on their eyes!" tactic). with pikes to protect these musketeers when they're reloading (make it impossible for direct charge against the formation). why doesn't it work the same for these hussar?
@@alifkazeryu8228 Few factors: 1) psychology. You have to have really huge balls and be perfectly trained to wait till the last second to shoot. Just imagine wall of winged crazy horses closing on you, and your musket while your only defence is one bullet in your firearm. In most of charges casualties from small firearms were really small and mostly in horses. 2) Hussars lances were longer than pikeman's pikes.
Thank you for this comment! I wish that the video included more information like this, rather than speaking to the usefulness of cavalry forces in general in the region. I'm not sure who needs to be convinced of that. Can I ask if you know many examples of numbers in cavalry battles (i.e. did the cavalry of PL forces tend to be more or less numerous than Swedish, German, Tartar, and Muscovite forces)? I am also interested in what equipment they generally used in cavalry battles; did they carry the same mix of arms as when charging musket and pike?
@@jameseichner4673 winged hussars were basicly riding arsenals. They alwas had sabers, lances, koncerz (very similar to estoc, used to charge when all lances broke), pair of pistols, and sometimes even warhammers, warpicks or bows. Keep in mind that hussars were not standarized, and they have to have their own weapons and armor. So it was variety between them. Also, hussar armor was very durable - IT was able to withstand point-blank shot from smaller fireaems.
Szabla - węgierka (Hungarian sabre, sabre was inplemented in Poland by king Batory, Hungarian) Czapka - magierka (hat from magora) Dziecię - szlacheckie (nobile's child) Wyżlę - niemieckie (Geraman hounting dog) Najlepsze są (Are the best)
Lithuanian Hetman Jan Karol Chodkiewicz's famous quote during Battle of Kircholm when scouts reported him that countless Swedes are swarming towards them: "We will count them after we beat them"
One thing is that swedish King fled the battle and killed Polish war prisoner in anger, while our troops buried all fallen Swedes. And the Swedes who fled the battlefield to nearby villages had a hard time due to their bestiality against peasants.
I'm always amazed at how they managed to carry out these complicated battle plans, especially when the leaders can only see things from eye level and from a distance. It would be fascinating to see in real life how the soldiers were trained, how much they understood about what they were being told to do while in battle. You can't tell every soldier in advance "At this point in the battle, we will fake a retreat", timing is everything, the plan might change and you don't want any traitors to give away plans... so how do you prevent your own army from losing hope when told to retreat? There's only so much you can quickly signal with flags, sounds etc in a battle... you need a very disciplined army.
Its all about command and controll and drill, the longer time passes the more drilled the infanteri become. Charls XI army did suffer horribel in the hands of the winged hussars, but laters Charls XII army that was one of the best drilled wrecked the winged hussars.
It's a good reminder that while older armies lacked our modern technology and knowledge, they were still often led and staffed by very intelligent people.
That's why probably most army tactics were mostly simplistic charges you couldn't really stop once released or they dug in and waited for the enemy . Similar with cavalry once they charged they were basically out of control. Only the most disciplined armies were capable of more sophisticated tactics and also once armies were professional more complex tactics are possible
@@Kenjirou69 doesnt matter where you learn something from it just means that event/person/thing/group are still learnt about and studied in one way or another and wont be forgotten.
For “western” Europeans & Anglosaxons to admit that peoples in the central and Eastern Europe can invent something and be superior is a hard pill to swallow. They keep & cultivate this arrogance until these days.
Pictures of lances here are misleading. They were thin, composite of wood, linen fabric and glue, painted spirally, with tiny head and split 2 color 2,5 m long pennants. It was kept not only by hand (too long for it) but the end of the lance was in leather sleeve linked by thong with front of saddle. So impact was taken over by horse - not the rider. They were in three different lengths, depending on the type of opponent. The longest 6,2 m against pikemen, shortest 3 m against light cavalry. Unlike other equipment they were provided by state and standardised. It was a common sight after battle to see 2 or more infantrymen impaled on one lance with record 6 in battle of Klushino.
@@Macedonczyk1 It's considered a legend because it seems improbable to us. That being said, multiple instances of multiple impalings exist both in Polish, Ruthenian and other accounts. Sure Pasek tended to embellish but even if it was 3 or 4 dead in 1 hit, you can see the havoc that would cause in any formation that depends on strict order and cohesion. Multiply that by 125, assume that half the number would inflict on average 2 casualties and you just found yourself with 125 deaths and many traumatic injuries. Considering an ordinary formation was 250 pikes and 250 handgunners, you can see that it's a non trivial amount. Not to mention, handgunners didn't have armour and even less means of fending off swift cavalry. So yes, 6 may be a legend, but multiple kills with a single strike were quite common.
Yes, I also read somewhere that only the front of the breastplate was armoured, with the back being only protected by a fur cloak, to reduce weight and maximize defence from projectiles
@@WWSzar Not always, some of them wore chain-mail, others scale armor. Ironically, scale armor was highly prized and yet offered the least protection. But it sure made an impression! Keep in mind that there was a standard they had to attain but what they chose to wear to reach it was entirely up to them. Some wore furs whereas other, richer ones (officers) wore basically blankets with extravagant embroidery (that lead to a funny diplomatic faux-pas by the Austrians at the feast after the lifting of the siege of Vienna).
Fun fact: Polish lancers were so efficient with their lances on horseback that the last ever recorded cavalry battle was in 1920, and the last ever effective cavalry charge was in March 1945, both performed by Polish soldiers!
@Rory 543 Battle of Schoenfeld, Polish 1st Warsaw Cavalry Brigade fighting under Rotkiewicz for the Soviets won against the German 163rd Infantry Division under Rübel It's in Wikipedia look it up
@@maciejk7689 Yeah but it was the kingdom of Poland at this time, yes Lithuanians were part of the government but it was mostly Poles by population. I get it, you feel like you need to be represented and have to spill this nonsense on ever “Hussar” video.
@@TheRedRaven_ the kingdom of Poland was until the union of Lublin. then the republic of both nations was born. Although since the union in Kreva, this relationship has deepened all the time.
If you like this era of East European warfare, I highly recommend the game "With Fire and Sword". It is an old game but it gives a feel of both role play and strategy game.
Don't, it's a really bad and buggy M&B Warband which is not compatible with M&B Warband mods. Instead you are much better off getting mods which offers this for Warband.
Awesome video! Probably the best about the Polish-Lithuanian hussars available in English. I'm very happy to hear that it will be continued. There are two things that I would like to point out: 1. The iconic large double wings, strapped to the backs of hussars actually appeared quite late. For the majority of _husaria's_ exitance, it was rather a smaller single wing, more likely attached to the saddle. There is a whole debate about how much the wings were even used at all, outside of the parades. 2. The Polish-Lithuanian "cossack" cavalry was mentioned a couple of times in the video, it's worth to note that it was a different formation than the actual cossacks, recruited and formed in a similar fashion as the hussars, in time they became more commonly known as _pancerni_ (the armoured ones) or sometimes _petyhorcy_ in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They might be worth a closer look in the upcoming videos, as they outnumbered the more famous hussars in the Polish-Lithuanian armies in XVII century. The actual cossacks, members of the militarized communities formed in the borderland steppe regions of both Muscovy and the PLC could probably get a video or even a series of their own. The Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossacks, in particular, fought not only as light cavalry but also infantry, even excelling at it and using some of the tactics pioneered by the Hussites. They also conducted Viking-style sea rides on the Black Sea.
As far as I know, the were a sort of light husaria, or an in-between of the husaria and cossacks/pancerni, likely of Caucasian origin, and carried a shorter lance known as the rohatyna. Cossack formations were re-labelled as the pancerni sometime after 1648, primarily in the Crown. As an aside, I'm still trying to figure out what type of formation Pasek served in. He was a towarzysz, but not a hussar, and he speaks of both the pancerni and the dragoons as if he wasn't one of them, either. He frequently went out to skirmish, so maybe a lisowczyk-type light cavalryman?
You missed the most important point related to lances. They were attached to saddle which took the whole energy from the impact. It gave enormous piercing ability - it was happed to be 2, even 3 soldiers pierced by one lance.
@@arekp8880 They did, one of the Polish commanders said they need to reform there infantry to match that of the Swedish and they can not just rely on superior cavalry for ever. Unfortunately attitudes were against having strong infantry because they feared it could lead to peasant revolts as well as the belief that fighting on horseback was more noble.
@krismr6277 Flash forward in time to Coppola's "Apocalypse Now." When Col Kurtz , giving the North Vietnamese ruthlessness a tip of the cap." said to Capt. Willard." if i had 10 divisions of these men, our problems here, would soon be over"
@@ChvdMaximvs Wouldn't the very high cost of equipping and training an army of winged hussars, combined with the high effectiveness of that combat style, necessitate a decentralization of the state to pay for it and assuage the demands for personal status of the hussars themselves? Medieval knights were also hugely expensive and effective and were also associated with highly decentralized gov'ts.
@@bobwinters5572 I don't think this style of warfare necessitated decentralisation. But the PLC happened to be highly decentralised and the nobility had to work around that in organising these hussar regiments.
You might like to read up about the curious Polish device of the Confederation (Konfederacja), a political association fielding an army. It looks like a highly formalised (and democratised) version of the retainer (Bastard Feudal) system of late mediaeval England.
Good Hussar Talking. Hussar's pikes were drilled hollow to break on impact to prevent the horsemen to be de-saddled. Meaning, each horseman can do multiple impacts for as long as he survives attack. Pikes, by the King's order, were provided by the Kind of Poland and there were wagons of them provided at any major battle. So cycling with attacks, each hussars could strike multiple times using this strategy. There is way more to say how hussars train their horses and how they trained themselves. The battlefield tactics just hussars used is very cool and I wish perhaps you can make one movie about it.
Im half polish and half spanish but sometimes I wish we had seen a battle between Wingued Hussars and Spanish Tercios, it would surely had been an interesting fight.
@@basementkidd6818 They weren't Winged hussars but Polish cavalry fought in Spain under napoleon. They were called: 1st Polish Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard. You can read up on them on wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Polish_Light_Cavalry_Regiment_of_the_Imperial_Guard#:~:text=The%201st%20Polish%20Light%20Cavalry,Napoleon%20during%20the%20Napoleonic%20Wars. Here is the bit on when they fought in Spain: The regiment was sent, detachment after detachment, to Spain. The first time chevaulegers fought was on 14 July 1808, during the battle of Medina del Rio Seco (two squadrons under Radzimiński).[38] On 30 November 1808 their most famous charge up the Somosierra Pass took place. That day the 3rd Squadron under Kozietulski (ad interim)[39] was on duty as a personal escort to the Emperor. After the failure of the French infantry attack, Napoleon ordered Polish chevaulegers to take the pass defended by 3000 men and four batteries of Spanish cannons. The narrow road to the top (300 meters level difference, 2,500 meters long), bordered from both sides with waist high stone walls, lined with poplar trees, precluded a demi-squadron or even a troop frontal attack. This was why the attack was conducted in a column four horses wide.[40] After the first battery was taken, chevaulegers, without slowing the full gallop charge, gained the top of the pass in about eight minutes. All four batteries were taken, and the road to Madrid opened for Napoleon's Army. The charge was led by Kozietulski who, however, lost his horse after taking the first battery. The squadron was then joined by Lt. Andrzej Niegolewski, who had previously been on reconnaissance with his troop. The charge was continued under Dziewanowski, and when he fell from his horse after taking the third battery, by Piotr Krasiński. The charge, which continued to the last battery, was led by Niegolewski, who miraculously survived when the Spanish attacked him (he received nine wounds from bayonets and two carbine shots to the head).[41] According to the official version, Kozietulski led his men into the charge with the standard French war cry "En avant, vive l'Empereur!". However, according to the memoirs of many of the veterans the true battle cry was (in Polish) "Naprzód psiekrwie, Cesarz patrzy!" (Forward, you sons of dogs, the Emperor is watching!).[42] The charge has been noted as the most effective victory of the Polish cavalry during the time of the Napoleonic Wars, and as the least costly victory for Napoleon.[43] It became a legend and later an inspiration for many writers and painters.[44] Soon after the battle the regiment was - by Napoleon's decree - included in the Old Guard.[45] It stayed in Spain until February 1809. It took its part in the retaking of Madrid,[46] and in Marshal Soult's campaign against Coalition forces in Portugal.[47] Hundred chevaulegers under Tomasz Łubieński escorted Napoleon on his way back to Paris.[22]
What makes them possibly the best is that they were not heavy cavalry. They were medium cavalry with unarmored horses and Demi armor on the riders. The video mentions the special, faster horses, longer lighter lances, etc.
