Talk:Polish hussars

Merger with Hussars
Disagree. The Polish Hussars were an important formation both historically and curturaly and deserver their own article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, unique, interesting, historically significant; merger would be a waste; I'll start working on it bit by bit - adding things I know and can prove ;-) Might take a while though... - Filutek —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filutek (talk • contribs).
 * Definitely NOT to be merged with hussars. This may be confusing to the uninformed due to the similarity of name, but husaria was not just a local variation of hussars with a Polish name. Husaria originated with the hussars, but developed and was reformed into something altogether different. They were definitely recognized as separate entities, with the words husarz and huzar meaning completely different things. Hussars were a light cavalry - husaria was an elite semi-heavy cavalry. They had a different role on the battlefield, armor, weapons, tactics, style of leadership, status, everything. Markus Ramikin (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Name
Decapitalize? Polish hussars instead of Polish Hussars seems more sensible.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not Polish Husaria ? It evolved into very unique formation, very different from other kinds of hussars. - Filutek —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filutek (talk • contribs).
 * Because of NC. Google Books search shows that lower capitalization is common: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be renamed to Husaria. That will emphasise the difference from hussars, for one, which is a good thing because currently there's some silly confusion (on the Hussars page in the armaments and tactics section there seems to be more talk about Polish husaria than actual hussars). Also, Wikipedia already has entries that are original words, for instance Poczet or Hetman. I think that's for the best, as it makes it 100% clear what we're talking about.
 * EDIT: Also, "Polish" hussars is misleading since the formation existed in the whole Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and Lithuanian husaria was the same.
 * Markus Ramikin (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The name should be not "Polish hussars" but "Polish-Lithuanian hussars". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.42.13 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the most biased and uncritical evaluation of a Cavalry formation there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.225.90 (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Unification - compatibility
It would be good to look at all the wiki entries that contain information about Hussars. There is more on Polish Hussars tactics here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussars than in this article. And there is also article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towarzysz_husarski - maybe it should be merged into Polish Hussars. Because information about hussars is spread in those three and any of those contains the full information. I suggest, this should be the main article, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.226.91 (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Integrated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's a mess at the moment. I think:
 * this article should be renamed from Polish hussars to Husaria
 * the towarzysz husarski article could be merged with this article
 * the Hussars article should remain separate from this one, because hussars and husaria were very much different things. Hussars article should have a link on top to this one, though, but the parts about husaria armaments and tactics should be removed and instead added to this article.
 * Markus Ramikin (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture
-WHY RIDER IN THE PICTURES WAS CALLED HUSSAR FROM XVI C? tHIS ARMOUR WAS USED IN LATE XVI ANG XVII.i HALF OF XVI WAS TIME OF RACKA JAZDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.19.195.146 (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, I'll adjust the caption.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the information so poor concerning the wings?
The most famous traity of the Hussar (Polish) are thw ings. I would figure half of the article would be dedicated to it. More information. What was the weight? If heavy, it needed a purpose. Are there accounts of seeing it used in battle? Yes no? This would answer if they were ceremonial or not.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.113.63 (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

- WW - the topic of the wings is discussed here (in polish): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH-Dwxh1y4U (that guy has become popular on the web for spreading historical knowledge in a friendly and interesting way). The bottom line is that there were no wings on the Husars back in the battle. The intimidating noise was made by the pennon which was described in the sources as husarias wings. The wings depicted on the paintings appeared later for ceremonial purpose. The whole myth was added later as were the wings to the armours in the musea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.73.27.179 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

anon's thought
The cavalry was the backbone of the Commonwealth's military power, outnumbering the infantry by three to one. The crossed Turkish and European breeds to produce horses with speed and endurance, and rode on eastern saddles in order to place less strain on the horse. Because of these factors they could cover tremendous distances (upto 120 kilometres a day) without killing their mounts. Their curved sabres were the finest cutting weapon ever in use in a European army and accounted for their endurance in battle.

The pride and glory of the cavalry, its mailed first, was the Husaria, the winged cavalry. Operating in regiments of about 300, the front rank carried an astonishing lance of up to twenty feet in length (thus outreaching infantry pikes and allowing the Husaria to cut straight through an enemy square). They also carried a sabre or rapier with a six - foot blade (another