@@tercio8797 Although I have tremendous respect for the tercios (Spanish ones, not the dutch imitation ones) I think that their fate would be sealed mostly on account of two factors. First being the slow rate of fire of the arquebus leading to at most a single volley against a hussar charge, greatly negating on of the attributes of the Tercio. Secondly, the average Spanish pike was about 5.3 to 5.8 meters long (by the time of Rocroi, between 25 and 27 hands) and depending on the campaign, the Kopia of a Hussar would be between 4.5 to 6.5 meters long. Usually longer against formations of predominantly pikes (Swedish, German and Russian pikes being about 5.1 to 5.5 meters in length) and shorter against eastern style opponents (Ottoman ghasi and yaya troops as well as Jannisaries). I think that the Tercios would put up a valiant effort and not crack under pressure but in the end, I think the length of the lance would be the determinant factor as was the case at Polonka (1660) where in the aftermath of battle, it was noticed that 6 PIKEMEN were squered by a single lance and made a ghastly human shish-kebab. Multiple instances of 3 or more being killed with 1 lance are chronicled. In the end, I think it would have been a bloody affair with the lancers coming on top but at a heavy price, the Spaniards simply didn't crack under pressure and would create a situation where although heavily degraded due to loss of cohesion of the tercio, individual pikes would still be able to attempt to fight and as such, losses would mount on the side of the Hussars. The reason why Ceringola was such a disaster for the French was because not only did their cavalry not have the tools to deal with the Tercios in that they relied on their heavy armor to get them within striking range all the while taking fire because they advanced relatively slowly allowing for multiple volleys, they also didn't have the range advantage and finally couldn't surmount field fortifications. In the end, the Tercios deserve their renoun for they were absolutly terrifying on the field of battle but so does Husaria and I think that in a fair open battle situation with competent command, the Polish-Lithuanian side would come out on top, though the Spaniards would give a bloody good account of themselves but ultimately, they would be going up against a formation that specialized in anti-infantry tactics and their most famous tool being specifically made to outrange pikes.
The most effective point of winged hussars formation was absolute discipline and training for both: riders and horses. They could do maneuvres as formation like no any other cavalry units their times.
@@waldred3537 i am sorry but they was not soldiers. They was rich nobles. So what if horse is trained? It is rider who decides what to do in the battle. How we gonna force nobles to do formation maneuvres?
@@lolnoobus professional pride and duty to your social class could be one of the motivators, from a feudal point of view. The more important you are, the more pride you have and the surer you are of your own victory and the more dedicated you are to it. Mindset is half the battle, after all.
@@lolnoobus From what I've read, Hussars were recruited from the sons of the greater noble families of Commonwealth which is understandable as they had to pay for their own stuff. The tradition of serving in the unit was passed down from generation to generation so Hussars begun their training as soon as they were able to mount a horse. So if my sources are right, then not only were hussar horses the best in the country, but riders themselves were perfectly trained proffesional soldiers, which I think was the main factor of their successes.
Quietly the ground begins to shake, tranquilly the air trembles, soon earth begins to shake as slowly the whole world becomes turmoil, before the wall of winged hussars sweeps away everything in its way....
I remember the first time I learned about the Winged Hussars...it was our regular Sunday WRG Ancient's miniatures game back in the early/mid 80s. I was still in HS and didn't have the time or money to paint an army, so I just played whatever one of the players trusted me with. This day I was given two units, not many miniatures compared to what others were using, and Charlie, who owned the army, coached me on when, where, and how to use them. Armed with a composite lance, saber, sword, mace, two pistols, carbine, and a bow, when I charged I absolutely destroyed the enemy's left flank and cause it and part of the center to rout off the board. Two weeks later, it happened again. I was duly impressed.
The Hussars never attacked alone, they made the main central attack, but on the sides they had a medium-armed cavalry called "Pancerni" which was used for flanking and quick reaction after the main attack. The armored men usually constituted more than half of the mounted troops during the attacks, their origin was in the recruitment and they were often served by well-trained Cossacks, Ruthenians and Lithuanians.
Few facts about polish hussars: 1. Their armor was designed to bounce bullets from musketeers weapons. And it often did that. 2. Hussar horses were the most valuable piece of hussars equipment. They were a separate, unique breed between easter and western horses - strong, fast and resistant. And they were well trained from a foal so they could for example turn back in just 1,5 m area or charge in the crush (the hussar's charge was a horse next to a horse so close that you couldn't put a stick between them). 3. Hussars basically didn't wear wings. They are called "winged hussars" because of few meters long pennants attached to their copies which made a loud bang when horses galloped. And this noise and the movement of pennants was similar to a wings. Real hussars basiclly didn't have wings (only 3-5% hussars had one wing attached to the rear part of saddle) becouse wings made difficult to get on the horse. Wings attached to back of hussars is XIX century hoax. 4. Hussars used about 5 m long copies (sometimes even over 6 meters) so when galloping they were able to kill 3-4 people with one strike (they made shashlik out of enemies :D ). Then the copies broke and the hussars was returning for new ones. 5. They also used sabers (and hussar sabre is the best cold weapon ever created) or koncerz (one of this two, never both at once) and also flintlock pistols.
dude what ? this is the 1600s flintlock pistols weren't a thing back then ! (sure Miquelet and Snapchance weapons existed) but they used Wheellock pistols, not Flintlock
With every new video you manage to further impress me...You offer unreal insight to History & Tactics simultaneously. You have an AMAZING talent for teaching & I hope your channel recieves the attention it deserves!
If the Polish military had been as outdated as people in the West claimed, the logical consequence would have been that they got conquered by other powers or pressed into paying huge tributes. As we can see in this video Polish cities got raided, but no major invasions were successful.
@@yulusleonard985 Main reason why Poland perished from the map was their powerfull neighbours constantly raiding polish territories and devestating its economy. Also main enemies such as: Prussia, Austria and Russia interferied many times in our internal politics. We were forced to reduce amount of soldiers in our country. But also Poland was very weakened due to polish nobility which was very independent from polish king. You can't say that it was only becouse of feudal society. Polish king in that time weren't as powerfull as king of western europe
@@yulusleonard985 actually Polish society was the most free, democratic and tolerant in Europe. Unlike in the "civilized" west which was rife with religious wars, anti-semitism and genocide in the name of religion. Poland elected it's Kings, there was freedom of religion and language and the rights of the main ethnic minorities were protected under law - Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians, Jews, Armenians, Silesians etc all lived in relative peace for CENTURIES.
At the battle of Vienna when Winged Hussars attack the Turks, German & Austrian troops hold attack to admire this view because W.F. battle tactic was spectacular.
Unsurprising given many of those scholars were from Western backgrounds. It's been unfortunately common for scholars to dismiss the innovations of other nations and groups
Declan Ellery To be fair, it comes from a different time in which knowledge wasn’t as wide spread. One could be forgiven for believing Europe to be the end all be all of the world during this time, especially since Europe could go anywhere they wanted and subjugate at will. Reading about history-changing inventions, I have concluded that ~95% of them were created and implemented by Europeans, despite being a small % of the total world population. The reasons to this are likely varied.
@@dr.lyleevans6915 non European world changing inventions; Paper Gunpowder Agriculture Bricks Man-made Canals Writing Crossbows Saddles Guns (including cannons) Rockets Also at that time the Ottomans looked like they could conquer Europe, the Portuguese had to bow down to the Chinese to get Macau, north African pirates plundered the Mediterranean etc.
Declan Ellery Sure. I wasn’t saying that Europeans were the only group to contribute to technological advances; they most certainly weren’t. I would add, however, that many of these were improved upon (in a way that made them able to be practically implemented) by Europe. Gun powder, for example. The Chinese didn’t really know how to best use this newly found substance. Rockets: Europe was the first to implement them in any practical way; WW2 saw the Soviet using them en masse as an offensive weapon, and the Germans doing the same, but on a much larger platform. The V-1 and V-2 missiles were groundbreaking; this program officially made N@z1 Germany the first in space! Later this program became the basis of both America and the Soviet’s space programs. I’m not familiar enough with the history behind these other techs to comment, but either way I don’t doubt other’s ability to invent and revolutionize. Concerning China, they were subjugated by a handful of British ships in the 1800’s; unfortunate situation for the proud (rightfully so by most metrics) closed-off empire.
In informal contemporary language, you may not be as easily understood if you opt for the correct technical jargon. There is a reason why technical jargon is important, but it doesn't have its place in informal speech. It's like how discord servers aren't technically servers, how strawberries are not berries, how the correct term for Sweden, Norway and Finland is Fennoscandia and not Scandinavia, etc. In real life, everyday speech does not care about technical jargon and it shouldn't. Imagine having to learn all of these terms before making conversation, you wouldn't learn how to speak until well after your teens rather than childhood. It'd make conversation stiff and not very swift and efficient. Informal speech needs to be easy to understand and it needs to be fast at conveying information. Technical jargon exist for the opposite reason; it needs to be precise to remove as much ambiguity as possible. It's because when used in a non technical context, the difference between similar things generally do not matter.
@@doigt6590 While I generally agree with your premise, I don't think it holds water in this case. The term "loose their bows" isn't on the level of jargon that needs an explanation. Context in the sentence, combined with the depiction, clearly implies the intention for any with limited English or less historical understanding.
@@bobemmerson1580 You are right to say that from context, a non initiated person would guess the meaning of that verb. However, the difference between loosing a bow or shooting from a bow or firing a bow is lost to most non initiated. Even if they guess it, it's likely to be interpreted as a fancier synonym for firing.
@Danny Isambard That's what you think vs what I think. I do think firing a bow makes much more sense than you think it does, it makes sense because most ranged weapons used today are guns and guns are fired. When you fire a gun, a projectile comes out much like how when you loose a bow, a projectile comes out. It's how quirks form and become in language. If you think about it, there are a lot of other cases where when you apply the original meaning of a word, the expression seems odd and even silly. We're not even in the era where it was necessary to manually manipulate actual fire to shoot bullets from a gun. Should we say hammering or triggering instead of firing then? I'll let you think about that.
- Losing theirs Bows: very bad idea doing that in battle ; they lost their horses too ? or wait ! ... I understand losing bows for safe transport, but in battle shouldn't bows be strengthened ? - Fire their Bows: There are cold nights in East Europe, but I wonder: did they fire only their bows, not the arrows ? arrows burn as good as bows though.
One thing about Battle of Kircholm: Cossacs Cavalry was a name for polish medium cavalry, that has evolved from cossacs cavalry. But there were not Cossacs (even that there were Cossacs regiments in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). The right name is: Pancerni, or Towarzysze Pancerni (Pancerni Companions)
As they were called for Towarzysze Pancerni, it shows they WERE serious noblemen, it wasnt not a sneaky alternative to get non nobles or very petty small nobles into cavallery. (as I think the " regiments of foreigners" cudzoziemskiego autorymentu could be.)
This is brilliant. Very informative and well researched. I love and admire your engagement with modern historians, that definitely makes the video more reliable. The amount of books used for the research is impressive. This is quality that only few animated history channels have, and I value it a lot. I came across your channel because of Battle of Thermopylae video which left a huge impression on me. I admired a little introduction you did to Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus and your engagement with the sources, and ever since I am a subscriber. Keep up the good work. Also, since I am from Poland I can tell that your pronunciation of Jan Karol Chodkiewicz is pretty good as for a non-polish speaker. If you would ever need to know the correct polish pronunciation in the future, I could help, if you don't have anyone already to do that.
Not one of them yelled "Kurwa!!!" while charging infantry... are you sure these guys, you showed, are poles...? But on serious note here- Hussars were, in a way, binding new with the old. As you said, they had a way to counter the Western tactics, but that came also out of medieal traditions of lance wielding. Tournaments or duels with blutned lances were very much a thing here way into XVIth century. The early hussars, that you mentioned, were fighting shoulder to shoulder with late very heavy polish calvary... early hussars were mercenaries, and they proved to be menace very quickly, so our kings sort of... "spent" them in campagins, while at the same time said very heavy calvary, that was useless in fighting Tatars and Moscovites, who wouldn't want to meet those tanks head on- rearmed and retrained in a"hussar" way. So in other words knights became hussars pretty muich within one generation time. Granted, they rearmed few more times, but noblemen, who served as hussars very often considered themselves to be knights, despite the fact this title wasn't in use anmore... In a way hussars were what was best in knghts mixed with what is best in soldiers. You have combat traning since early childhood, morale and suicidal courage of somebody, who thinks himself better and discipline and hard trained ability to manouver as one- legend says hussars learned how to charge in tight formation by placing a floren between their knee and the knee of rider to their right, and that at the end of the traning they had to show said coin to the commander as proofe, thei didn;t break the formation in any way. They also had to provide their own gear, which is very knight- like, and in return they got titles, or tax exeptions, or lad... And that is VERY knight- like. So it was modern army, with a lot of things attached, that screamed "medieval". Which is why they were always in such low numbers... Too much of a elite. You mentioned Kircholm, but i have better one for ya, a record charge- i told this story under so many videos, it is practically copy and paste at this point, but it is really good one and shows what kind of people these assholes were: in 1660 at Kutyszcze, Poilsh- Lithuanian army was chasing retreating Moscovite- Cossac army. Vanguard of my kinsmen was consiting of 140 hussars, under Wilczkowski. The rearguard of the opponents was made out of about 3000- 4000 of cossack light infantry and 1000 of Moscovite "Cuirassieurs"(they were heavily armored[as heavy as hussars, if not more- they had gauntlets and back plates and some degree of legs defense- hussars did not] mounted musketeers, but in the memoirs they were called "cuirassieurs")... So about 140 hussars, after quick, 25 km long march, suddenly comes up on this 5000 men... And what do they do? Charge. I mean, why not? We all are on our way to hell anyway... Second banner(unit) of hussars under Wyżycki, about same size as first one, rides up, sees what is happening, and they charge as well. Moscovite calvary just runs- through their infantry- hussars, chasing them, rides through te infantry as well. Mounted shooters manage to reach their entrenched positions- there were cannons there, and stakes and all kind of things, which would make hussars' job hard, so they decided to turn and ride away... Through the infantry. Again. If i remember correctly amount of killed was at 1500 to 2000, while hussars were mostly unscatched, only wounded... Charge was not really that important, in grand scheme of things, but had to be something to behold, when disproportion of forces was about 20:1. I mean, where is this blood, in this country now???
A minor nitpick, but the Russians, from my knowledge, never actually fielded anything as heavily armoured as the hussars in Ukraine, so it must have been a exaggeration in the source you were using. The heaviest armoured troops the Russians had were their own hussars, but they were active in the Novgorod region and Lithuania, not Ukraine. Normal reiter equipment consisted of a cuirass and a helmet, no additional armour was used. Lancers that were fielded by Russians in Ukraine were armoured just like the reiters.
The "primitive" parts of Eastern Warfare had more to do with their social and economic organization than their weapons and tactics. The Winged Hussars were nobility, men born and raised to the saddle. They were organized along feudal familiar lines. They were paid for using a system of feudal levies. By contrast, in the West, infantry came from urban populations first, they were commoners, they were organized corporately/institutionally and paid for by a sophisticated financial system. But geography played the greatest role. Even up to WWI, war in Western Europe was dominated by slow moving infantry war that devolved to static warfare, while the East was dominated fluid open field warfare that became static only around fortresses and cities. Horses are just more useful in the wide areas of the East than in the congested lands of the West.
"They were organized along feudal familiar lines. They were paid for using a system of feudal levies." -- I'm sorry, what? Hussars were formed just like any professional units. From volunteers that served in exchange for regular payment. You did not have to be a nobleman to serve as a hussar. You didn't even have to be Polish. Moreover, Hussars were just one formation in the Polish army from a wide array of cavalry and infantry formations, not to mention artillery, all part of the standing army that was paid from the state treasury.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Yes, but the hussar equipment and horses (especially horses) were still expansive as hell. So said volounteers had to either be wealthy enough to purchase them (and as we know, Commonwealth was rather lacking in terms of non-noble middle class), or find a wealthy sponsor who they would pay a part of their income in return for equipment. Similar was true for most of the cavalry units. So in majority cases said volounteers were either nobles or a subordinates of one.
@@wojciechkowalski8061 Yes, which doesn't change the fact that @Shannon Love claimed they were organized along familiar lines and that they were using a feudal system of levies. Both these statements simply aren't true.
Please realize that Polish-Lithuanians fought on enormously VAST lands where mobility was the very key for success. This wasn't the Flanders wars where a town like Breda was the "focal point" of victory. A fort (no matter how strong) or even ten of them, had little value, because the country - especially in the South/Eastern provinces (the ones that were bordering the Turkish or Tartar lands) were ENORMOUSLY vast and also underpopulated. Study - for example - how the Cossacks from Zaporozhe used to make wars. They didn't rely too much on cavalry either - had big, very cracked infantry formations, but they wouldn't build permanent forts. The way they defended themselves against cavalry attacks - mainly Polish & Lithuanian cavalry! - was through what they called "TABOR" - i.e. - they would put all their wagons together - in a circle & chain them with heavy chains and use every tool at their disposal to inflict casualties onto the attacking cavalry. LONG STORY SHORT ... POINT OF ALL OF THAT IS - MOBILITY was the key to win wars on those lands and - truth be told ... still is.
The Tartar tabor sounds a lot like what Americans would call "circling the wagons", a tactic that worked fairly well against the Native American war parties of the 19th century, unless vastly outnumbered or until the Natives gained access to "modern" repeating firearms.
Great stuff, finally some objective insights on east vs west tactics. One note - although since 1569 Poland and Lithuania formed The Commonwealth, armies were actually separate (even if, of course, shared design, weaponry and tactics). Thus, it was Lithuanian (rather than Polish) army at Kircholm in 1605 (and Karol Chodkiewicz was a Lithuanian hetman - perhaps thanks to that battle). It is also worth to mention that Hussars had a chance to demolish also German famous landsknechts - see battle of Lubieszów of 1577 and Battle of Byczyna of 1588.
"Thus, it was Lithuanian (rather than Polish) army at Kircholm" --- Armies at the time were a lot like today's football teams. Even if Bayern Munich has players from many different countries it doesn't make Bayern any less German since it's own by Germans. The same could be said about the armies of the time period. The army that fought at Kicholm was financed mostly from the Crown's treasury, up to 87% while Lithuanians contributed only between 13% to 36% of the money for the army under Jan Karol Chodkiewicz. That makes that army Polish-Lithuanian. That is if we don't go into the boggy ground that is national identity at the time. Considering that almost all nobility within the Duchy spoke Polish and they even often called themselves Polish.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 LoL. Please be informed that Lithuanian army WAS OWNED by Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Union of Lublin was very specific about keeping both armies separated. Secondly, I don't know the sources of you specific numbers, but in fact a) Chodkiewicz's army was not financed, that was a problem and b) using you analogy, it doesn't matter who pays - Arsenal is still English club, no matter what adv they had on their shirts ... And it's even hard to comment this national identity thesis of yours.... There were incomparably more Ruthenians within ranks of GDoL army than Poles - yet it doesn't make GDoL army 'Ruthenian'. We're talking here about states, not ethnic.
this channel is awesome the animations and graphics really help to understand much more than simpler ones ive seen on the same/ similar subjects. im sure it takes alot of time but its worth its weight
Great video! For completeness, will you do the Ottoman army later? That should round out the big armies of the early 17th century. Polish infantry would also be interesting to cover.
Interestingly enough the same innovation in use of Cavalry Lance happened in the Mongol steppes roughly in the same time frame. Kalmyks and Oirats are quite known for their cavalry charges. Great video as always.
@Polish Hero Witold Pilecki I never stated that there is a connection between Oirats and Polish Hussars. There is comment about Ulans, and it's entirely different subject. But it's sad see how genuinely intelligent person, spends so much time just to reinforce his national creation myth. Referring to everything else as something lesser, and lees significant.
@@SpiritBaker He may be a little overzealous but I'm pretty sure he didn't go into Sarmatism or pre-christian times so that whole quip about national creation myth is out of place. That being said, it may be long winded and come across as point-dexterish but you on the other hand just came across as a dick with a penchant for putting words in other peoples' mouths.
Where exactly did this take place? Because I remember reading Russians in Siberia organising lancers to fight the locals more effectively (interestingly, the lancers were probably former pancerni cossacks, Poles and Lithuanians that were taken prisoner in wars and settled in Siberia).
I think it's high time to adapt the "Then the winged hussars arrived" as a phrase regarding a deus ex machina situation. Pretty sure everyone already knows the context this lyric is used for.
This video was great. I really enjoyed it. I heard that the Polish Winged Hussars were able to make a strange and unsettling sound as they charged. But that hasn't been proven effectively. But I wish it had been.
Excellent heavy cavalry !!! Essencially a knight that cut weight to gain more battlefield mobility + much longer lance => effective against PIKE INFANTRY. But carried enough armour protection to dominate in a cavalry melee => effective against other CAVALRY. Therefore could beat lighter cavalry head-on (like the knight) and also (unlike the knight) perform effective flanking moves against pike infantry.
Koncerz is more similar to estoc than to rapier. It's primarily thrusting weapon with pretty much none cutting or slashing ability. Winged hussars sabres were slightly heavier than those used by Cossacks cavalry or dragoons. Another important trait of sabres used in PLC by cavalry from late 16 century is that they were "one and half" edged. They had edge on the outside curved side of blade and about 1/3 of the other side of blade also had edge. This gave those sabres quite good thrusting ability while allowing for some back edge cutting attacks.
Very good analysis. Yes this is true the Poles developed their cavalry because it were the best units for the theater of military operations in the east and large landscapes big spaces . Poles love horses and cavalery and have very big tradition of these troops .
Oh my, I'm afraid to watch it. On one hand, I love that people get interested in the Winged Hussars, on the other hand, the information is usually so inaccurate. Here we go... [...] Damn! You quoted Mackiewicz! Sorry man, I can only give one like. And then you mention the *actually effective* countermeasures! Field fortifications and intelligent use of cavalry! Well, I was not prepared to see something like that. I really mean it. Congratulations. Minor corrections, literally, *minor* : 1. You are correct in at least mentioning, that The Winged Hussars could be qualified as medium cavalry, but you shouldn't be so careful with that statement, because they really were medium cavalry. Heavy cavalry at the time had more complete plate armor and heavier horses. The Winged Hussars were medium shock cavalry. 2. The horses they used weren't "crossbreeds". They were a domestic breed, so called "Polish noble horse", currently extinct. 3. The primary weapon of the Hussars was the lance, that includes cavalry engagements. The effectiveness of the lance against the pikemen seems like an accidental benefit. 4. Bows and pistols were the weapons which were used at the same time. Pistols did not replace bows. If anything, they replaced shields. 5. It's quite likely that the odds at Klushino battle were even worse. I know, it's hard to believe, and the detailed research is still new. Just a nitpick. 6. A minor inaccuracy in the Klushino battle segment. The Western mercenaries were defending the fence, fairly safe behind it. Then the Polish-Lithuanian infantry arrived and managed to throw them away from this cover. Out it the open they didn't feel like facing the Hussars, so they retreated into the camp. That piece is fairly well reconstructed from the numerous sources. The moral of the story is, that they didn't feel safe protected only by the pikes. Not on this day.
Great video! Thorough preparation. Clear, precise and logical application. Fit to puprpose. Extermally efficient. Must have taken a lot of resources to prepare. Hence: a winged hussar of history videos. ;)
Thanks, a very interesting presentation. However, the Polish infantry formed a critical component of the Polish armies in spite of their small numbers. They were used to fix or disrupt enemy formation and break field fortifications, allowing commanders to use the hussars to maximum advantage. This happened at Chocim and Vienna where infantry cleared the way for the cavalry. At Lubieszow, the Polish hajduks engaged the landskneckt at close quarters and allowed the cavalry to outflank and break the Danzig army. Similarly light cavalry were used to outflank and disrupt enemy positions.
There were lot of reasons why hussars were much more effective in combat than western lancers. In addition to other reasons kopia's used by hussars were about 2 meters longer and that made a huge difference against pikeman. Kopia is a type of lance but it is quite different than western lances. Kopia's were hollow inside so they could be longer and still lighter and with greater range of motion. Also they could do huge damage there were occasions when single hussar run through 6 enemy soldiers at once with his kopia ( eastern lance) also hussar sabers were better than both eastern and western sabers of the time. Because they had strengths of both.
@@mickethegoblin7167 It is not mutually exclusive. There was unfortunate stereotype that Eastern countries were primitive. Mostly because everyone focus on Russia or Balkans.
There are two aspects of warfare : Tactical and Strategic. It seems to me that the winged hussars were a balance between the two aspects. A heavy and alround fighting formation and a fast scouting, foraging and raiding party. Unfortunately they were very expensive and in small numbers.
Yes and no. Although hussars were generally quite versatile (all units in the Polish army had to be considering the very wide variety of enemies they fought) but SandRhoman makes it look like (or at least judging by your comment, people are misunderstanding his message) hussars existed in a vacuum. The roles of light cavalry in the Polish army were played by... light cavalry NOT hussars although as mentioned hussars if needed could fulfill those roles. The jobs you're describing were usually delegated to Cossack/Pancerni cavalry or different types of medium or light cavalry.
@Polish Hero Witold Pilecki No, the Cossack Registry and/or the Zaporozhian Cossacks (many Zaporozhian sicze were part of the registry of the Polish army) are not the same as cossack companions (towarzysze kozaccy)... Cossack companions, aka panzer companions (towarzysze pancerni) later on, made up the bulk of the Polish cavalry in the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. Cossack riders tended to be clad in cloth while panzer riders tended to wear chain mail armour. The Zaporozhian Cossacks with the Cossack Registry (officially part of the Polish border defense system) were a different type of unit and were mostly infantry.
@@dumnylach but of course! Comparing a Serbian 14th-15th century knight with a Polish 17th century knight is like comparing a wheel cart and a locomotive. Serbian knights who ran away from the Turks found their heaven in Poland and other countries and their contribution were those long lancers, which were developed to counter infantry spikes. Originally in Serbian "husari" were raiders and/or armed cavalry men that were outside the law of the state, which at the end of the day that's what those knights actually were once the Serbian state fell to the Turks. 14th century Dušan's Codex mentions such groups called husari and commands heavy penalties for them and for the villages that provide them with any kind of support.
@@cynicalskeptic You are right but also I have read that seebian "husari" should be labeled as a light cavalry while polish "husaria" were shock heavy cavarly. Correct me if I am wrong. Greets from Polska.
@@dumnylach you are most likely right. The knights that would run away to Hungary, and maybe even Poland, were of lesser nobility therefore they could not afford heavy armor, but who could tell? From what I read, after they lost their lands they started pillaging the Turks and the Hungarians, until Hungarians persuaded them (one way or another) to join their ranks. I cannot competently speak about medieval armor because I don't know enough especially when it's about a period that lasts for a few centuries. Polish hussars, from what I read, are interesting because they had heavy armor but were also capable of doing things that light cavalry was capable of. So I have to wonder if light/heavy division with Polish hussars has lost its meaning? But then again Polish hussars probably had their own different stages of development and maybe even subtypes. Hussars are an interesting phenomenon, even the Germans had their hussaria regiments, to my shock and surprise.
There's quite an interesting story about Siege of Pskov which Commonwealth ultimately lost (but won the war nonetheless). King Batory accused Polish soldiers of low morale because they were getting high on dogwoods seeds. After the war he ordered to stop growing this plant which is very important for bees and for production of mead. But Poles had to make alcohol out of something and this something was new plant from beyond the ocean called potato. And thus wódka became the most popular alcohol in Poland.
Really ? Hmmm How do you get high on dogwoods seeds ? Apparently Nostradamus used nutmeg for his visions Seems back then they would try anything to get highn
Because they can produce them in big numbers. In the soviet union during ww2 the tanks were designed to be cheap. It was part of their doctrine, just throw people ( or tanks in this case) at the problem until it solves it selves
Matteo Aievola This, but also because there were entire industries in the USSR which depended on constant large scale production of tanks, and on constant preparation for an even larger scale production in case of war
@Pasha Staravoitau its not a myth, they were incompetent clowns when left to their own devices, several smaller nations beat the living shit out of them despite being atrociously outnumbered. If not for their masters, the Judas bankers the Marxists wouldn't even have been able to win their little inssurection which had no support of the Russian people, and would have been defeated in 1941 if not for trillion sent in tanks, ammo, food and weapons and raw materials sent not only by the British Empire and USA but also by their banker masters aswell
@Pasha Staravoitau Nazi propaganda WTF? It's actually true but haven't done in every battle. But there are several incidences like in the winter war against Finnland where the Finns wondered why the Russians where charging the same position again and again while slaughtering a lot of them without changing tactics. Or at the battle of kurs where they throwed division after division to stop the German tanks advancements
CORRECTION about the origins of the hussars is below!
For all the people waiting for the meme: well, wait for it.
Also: These videos take us an immense amount of time to research, review, double-check and animate. If you think this work is valuable then please do consider supporting us on Patreon. My job at the university as a teaching assistant has come to an end (you can only do the job for 4 years). So a lot of my income is now reliant on TH-cam. Also please let us know whether you would like to see more videos on warfare or more videos like the series on sieges where we do more story telling.
Edit: Link www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhistory
Edit 2: (correction) We accidentally merged together a few lines about different light cavalry units and their origins (which were cut from the script in the end) with the origins of the hussars. That' s why it is messed up in the video. In the beginning they were exiled Serbian mercenaries (some sources also simply say "balkan". Also, the early Hussars were modeled off the Hungarian Hussars.
Good luck with your next video.
WHEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVE
More warfare, please.
There are many channels out there, who have a significant focus on sieges, and storytelling, but not nearly as many, that not only goes into types of units, but also their tactics
What music did you use? I really liked it!
Dziekuje !!!!
So a comment from Polish historian (me, greetings from Kraków guys):
The way our hussars charged was also very different from a medieval style charge- at the beginning a unit of polish cavalry is forming in a very loose formations- 100 horses in a 500 meters front, few hundreds meters from enemy ranks- way outside muskets fire range. Then they're slowly advancing and 100 meters from enemy ranks gallop begin. 20 (!) meters from enemy ranks hussars are closing their ranks from 500 to less than a 70 meters front in a full speed (cwał, faster than gallop). Enemy musketeers had no chance to fire effectivly in such a loose formation and once formation was close it was too late.
Prussian army made a trial at the end of XVIII (!) century- from 70meters only 60% of bullets shout from a battalion of musketeers hit a BARN SIZE target (25x2 meters) so effective range of early XVI-XVII century musketeers was around...20 meters.
So a key factor for a Polish Hussars strike was to attack the weakest point in enemy ranks with one massive strike, like German panzer formations in 1939-1942. Enemy simply couldnt stand that.
Another intresting fact missed in this great video- almost all of hussars beside of an arch has a pair of pistols or a cavalry musket as well.
But why Moskovites and other powers of the central/eastern Europe didnt muster their own hussaars regiments as well? Money, money, money. Equipment + a horse for a hussar was an equivalent in price to a FEW VILLAGES. Very- fu*king expensive. In XVII century Polish nobility was EXTREMLY rich- they didnt have to pay taxes (really :/) but instead they has to defend the country and service in a hussars regimant was a highest distinction. Plus cause of that they were trained in warfare basically from early childhood, while in the west armies consist in that period not rich nobility but poor pasants. Unfortunately for us constatn wars in XVII century ruined Poland economicly- XVIII century and a fall of hussars was a result of economic decline.
Most HARDCORE Polish hussars battle? HODÓW. 100 Hussars + 300 lighter pancerni cavalry againsr 40000 tatars. OFC we won :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hod%C3%B3w
Traditions of Polish lancers didnt die in XVIII century- in XIX century Polish nobility fought alongisde Napoleon against well, everyone in Europe doing some great job as well- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Polish_Light_Cavalry_Regiment_of_the_Imperial_Guard
If You have any questions guys- feel free to ask.
PS: The greatest source of infos about Polish Hussars are Radosław Sikora's books- he is a historian specialized in this field. Sadly his books are not translated into english (I guess) pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rados%C5%82aw_Sikora
a little question: musket effective range were 20 m. Hussar close knit their formation at 20 m, that is, less than a meter for a horse (100 hussars in a 70 m wide front). that's quite a large target that musket were definitely good at. no accuracy needed since the enemy are grouped together at 20 m (an old "shoot when you could see the white on their eyes!" tactic). with pikes to protect these musketeers when they're reloading (make it impossible for direct charge against the formation). why doesn't it work the same for these hussar?
@@alifkazeryu8228 Few factors:
1) psychology. You have to have really huge balls and be perfectly trained to wait till the last second to shoot. Just imagine wall of winged crazy horses closing on you, and your musket while your only defence is one bullet in your firearm. In most of charges casualties from small firearms were really small and mostly in horses.
2) Hussars lances were longer than pikeman's pikes.
Thank you for this comment! I wish that the video included more information like this, rather than speaking to the usefulness of cavalry forces in general in the region. I'm not sure who needs to be convinced of that. Can I ask if you know many examples of numbers in cavalry battles (i.e. did the cavalry of PL forces tend to be more or less numerous than Swedish, German, Tartar, and Muscovite forces)? I am also interested in what equipment they generally used in cavalry battles; did they carry the same mix of arms as when charging musket and pike?
Good stuff. I’m not biased ;-)
@@jameseichner4673 winged hussars were basicly riding arsenals. They alwas had sabers, lances, koncerz (very similar to estoc, used to charge when all lances broke), pair of pistols, and sometimes even warhammers, warpicks or bows. Keep in mind that hussars were not standarized, and they have to have their own weapons and armor. So it was variety between them.
Also, hussar armor was very durable - IT was able to withstand point-blank shot from smaller fireaems.
Lengyel magyar két jó barát
Respect from Hungary
🇭🇺💪🔥🇵🇱
I do szabli i do szklanki!
I'm a simple Pole, I see Hungarian fellow in comments? I give a like!
Szabla - węgierka (Hungarian sabre, sabre was inplemented in Poland by king Batory, Hungarian)
Czapka - magierka (hat from magora)
Dziecię - szlacheckie (nobile's child)
Wyżlę - niemieckie (Geraman hounting dog)
Najlepsze są (Are the best)
Pozdro Bracie 🇭🇺🇵🇱
greetings from polish brothers
Love You Poland From Hungary :)
We could use them Winged Hussars again to keep Europe safe from those Ottomans.
Polak , Węgier dwa bratanki!
@@Uriel-Septim. oh Lord now your ilk again
@@Giagantus Thanks
Love Poland and Hungary... From the US
Lithuanian Hetman Jan Karol Chodkiewicz's famous quote during Battle of Kircholm when scouts reported him that countless Swedes are swarming towards them: "We will count them after we beat them"
One thing is that swedish King fled the battle and killed Polish war prisoner in anger, while our troops buried all fallen Swedes. And the Swedes who fled the battlefield to nearby villages had a hard time due to their bestiality against peasants.
Poland i
At this time Poland and Lithuania it was one country, kind of union.
Polski bo czuł się Polakiem
thanks God
Great video! Vivat Rzeczpospolita!
Magna Polonia invicta est. Vivat husaria et vivat rex! Amor patriae nostra lex.
Someone played mount and blade with fire and sword
I'm always amazed at how they managed to carry out these complicated battle plans, especially when the leaders can only see things from eye level and from a distance. It would be fascinating to see in real life how the soldiers were trained, how much they understood about what they were being told to do while in battle. You can't tell every soldier in advance "At this point in the battle, we will fake a retreat", timing is everything, the plan might change and you don't want any traitors to give away plans... so how do you prevent your own army from losing hope when told to retreat? There's only so much you can quickly signal with flags, sounds etc in a battle... you need a very disciplined army.
Its all about command and controll and drill, the longer time passes the more drilled the infanteri become. Charls XI army did suffer horribel in the hands of the winged hussars, but laters Charls XII army that was one of the best drilled wrecked the winged hussars.
It's a good reminder that while older armies lacked our modern technology and knowledge, they were still often led and staffed by very intelligent people.
They also went on campaign without any maps, like jan Sobieski didn’t even know the battle field for the siege of Vienna
That's why probably most army tactics were mostly simplistic charges you couldn't really stop once released or they dug in and waited for the enemy .
Similar with cavalry once they charged they were basically out of control.
Only the most disciplined armies were capable of more sophisticated tactics and also once armies were professional more complex tactics are possible
Alot of the times they had musicians to signal things like that. Each command would have a specific drum beat to it.
Everybody gangsta until the winged hussars charge
🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱
love it 😂
Then the wingded hussards arrived
good one :)
@@matheomatouan5171 COMING DOWN THE MOUNTAINSIDE
Winged Hussars: *Fade from memory save in Poland/Die Hard historians of the period*
Sabaton: I'm about to resurrect this unit's career
indeed.
They're coming to England, in the artwork on the cans of Polish beer in all the shops 😄
Is it weird that I've known about them first from a game and not from a song?
@@Kenjirou69 doesnt matter where you learn something from it just means that event/person/thing/group are still learnt about and studied in one way or another and wont be forgotten.
@@Kenjirou69 Nah I learned about them from my friend, although im not quite sure where he learned about them though.
For “western” Europeans & Anglosaxons to admit that peoples in the central and Eastern Europe can invent something and be superior is a hard pill to swallow. They keep & cultivate this arrogance until these days.
true
That's true.
slavs always were treated as second class ppl !
@@walsjell Slavs have allowed for this - it’s time to do it differently for the future
@@danieldpa8484 and how we would do that? its always empty words and ends with emigration to the west for money..
Pictures of lances here are misleading. They were thin, composite of wood, linen fabric and glue, painted spirally, with tiny head and split 2 color 2,5 m long pennants. It was kept not only by hand (too long for it) but the end of the lance was in leather sleeve linked by thong with front of saddle. So impact was taken over by horse - not the rider.
They were in three different lengths, depending on the type of opponent. The longest 6,2 m against pikemen, shortest 3 m against light cavalry. Unlike other equipment they were provided by state and standardised. It was a common sight after battle to see 2 or more infantrymen impaled on one lance with record 6 in battle of Klushino.
This story about 6 opponents stuffed on one lance is from the Battle of Połonka and this is rather a legend.
@@Macedonczyk1 It's considered a legend because it seems improbable to us. That being said, multiple instances of multiple impalings exist both in Polish, Ruthenian and other accounts. Sure Pasek tended to embellish but even if it was 3 or 4 dead in 1 hit, you can see the havoc that would cause in any formation that depends on strict order and cohesion. Multiply that by 125, assume that half the number would inflict on average 2 casualties and you just found yourself with 125 deaths and many traumatic injuries. Considering an ordinary formation was 250 pikes and 250 handgunners, you can see that it's a non trivial amount. Not to mention, handgunners didn't have armour and even less means of fending off swift cavalry. So yes, 6 may be a legend, but multiple kills with a single strike were quite common.
You forgot to mention that they were hollow inside to reduce the weight.
Yes, I also read somewhere that only the front of the breastplate was armoured, with the back being only protected by a fur cloak, to reduce weight and maximize defence from projectiles
@@WWSzar Not always, some of them wore chain-mail, others scale armor. Ironically, scale armor was highly prized and yet offered the least protection. But it sure made an impression! Keep in mind that there was a standard they had to attain but what they chose to wear to reach it was entirely up to them. Some wore furs whereas other, richer ones (officers) wore basically blankets with extravagant embroidery (that lead to a funny diplomatic faux-pas by the Austrians at the feast after the lifting of the siege of Vienna).
Fun fact: Polish lancers were so efficient with their lances on horseback that the last ever recorded cavalry battle was in 1920, and the last ever effective cavalry charge was in March 1945, both performed by Polish soldiers!
1923? What battle that would be?
@@Kopyrda oof i meant 1920, battle of komarow
@Rory 543 Battle of Schoenfeld
@Rory 543 Battle of Schoenfeld, Polish 1st Warsaw Cavalry Brigade fighting under Rotkiewicz for the Soviets won against the German 163rd Infantry Division under Rübel
It's in Wikipedia look it up
Note: Polish cavalry in ww2 were mounted Anti-Tank rifles.
Still awesome tho
As a half-Pole/American, I’m blown away learning about this aspect of Polish history.
Not only Polish.
The commonwealth of both nations is the country from which today's Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus and Ukraine were born.
@@maciejk7689 Yeah but it was the kingdom of Poland at this time, yes Lithuanians were part of the government but it was mostly Poles by population. I get it, you feel like you need to be represented and have to spill this nonsense on ever “Hussar” video.
@@TheRedRaven_
the kingdom of Poland was until the union of Lublin. then the republic of both nations was born. Although since the union in Kreva, this relationship has deepened all the time.
The union of Lublin was signed on July 1, 1569
And the strong ties with Ruthenia began with the competition for the Rus of Halisko already in the 13th century during the reign of Casimir the Great.
If you like this era of East European warfare, I highly recommend the game "With Fire and Sword".
It is an old game but it gives a feel of both role play and strategy game.
And get Csatadi's mod for historical realism
Don't, it's a really bad and buggy M&B Warband which is not compatible with M&B Warband mods. Instead you are much better off getting mods which offers this for Warband.
"By Fire and Sword" is also a name of a tabletop historical wargame, as I understand fairly well received.
Its great.
“With Fire and Sword” is also the name of one of the great Polish novels, the first in the Sienkiewicz trilogy.
Awesome video! Probably the best about the Polish-Lithuanian hussars available in English. I'm very happy to hear that it will be continued.
There are two things that I would like to point out:
1. The iconic large double wings, strapped to the backs of hussars actually appeared quite late. For the majority of _husaria's_ exitance, it was rather a smaller single wing, more likely attached to the saddle. There is a whole debate about how much the wings were even used at all, outside of the parades.
2. The Polish-Lithuanian "cossack" cavalry was mentioned a couple of times in the video, it's worth to note that it was a different formation than the actual cossacks, recruited and formed in a similar fashion as the hussars, in time they became more commonly known as _pancerni_ (the armoured ones) or sometimes _petyhorcy_ in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They might be worth a closer look in the upcoming videos, as they outnumbered the more famous hussars in the Polish-Lithuanian armies in XVII century.
The actual cossacks, members of the militarized communities formed in the borderland steppe regions of both Muscovy and the PLC could probably get a video or even a series of their own. The Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossacks, in particular, fought not only as light cavalry but also infantry, even excelling at it and using some of the tactics pioneered by the Hussites. They also conducted Viking-style sea rides on the Black Sea.
Great comment, mate.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Thanks!
Totally agree. Well done.
As far as I know, the were a sort of light husaria, or an in-between of the husaria and cossacks/pancerni, likely of Caucasian origin, and carried a shorter lance known as the rohatyna. Cossack formations were re-labelled as the pancerni sometime after 1648, primarily in the Crown.
As an aside, I'm still trying to figure out what type of formation Pasek served in. He was a towarzysz, but not a hussar, and he speaks of both the pancerni and the dragoons as if he wasn't one of them, either. He frequently went out to skirmish, so maybe a lisowczyk-type light cavalryman?
They had wings. End this idiotic quote.
This channel really is a hidden jam
@Random Dude blueberry marmalade and strawberry would like to have a word with you sir
You know you have a jam addiction when you start hiding it around the house
Gem :)
@Random Dude the committee of the almighty jams would like to know your location sir.
@@TimDutch no no....he really meant jam
You missed the most important point related to lances. They were attached to saddle which took the whole energy from the impact. It gave enormous piercing ability - it was happed to be 2, even 3 soldiers pierced by one lance.
up to 6 soldiers pierced on one lance
Worth to mentione a sentence from Gustavus Adolfus: "If i would have such a cavalery with my infantry i would be camping this year at Konstantinopol"
you could say exactly opposite with Swedish Infantry probably
@@arekp8880 They did, one of the Polish commanders said they need to reform there infantry to match that of the Swedish and they can not just rely on superior cavalry for ever. Unfortunately attitudes were against having strong infantry because they feared it could lead to peasant revolts as well as the belief that fighting on horseback was more noble.
@@noobeable thanks for that valuable comment :) was not aware of that, but it makes perfect sense.
@krismr6277 Flash forward in time to Coppola's "Apocalypse Now." When Col Kurtz , giving the North Vietnamese ruthlessness a tip of the cap." said to Capt. Willard." if i had 10 divisions of these men, our problems here, would soon be over"
The Dutch, Spanish, and Swedes were indeed revolutionizing warfare, but so were the Poles. They were just revolutionizing it in different ways.
And yet your countries are being invaded. Amazing Irony.
@@ChvdMaximvs Wouldn't the very high cost of equipping and training an army of winged hussars, combined with the high effectiveness of that combat style, necessitate a decentralization of the state to pay for it and assuage the demands for personal status of the hussars themselves? Medieval knights were also hugely expensive and effective and were also associated with highly decentralized gov'ts.
@@bobwinters5572
I don't think this style of warfare necessitated decentralisation.
But the PLC happened to be highly decentralised and the nobility had to work around that in organising these hussar regiments.
You might like to read up about the curious Polish device of the Confederation (Konfederacja), a political association fielding an army.
It looks like a highly formalised (and democratised) version of the retainer (Bastard Feudal) system of late mediaeval England.
@@johnsmithson8020 That was a political problem. In fact Polish had defeated Russian attacks at first.
Good Hussar Talking.
Hussar's pikes were drilled hollow to break on impact to prevent the horsemen to be de-saddled. Meaning, each horseman can do multiple impacts for as long as he survives attack. Pikes, by the King's order, were provided by the Kind of Poland and there were wagons of them provided at any major battle. So cycling with attacks, each hussars could strike multiple times using this strategy.
There is way more to say how hussars train their horses and how they trained themselves. The battlefield tactics just hussars used is very cool and I wish perhaps you can make one movie about it.
This comment section is going to have soooooo many Sabaton references :D
hahahha you sick bastard you are here ehhhh
Yes
@@theonleeone6291 i don't know. did someone arrive?
Didn't expect you to be here
Sabaton sucks
The winged Hussars were the best heavy cavalry ever, in my opinion
Im half polish and half spanish but sometimes I wish we had seen a battle between Wingued Hussars and Spanish Tercios, it would surely had been an interesting fight.
@@basementkidd6818 They weren't Winged hussars but Polish cavalry fought in Spain under napoleon. They were called: 1st Polish Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard. You can read up on them on wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Polish_Light_Cavalry_Regiment_of_the_Imperial_Guard#:~:text=The%201st%20Polish%20Light%20Cavalry,Napoleon%20during%20the%20Napoleonic%20Wars.
Here is the bit on when they fought in Spain: The regiment was sent, detachment after detachment, to Spain. The first time chevaulegers fought was on 14 July 1808, during the battle of Medina del Rio Seco (two squadrons under Radzimiński).[38]
On 30 November 1808 their most famous charge up the Somosierra Pass took place. That day the 3rd Squadron under Kozietulski (ad interim)[39] was on duty as a personal escort to the Emperor. After the failure of the French infantry attack, Napoleon ordered Polish chevaulegers to take the pass defended by 3000 men and four batteries of Spanish cannons. The narrow road to the top (300 meters level difference, 2,500 meters long), bordered from both sides with waist high stone walls, lined with poplar trees, precluded a demi-squadron or even a troop frontal attack. This was why the attack was conducted in a column four horses wide.[40] After the first battery was taken, chevaulegers, without slowing the full gallop charge, gained the top of the pass in about eight minutes. All four batteries were taken, and the road to Madrid opened for Napoleon's Army. The charge was led by Kozietulski who, however, lost his horse after taking the first battery. The squadron was then joined by Lt. Andrzej Niegolewski, who had previously been on reconnaissance with his troop. The charge was continued under Dziewanowski, and when he fell from his horse after taking the third battery, by Piotr Krasiński. The charge, which continued to the last battery, was led by Niegolewski, who miraculously survived when the Spanish attacked him (he received nine wounds from bayonets and two carbine shots to the head).[41]
According to the official version, Kozietulski led his men into the charge with the standard French war cry "En avant, vive l'Empereur!". However, according to the memoirs of many of the veterans the true battle cry was (in Polish) "Naprzód psiekrwie, Cesarz patrzy!" (Forward, you sons of dogs, the Emperor is watching!).[42]
The charge has been noted as the most effective victory of the Polish cavalry during the time of the Napoleonic Wars, and as the least costly victory for Napoleon.[43] It became a legend and later an inspiration for many writers and painters.[44]
Soon after the battle the regiment was - by Napoleon's decree - included in the Old Guard.[45] It stayed in Spain until February 1809. It took its part in the retaking of Madrid,[46] and in Marshal Soult's campaign against Coalition forces in Portugal.[47] Hundred chevaulegers under Tomasz Łubieński escorted Napoleon on his way back to Paris.[22]
What makes them possibly the best is that they were not heavy cavalry. They were medium cavalry with unarmored horses and Demi armor on the riders. The video mentions the special, faster horses, longer lighter lances, etc.
@@JakubB2000
Yeah, I knew about Polish cavarly like in Somosierra And all that but you showed me a lot of more new stuff to look at here man, thanks
@@tercio8797 Although I have tremendous respect for the tercios (Spanish ones, not the dutch imitation ones) I think that their fate would be sealed mostly on account of two factors. First being the slow rate of fire of the arquebus leading to at most a single volley against a hussar charge, greatly negating on of the attributes of the Tercio. Secondly, the average Spanish pike was about 5.3 to 5.8 meters long (by the time of Rocroi, between 25 and 27 hands) and depending on the campaign, the Kopia of a Hussar would be between 4.5 to 6.5 meters long. Usually longer against formations of predominantly pikes (Swedish, German and Russian pikes being about 5.1 to 5.5 meters in length) and shorter against eastern style opponents (Ottoman ghasi and yaya troops as well as Jannisaries). I think that the Tercios would put up a valiant effort and not crack under pressure but in the end, I think the length of the lance would be the determinant factor as was the case at Polonka (1660) where in the aftermath of battle, it was noticed that 6 PIKEMEN were squered by a single lance and made a ghastly human shish-kebab. Multiple instances of 3 or more being killed with 1 lance are chronicled. In the end, I think it would have been a bloody affair with the lancers coming on top but at a heavy price, the Spaniards simply didn't crack under pressure and would create a situation where although heavily degraded due to loss of cohesion of the tercio, individual pikes would still be able to attempt to fight and as such, losses would mount on the side of the Hussars. The reason why Ceringola was such a disaster for the French was because not only did their cavalry not have the tools to deal with the Tercios in that they relied on their heavy armor to get them within striking range all the while taking fire because they advanced relatively slowly allowing for multiple volleys, they also didn't have the range advantage and finally couldn't surmount field fortifications. In the end, the Tercios deserve their renoun for they were absolutly terrifying on the field of battle but so does Husaria and I think that in a fair open battle situation with competent command, the Polish-Lithuanian side would come out on top, though the Spaniards would give a bloody good account of themselves but ultimately, they would be going up against a formation that specialized in anti-infantry tactics and their most famous tool being specifically made to outrange pikes.
The most effective point of winged hussars formation was absolute discipline and training for both: riders and horses. They could do maneuvres as formation like no any other cavalry units their times.
How they mantain such discipline? By strict law of the State? By harsh punishments?
@@lolnoobus $$$ IT was very expensive. Hussars were elite soldiers. Horses were expensive and trained for long time.
@@waldred3537 i am sorry but they was not soldiers. They was rich nobles. So what if horse is trained? It is rider who decides what to do in the battle. How we gonna force nobles to do formation maneuvres?
@@lolnoobus professional pride and duty to your social class could be one of the motivators, from a feudal point of view. The more important you are, the more pride you have and the surer you are of your own victory and the more dedicated you are to it. Mindset is half the battle, after all.
@@lolnoobus From what I've read, Hussars were recruited from the sons of the greater noble families of Commonwealth which is understandable as they had to pay for their own stuff. The tradition of serving in the unit was passed down from generation to generation so Hussars begun their training as soon as they were able to mount a horse. So if my sources are right, then not only were hussar horses the best in the country, but riders themselves were perfectly trained proffesional soldiers, which I think was the main factor of their successes.
Quietly the ground begins to shake, tranquilly the air trembles, soon earth begins to shake as slowly the whole world becomes turmoil, before the wall of winged hussars sweeps away everything in its way....
I remember the first time I learned about the Winged Hussars...it was our regular Sunday WRG Ancient's miniatures game back in the early/mid 80s. I was still in HS and didn't have the time or money to paint an army, so I just played whatever one of the players trusted me with. This day I was given two units, not many miniatures compared to what others were using, and Charlie, who owned the army, coached me on when, where, and how to use them. Armed with a composite lance, saber, sword, mace, two pistols, carbine, and a bow, when I charged I absolutely destroyed the enemy's left flank and cause it and part of the center to rout off the board. Two weeks later, it happened again. I was duly impressed.
Greetings form Poland. Nice video presenting one of our most glorious period in Polish military history :)
Fantastic channel, thank you. Greets from a Belgian Historian.
The Hussars never attacked alone, they made the main central attack, but on the sides they had a medium-armed cavalry called "Pancerni" which was used for flanking and quick reaction after the main attack. The armored men usually constituted more than half of the mounted troops during the attacks, their origin was in the recruitment and they were often served by well-trained Cossacks, Ruthenians and Lithuanians.
Few facts about polish hussars:
1. Their armor was designed to bounce bullets from musketeers weapons. And it often did that.
2. Hussar horses were the most valuable piece of hussars equipment. They were a separate, unique breed between easter and western horses - strong, fast and resistant. And they were well trained from a foal so they could for example turn back in just 1,5 m area or charge in the crush (the hussar's charge was a horse next to a horse so close that you couldn't put a stick between them).
3. Hussars basically didn't wear wings. They are called "winged hussars" because of few meters long pennants attached to their copies which made a loud bang when horses galloped. And this noise and the movement of pennants was similar to a wings. Real hussars basiclly didn't have wings (only 3-5% hussars had one wing attached to the rear part of saddle) becouse wings made difficult to get on the horse. Wings attached to back of hussars is XIX century hoax.
4. Hussars used about 5 m long copies (sometimes even over 6 meters) so when galloping they were able to kill 3-4 people with one strike (they made shashlik out of enemies :D ). Then the copies broke and the hussars was returning for new ones.
5. They also used sabers (and hussar sabre is the best cold weapon ever created) or koncerz (one of this two, never both at once) and also flintlock pistols.
Wez se doucz z ksiazek...
Enough with the fantasies already, the entire light cavalry tradition was copied from the Tatars, it was not indigenous.
@@ranro7371 Scythian nomads would like to know your location
dude what ?
this is the 1600s
flintlock pistols weren't a thing back then ! (sure Miquelet and Snapchance weapons existed)
but they used Wheellock pistols, not Flintlock
This is nonsense, lol
Poles are born fighters. The equipment and tactics are important, but... The key is the spirit of this brave and great nation.
👍
great nation my ass
With every new video you manage to further impress me...You offer unreal insight to History & Tactics simultaneously. You have an AMAZING talent for teaching & I hope your channel recieves the attention it deserves!
thanks bud. I appreciate the nice words a lot =)
I love that you continually cite historians in your videos to give them credibility. Great channel for us academics and history buffs thank you.
These videos should be part of some digital "library" dedicated to historical knowledge.
Absolutely amazing and informative!
If the Polish military had been as outdated as people in the West claimed, the logical consequence would have been that they got conquered by other powers or pressed into paying huge tributes.
As we can see in this video Polish cities got raided, but no major invasions were successful.
Well. The polish perished from the map later on.
But I believe it was more because of their inner struggles making them defenseless.
@@sebastianriemer1777 They live in feudal society. They just serve another lord.
@@yulusleonard985 good point.
@@yulusleonard985 Main reason why Poland perished from the map was their powerfull neighbours constantly raiding polish territories and devestating its economy. Also main enemies such as: Prussia, Austria and Russia interferied many times in our internal politics. We were forced to reduce amount of soldiers in our country. But also Poland was very weakened due to polish nobility which was very independent from polish king. You can't say that it was only becouse of feudal society. Polish king in that time weren't as powerfull as king of western europe
@@yulusleonard985 actually Polish society was the most free, democratic and tolerant in Europe. Unlike in the "civilized" west which was rife with religious wars, anti-semitism and genocide in the name of religion. Poland elected it's Kings, there was freedom of religion and language and the rights of the main ethnic minorities were protected under law - Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians, Jews, Armenians, Silesians etc all lived in relative peace for CENTURIES.
At the battle of Vienna when Winged Hussars attack the Turks, German & Austrian troops hold attack to admire this view because W.F. battle tactic was spectacular.
AND THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVE
Coming down the mountainside!
It seems rather the opinions of some scholars were outdated than eastern military tactics...
Unsurprising given many of those scholars were from Western backgrounds. It's been unfortunately common for scholars to dismiss the innovations of other nations and groups
Declan Ellery To be fair, it comes from a different time in which knowledge wasn’t as wide spread. One could be forgiven for believing Europe to be the end all be all of the world during this time, especially since Europe could go anywhere they wanted and subjugate at will.
Reading about history-changing inventions, I have concluded that ~95% of them were created and implemented by Europeans, despite being a small % of the total world population. The reasons to this are likely varied.
@@dr.lyleevans6915 non European world changing inventions;
Paper
Gunpowder
Agriculture
Bricks
Man-made Canals
Writing
Crossbows
Saddles
Guns (including cannons)
Rockets
Also at that time the Ottomans looked like they could conquer Europe, the Portuguese had to bow down to the Chinese to get Macau, north African pirates plundered the Mediterranean etc.
@@dr.lyleevans6915 u need to read diff sources. Europeans do not contribute that much of a percentage but still significant
Declan Ellery Sure. I wasn’t saying that Europeans were the only group to contribute to technological advances; they most certainly weren’t.
I would add, however, that many of these were improved upon (in a way that made them able to be practically implemented) by Europe.
Gun powder, for example. The Chinese didn’t really know how to best use this newly found substance.
Rockets: Europe was the first to implement them in any practical way; WW2 saw the Soviet using them en masse as an offensive weapon, and the Germans doing the same, but on a much larger platform. The V-1 and V-2 missiles were groundbreaking; this program officially made N@z1 Germany the first in space! Later this program became the basis of both America and the Soviet’s space programs.
I’m not familiar enough with the history behind these other techs to comment, but either way I don’t doubt other’s ability to invent and revolutionize.
Concerning China, they were subjugated by a handful of British ships in the 1800’s; unfortunate situation for the proud (rightfully so by most metrics) closed-off empire.
Minor terminology suggestion: Bows are loosed, not fired (most people mix these terms up). Still a great video.
In informal contemporary language, you may not be as easily understood if you opt for the correct technical jargon. There is a reason why technical jargon is important, but it doesn't have its place in informal speech. It's like how discord servers aren't technically servers, how strawberries are not berries, how the correct term for Sweden, Norway and Finland is Fennoscandia and not Scandinavia, etc. In real life, everyday speech does not care about technical jargon and it shouldn't.
Imagine having to learn all of these terms before making conversation, you wouldn't learn how to speak until well after your teens rather than childhood. It'd make conversation stiff and not very swift and efficient. Informal speech needs to be easy to understand and it needs to be fast at conveying information. Technical jargon exist for the opposite reason; it needs to be precise to remove as much ambiguity as possible. It's because when used in a non technical context, the difference between similar things generally do not matter.
@@doigt6590 While I generally agree with your premise, I don't think it holds water in this case.
The term "loose their bows" isn't on the level of jargon that needs an explanation. Context in the sentence, combined with the depiction, clearly implies the intention for any with limited English or less historical understanding.
@@bobemmerson1580 You are right to say that from context, a non initiated person would guess the meaning of that verb. However, the difference between loosing a bow or shooting from a bow or firing a bow is lost to most non initiated. Even if they guess it, it's likely to be interpreted as a fancier synonym for firing.
@Danny Isambard That's what you think vs what I think. I do think firing a bow makes much more sense than you think it does, it makes sense because most ranged weapons used today are guns and guns are fired. When you fire a gun, a projectile comes out much like how when you loose a bow, a projectile comes out. It's how quirks form and become in language. If you think about it, there are a lot of other cases where when you apply the original meaning of a word, the expression seems odd and even silly. We're not even in the era where it was necessary to manually manipulate actual fire to shoot bullets from a gun. Should we say hammering or triggering instead of firing then? I'll let you think about that.
- Losing theirs Bows:
very bad idea doing that in battle ; they lost their horses too ? or wait ! ... I understand losing bows for safe transport, but in battle shouldn't bows be strengthened ?
- Fire their Bows:
There are cold nights in East Europe, but I wonder: did they fire only their bows, not the arrows ? arrows burn as good as bows though.
finally the best history content returns =) and what a return it is!
Amazing how they liked the sabaton song so much, they trained units to name them after it
some peoples like to watch the world burn
Love Poland from Romania!
One thing about Battle of Kircholm: Cossacs Cavalry was a name for polish medium cavalry, that has evolved from cossacs cavalry. But there were not Cossacs (even that there were Cossacs regiments in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). The right name is: Pancerni, or Towarzysze Pancerni (Pancerni Companions)
As they were called for Towarzysze Pancerni, it shows they WERE serious noblemen, it wasnt not a sneaky alternative to get non nobles or very petty small nobles into cavallery. (as I think the " regiments of foreigners" cudzoziemskiego autorymentu could be.)
or Petryhorcy ;)
albo Petyhorcy - to na Litwie, w Koronie nazywano ich Pancernymi
@@grzegorzeryk8320 Yes. Petyhorcy is a better spelling, as Cezary mentions.
Pancerni is type of armor popular among Russians. It is chainmail made from flat rings.
This period of time is so interesting. Thank you!
This is brilliant. Very informative and well researched. I love and admire your engagement with modern historians, that definitely makes the video more reliable. The amount of books used for the research is impressive. This is quality that only few animated history channels have, and I value it a lot. I came across your channel because of Battle of Thermopylae video which left a huge impression on me. I admired a little introduction you did to Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus and your engagement with the sources, and ever since I am a subscriber. Keep up the good work. Also, since I am from Poland I can tell that your pronunciation of Jan Karol Chodkiewicz is pretty good as for a non-polish speaker. If you would ever need to know the correct polish pronunciation in the future, I could help, if you don't have anyone already to do that.
Not one of them yelled "Kurwa!!!" while charging infantry... are you sure these guys, you showed, are poles...?
But on serious note here- Hussars were, in a way, binding new with the old. As you said, they had a way to counter the Western tactics, but that came also out of medieal traditions of lance wielding. Tournaments or duels with blutned lances were very much a thing here way into XVIth century. The early hussars, that you mentioned, were fighting shoulder to shoulder with late very heavy polish calvary... early hussars were mercenaries, and they proved to be menace very quickly, so our kings sort of... "spent" them in campagins, while at the same time said very heavy calvary, that was useless in fighting Tatars and Moscovites, who wouldn't want to meet those tanks head on- rearmed and retrained in a"hussar" way. So in other words knights became hussars pretty muich within one generation time. Granted, they rearmed few more times, but noblemen, who served as hussars very often considered themselves to be knights, despite the fact this title wasn't in use anmore...
In a way hussars were what was best in knghts mixed with what is best in soldiers. You have combat traning since early childhood, morale and suicidal courage of somebody, who thinks himself better and discipline and hard trained ability to manouver as one- legend says hussars learned how to charge in tight formation by placing a floren between their knee and the knee of rider to their right, and that at the end of the traning they had to show said coin to the commander as proofe, thei didn;t break the formation in any way.
They also had to provide their own gear, which is very knight- like, and in return they got titles, or tax exeptions, or lad... And that is VERY knight- like. So it was modern army, with a lot of things attached, that screamed "medieval".
Which is why they were always in such low numbers... Too much of a elite.
You mentioned Kircholm, but i have better one for ya, a record charge- i told this story under so many videos, it is practically copy and paste at this point, but it is really good one and shows what kind of people these assholes were:
in 1660 at Kutyszcze, Poilsh- Lithuanian army was chasing retreating Moscovite- Cossac army. Vanguard of my kinsmen was consiting of 140 hussars, under Wilczkowski. The rearguard of the opponents was made out of about 3000- 4000 of cossack light infantry and 1000 of Moscovite "Cuirassieurs"(they were heavily armored[as heavy as hussars, if not more- they had gauntlets and back plates and some degree of legs defense- hussars did not] mounted musketeers, but in the memoirs they were called "cuirassieurs")... So about 140 hussars, after quick, 25 km long march, suddenly comes up on this 5000 men... And what do they do? Charge. I mean, why not? We all are on our way to hell anyway... Second banner(unit) of hussars under Wyżycki, about same size as first one, rides up, sees what is happening, and they charge as well. Moscovite calvary just runs- through their infantry- hussars, chasing them, rides through te infantry as well. Mounted shooters manage to reach their entrenched positions- there were cannons there, and stakes and all kind of things, which would make hussars' job hard, so they decided to turn and ride away... Through the infantry. Again.
If i remember correctly amount of killed was at 1500 to 2000, while hussars were mostly unscatched, only wounded... Charge was not really that important, in grand scheme of things, but had to be something to behold, when disproportion of forces was about 20:1. I mean, where is this blood, in this country now???
It's there(the blood) and always been, it's just put to a sleep, hopefully we will wake up before too late...
A minor nitpick, but the Russians, from my knowledge, never actually fielded anything as heavily armoured as the hussars in Ukraine, so it must have been a exaggeration in the source you were using. The heaviest armoured troops the Russians had were their own hussars, but they were active in the Novgorod region and Lithuania, not Ukraine. Normal reiter equipment consisted of a cuirass and a helmet, no additional armour was used. Lancers that were fielded by Russians in Ukraine were armoured just like the reiters.
That blood was sent to Siberia, we do not possess it anymore.
@@lm157 yeah, i know that... it was rhetorical question
The "primitive" parts of Eastern Warfare had more to do with their social and economic organization than their weapons and tactics.
The Winged Hussars were nobility, men born and raised to the saddle. They were organized along feudal familiar lines. They were paid for using a system of feudal levies. By contrast, in the West, infantry came from urban populations first, they were commoners, they were organized corporately/institutionally and paid for by a sophisticated financial system.
But geography played the greatest role. Even up to WWI, war in Western Europe was dominated by slow moving infantry war that devolved to static warfare, while the East was dominated fluid open field warfare that became static only around fortresses and cities. Horses are just more useful in the wide areas of the East than in the congested lands of the West.
"They were organized along feudal familiar lines. They were paid for using a system of feudal levies." -- I'm sorry, what? Hussars were formed just like any professional units. From volunteers that served in exchange for regular payment. You did not have to be a nobleman to serve as a hussar. You didn't even have to be Polish.
Moreover, Hussars were just one formation in the Polish army from a wide array of cavalry and infantry formations, not to mention artillery, all part of the standing army that was paid from the state treasury.
Fully agree. I just wrote a comment pointing out that they formed their tactics after the resource they had at hand.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Yes, but the hussar equipment and horses (especially horses) were still expansive as hell. So said volounteers had to either be wealthy enough to purchase them (and as we know, Commonwealth was rather lacking in terms of non-noble middle class), or find a wealthy sponsor who they would pay a part of their income in return for equipment. Similar was true for most of the cavalry units. So in majority cases said volounteers were either nobles or a subordinates of one.
@@wojciechkowalski8061 Yes, which doesn't change the fact that @Shannon Love claimed they were organized along familiar lines and that they were using a feudal system of levies. Both these statements simply aren't true.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Dobrze prawisz gościu ;)
Please realize that Polish-Lithuanians fought on enormously VAST lands where mobility was the very key for success. This wasn't the Flanders wars where a town like Breda was the "focal point" of victory. A fort (no matter how strong) or even ten of them, had little value, because the country - especially in the South/Eastern provinces (the ones that were bordering the Turkish or Tartar lands) were ENORMOUSLY vast and also underpopulated. Study - for example - how the Cossacks from Zaporozhe used to make wars. They didn't rely too much on cavalry either - had big, very cracked infantry formations, but they wouldn't build permanent forts. The way they defended themselves against cavalry attacks - mainly Polish & Lithuanian cavalry! - was through what they called "TABOR" - i.e. - they would put all their wagons together - in a circle & chain them with heavy chains and use every tool at their disposal to inflict casualties onto the attacking cavalry. LONG STORY SHORT ... POINT OF ALL OF THAT IS - MOBILITY was the key to win wars on those lands and - truth be told ... still is.
The Tartar tabor sounds a lot like what Americans would call "circling the wagons", a tactic that worked fairly well against the Native American war parties of the 19th century, unless vastly outnumbered or until the Natives gained access to "modern" repeating firearms.
Red Bull gives Polish hussars wings.
So that's why they came to Austria.
In reality only 15% of them had wings, and to be precise, it was just one wing attached to the black of the saddle.
Well yes, but actually n o
Polish Hussars gives wings to red bull
Only wings you get from Red Bull, are the once you get to fly to heaven/hell, from drinking too much of that poison.
it is not only about tactics and how the army is armed, but it is all about fighting spirit
Great stuff, finally some objective insights on east vs west tactics. One note - although since 1569 Poland and Lithuania formed The Commonwealth, armies were actually separate (even if, of course, shared design, weaponry and tactics). Thus, it was Lithuanian (rather than Polish) army at Kircholm in 1605 (and Karol Chodkiewicz was a Lithuanian hetman - perhaps thanks to that battle).
It is also worth to mention that Hussars had a chance to demolish also German famous landsknechts - see battle of Lubieszów of 1577 and Battle of Byczyna of 1588.
"Thus, it was Lithuanian (rather than Polish) army at Kircholm" --- Armies at the time were a lot like today's football teams. Even if Bayern Munich has players from many different countries it doesn't make Bayern any less German since it's own by Germans. The same could be said about the armies of the time period. The army that fought at Kicholm was financed mostly from the Crown's treasury, up to 87% while Lithuanians contributed only between 13% to 36% of the money for the army under Jan Karol Chodkiewicz. That makes that army Polish-Lithuanian.
That is if we don't go into the boggy ground that is national identity at the time. Considering that almost all nobility within the Duchy spoke Polish and they even often called themselves Polish.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 LoL. Please be informed that Lithuanian army WAS OWNED by Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Union of Lublin was very specific about keeping both armies separated. Secondly, I don't know the sources of you specific numbers, but in fact a) Chodkiewicz's army was not financed, that was a problem and b) using you analogy, it doesn't matter who pays - Arsenal is still English club, no matter what adv they had on their shirts ... And it's even hard to comment this national identity thesis of yours.... There were incomparably more Ruthenians within ranks of GDoL army than Poles - yet it doesn't make GDoL army 'Ruthenian'. We're talking here about states, not ethnic.
@@marcinterlecki6021 At Vienna Polish army was crushing turks not lithuanian so whats your point?
this channel is awesome the animations and graphics really help to understand much more than simpler ones ive seen on the same/ similar subjects. im sure it takes alot of time but its worth its weight
Thankyou for this superb presentation, I do love the artwork
Amor patriae nostra lex.! happy new year from Poland bro !
Great video! For completeness, will you do the Ottoman army later? That should round out the big armies of the early 17th century. Polish infantry would also be interesting to cover.
Thanks for making this bro! Love me some Husaria!!
I loved the backgrounds! I recognized some of them. Lovely!
Being Polish myself, I am very pleased by your pronunciations.
The quality of your channel and videos is amazing : congratulations!
Loved the video this is the best pike and shot channel I’ve ever scene well excluding this episode about super pony bois
Gonna be honest i find the cavalry knights with wings on their backs very badass, polish people must be very proud.
Sandrhoman: The Polish Winged Hussars and the "Military Revolution" in the East
Sabaton: Hold my bier!
THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED
@@jurrehuizinga7136 COMING DOWN THE MOUNTAIN SIDE
Interestingly enough the same innovation in use of Cavalry Lance happened in the Mongol steppes roughly in the same time frame. Kalmyks and Oirats are quite known for their cavalry charges.
Great video as always.
@Polish Hero Witold Pilecki I never stated that there is a connection between Oirats and Polish Hussars. There is comment about Ulans, and it's entirely different subject. But it's sad see how genuinely intelligent person, spends so much time just to reinforce his national creation myth. Referring to everything else as something lesser, and lees significant.
@@SpiritBaker He may be a little overzealous but I'm pretty sure he didn't go into Sarmatism or pre-christian times so that whole quip about national creation myth is out of place. That being said, it may be long winded and come across as point-dexterish but you on the other hand just came across as a dick with a penchant for putting words in other peoples' mouths.
hussarska kopia była dużo dłuższa i pusta w środku
Where exactly did this take place? Because I remember reading Russians in Siberia organising lancers to fight the locals more effectively (interestingly, the lancers were probably former pancerni cossacks, Poles and Lithuanians that were taken prisoner in wars and settled in Siberia).
Nice video. Winged hussars are everyone's favourite.
Man, is there a cooler mounted unit then the winged hussar?
NO!
Polish Lancers of Napoleon’s Imperial Guard come pretty close.
The French Gendamerie of course.
If you find cooler heavy cavalry... NO But the Hungarian hussars were also cool
Karl XII Drabants
What a beautifully crafted video, great pleasure to watch! Thank you for your efforts.
I think it's high time to adapt the "Then the winged hussars arrived" as a phrase regarding a deus ex machina situation. Pretty sure everyone already knows the context this lyric is used for.
It needs to be trademarked/registered/copyrighted.
nah
Great video and very informative 👍
WHEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED
This video was great. I really enjoyed it. I heard that the Polish Winged Hussars were able to make a strange and unsettling sound as they charged. But that hasn't been proven effectively. But I wish it had been.
The wings made the stuka sound while at full gallop.
@@theblancmange1265---Interesting.
Making a video on the winged hussars was smart for getting views. I applaud you
Excellent heavy cavalry !!! Essencially a knight that cut weight to gain more battlefield mobility + much longer lance => effective against PIKE INFANTRY.
But carried enough armour protection to dominate in a cavalry melee => effective against other CAVALRY.
Therefore could beat lighter cavalry head-on (like the knight) and also (unlike the knight) perform effective flanking moves against pike infantry.
zapominasz o specjalnie szkolonych koniach . Był zakaz ich wywożenia z Rzeczpospolitej / taki rodzaj embarga na technologię wojskową :)
GREAT quality video, thanks!!
Koncerz is more similar to estoc than to rapier. It's primarily thrusting weapon with pretty much none cutting or slashing ability.
Winged hussars sabres were slightly heavier than those used by Cossacks cavalry or dragoons.
Another important trait of sabres used in PLC by cavalry from late 16 century is that they were "one and half" edged. They had edge on the outside curved side of blade and about 1/3 of the other side of blade also had edge. This gave those sabres quite good thrusting ability while allowing for some back edge cutting attacks.
Very good analysis. Yes this is true the Poles developed their cavalry because it were the best units for the theater of military operations in the east and large landscapes big spaces . Poles love horses and cavalery and have very big tradition of these troops .
Oh my, I'm afraid to watch it. On one hand, I love that people get interested in the Winged Hussars, on the other hand, the information is usually so inaccurate. Here we go... [...] Damn! You quoted Mackiewicz! Sorry man, I can only give one like. And then you mention the *actually effective* countermeasures! Field fortifications and intelligent use of cavalry! Well, I was not prepared to see something like that. I really mean it.
Congratulations.
Minor corrections, literally, *minor* :
1. You are correct in at least mentioning, that The Winged Hussars could be qualified as medium cavalry, but you shouldn't be so careful with that statement, because they really were medium cavalry. Heavy cavalry at the time had more complete plate armor and heavier horses. The Winged Hussars were medium shock cavalry.
2. The horses they used weren't "crossbreeds". They were a domestic breed, so called "Polish noble horse", currently extinct.
3. The primary weapon of the Hussars was the lance, that includes cavalry engagements. The effectiveness of the lance against the pikemen seems like an accidental benefit.
4. Bows and pistols were the weapons which were used at the same time. Pistols did not replace bows. If anything, they replaced shields.
5. It's quite likely that the odds at Klushino battle were even worse. I know, it's hard to believe, and the detailed research is still new. Just a nitpick.
6. A minor inaccuracy in the Klushino battle segment. The Western mercenaries were defending the fence, fairly safe behind it. Then the Polish-Lithuanian infantry arrived and managed to throw them away from this cover. Out it the open they didn't feel like facing the Hussars, so they retreated into the camp. That piece is fairly well reconstructed from the numerous sources. The moral of the story is, that they didn't feel safe protected only by the pikes. Not on this day.
Great video!
Thorough preparation. Clear, precise and logical application. Fit to puprpose. Extermally efficient.
Must have taken a lot of resources to prepare.
Hence: a winged hussar of history videos. ;)
Thanks, a very interesting presentation. However, the Polish infantry formed a critical component of the Polish armies in spite of their small numbers. They were used to fix or disrupt enemy formation and break field fortifications, allowing commanders to use the hussars to maximum advantage. This happened at Chocim and Vienna where infantry cleared the way for the cavalry. At Lubieszow, the Polish hajduks engaged the landskneckt at close quarters and allowed the cavalry to outflank and break the Danzig army. Similarly light cavalry were used to outflank and disrupt enemy positions.
I think the light cavalry were called pancierni , maybe spelling is incorrect.
Great content man
There were lot of reasons why hussars were much more effective in combat than western lancers. In addition to other reasons kopia's used by hussars were about 2 meters longer and that made a huge difference against pikeman. Kopia is a type of lance but it is quite different than western lances. Kopia's were hollow inside so they could be longer and still lighter and with greater range of motion. Also they could do huge damage there were occasions when single hussar run through 6 enemy soldiers at once with his kopia ( eastern lance) also hussar sabers were better than both eastern and western sabers of the time. Because they had strengths of both.
They weren't better than Western lancers, the West HAD no lancers at this time
@@mickethegoblin7167 It is not mutually exclusive. There was unfortunate stereotype that Eastern countries were primitive. Mostly because everyone focus on Russia or Balkans.
The Hussar charge of 1683 is one of the greatest things in history.
There are two aspects of warfare : Tactical and Strategic. It seems to me that the winged hussars were a balance between the two aspects. A heavy and alround fighting formation and a fast scouting, foraging and raiding party. Unfortunately they were very expensive and in small numbers.
Yes and no. Although hussars were generally quite versatile (all units in the Polish army had to be considering the very wide variety of enemies they fought) but SandRhoman makes it look like (or at least judging by your comment, people are misunderstanding his message) hussars existed in a vacuum.
The roles of light cavalry in the Polish army were played by... light cavalry NOT hussars although as mentioned hussars if needed could fulfill those roles. The jobs you're describing were usually delegated to Cossack/Pancerni cavalry or different types of medium or light cavalry.
role zwiadowcze pełnili Pancerni, dragoni i lisowczycy (elearowie)
Will you make a video about the late medieval and early renaissance french gensdarmes ?
That would be awesome
the hussars were supported by lighter cavalry, the so-called panzer and Tatars
@Polish Hero Witold Pilecki No, the Cossack Registry and/or the Zaporozhian Cossacks (many Zaporozhian sicze were part of the registry of the Polish army) are not the same as cossack companions (towarzysze kozaccy)... Cossack companions, aka panzer companions (towarzysze pancerni) later on, made up the bulk of the Polish cavalry in the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. Cossack riders tended to be clad in cloth while panzer riders tended to wear chain mail armour. The Zaporozhian Cossacks with the Cossack Registry (officially part of the Polish border defense system) were a different type of unit and were mostly infantry.
Excellent 🙌🏻
All of you are singing:
"then the Winged Hussars arrived!"
But no one is singing:
"Ei ei ajajaj, kur tu augai tarp baliųųųųųųųųųųų"
The entire Karo Dainos album works, I love Vrerke Tevas ir motina in particular.
Oi Sheramukshna sharamukshnaaaa, kur tu augai turp baliuuuu, eeeeeej eeeeej ajajajaaaa
Ah, a fellow man of culture 😊
"Mūsų Katkus labai drūts, tikras buvo karaliuks" ;)
th-cam.com/video/MO-9l29RzrE/w-d-xo.html
One of the best TH-cam channels
1:20
Don’t forget the original HUSARZE are from Chroatia , Serbia, Hungary..... the whole RZECZPOSPOLITA!!!
Plague User they should. We would welcome them.
Thank You !
from Srbija with love to our Polish brothers,gift of Hussars!
Thank You serbian brother, but they were nowhere near to polish version . Polish Hussars completely evolved .
@@dumnylach but of course! Comparing a Serbian 14th-15th century knight with a Polish 17th century knight is like comparing a wheel cart and a locomotive. Serbian knights who ran away from the Turks found their heaven in Poland and other countries and their contribution were those long lancers, which were developed to counter infantry spikes. Originally in Serbian "husari" were raiders and/or armed cavalry men that were outside the law of the state, which at the end of the day that's what those knights actually were once the Serbian state fell to the Turks. 14th century Dušan's Codex mentions such groups called husari and commands heavy penalties for them and for the villages that provide them with any kind of support.
@@cynicalskeptic You are right but also I have read that seebian "husari" should be labeled as a light cavalry while polish "husaria" were shock heavy cavarly. Correct me if I am wrong. Greets from Polska.
@@dumnylach you are most likely right. The knights that would run away to Hungary, and maybe even Poland, were of lesser nobility therefore they could not afford heavy armor, but who could tell? From what I read, after they lost their lands they started pillaging the Turks and the Hungarians, until Hungarians persuaded them (one way or another) to join their ranks. I cannot competently speak about medieval armor because I don't know enough especially when it's about a period that lasts for a few centuries. Polish hussars, from what I read, are interesting because they had heavy armor but were also capable of doing things that light cavalry was capable of. So I have to wonder if light/heavy division with Polish hussars has lost its meaning? But then again Polish hussars probably had their own different stages of development and maybe even subtypes. Hussars are an interesting phenomenon, even the Germans had their hussaria regiments, to my shock and surprise.
Great video man.
the secret weapon of the winged hussars was the fact that THEY LOOKED BADASS
Ones of most Dominant Heavy cavalery in World history.❤Brave Slavic Polska 🇵🇱 and Brave Polishs Slsvic Brothers .from 🇧🇬 Bulgaria
There's quite an interesting story about Siege of Pskov which Commonwealth ultimately lost (but won the war nonetheless). King Batory accused Polish soldiers of low morale because they were getting high on dogwoods seeds. After the war he ordered to stop growing this plant which is very important for bees and for production of mead. But Poles had to make alcohol out of something and this something was new plant from beyond the ocean called potato. And thus wódka became the most popular alcohol in Poland.
Really ?
Hmmm
How do you get high on dogwoods seeds ?
Apparently Nostradamus used nutmeg for his visions
Seems back then they would try anything to get highn
@@garyhewitt489 Dude, this story is a pure myth. Potatoes didn't appear in Poland until the mid XVIII century.
This channel is amazing and I love the style of animations.
19:35 steady fire of the enemy caused heavy casualities - 100 dead and wounded .... Hardly heavy casualities.
Subbed, your pronunciation and pacing is impeccable thanks for the content. 🤙🏼
"King Batori" greetings to all Hungarians (edit I know itshould be Báthory)
you are from chelm ?
@@dariuszszczotkowski579 He is a polar bear lost in jungle
@@dariuszszczotkowski579 tak jestem z Chełma
Fantastic channel! Subscribed!
The first time I heard about the Hussars was in a Mount and Blade game
They had interesting wings and they were extremely fast
just... excellent work, man! fantastic!
“Why Russia has large tank reserves”
Soviet army legacy
Because they can produce them in big numbers. In the soviet union
during ww2 the tanks were designed to be cheap. It was part of their doctrine, just throw people ( or tanks in this case) at the problem until it solves it selves
Matteo Aievola This, but also because there were entire industries in the USSR which depended on constant large scale production of tanks, and on constant preparation for an even larger scale production in case of war
@Pasha Staravoitau its not a myth, they were incompetent clowns when left to their own devices, several smaller nations beat the living shit out of them despite being atrociously outnumbered.
If not for their masters, the Judas bankers the Marxists wouldn't even have been able to win their little inssurection which had no support of the Russian people, and would have been defeated in 1941 if not for trillion sent in tanks, ammo, food and weapons and raw materials sent not only by the British Empire and USA but also by their banker masters aswell
@Pasha Staravoitau Nazi propaganda WTF? It's actually true but haven't done in every battle. But there are several incidences like in the winter war against Finnland where the Finns wondered why the Russians where charging the same position again and again while slaughtering a lot of them without changing tactics. Or at the battle of kurs where they throwed division after division to stop the German tanks advancements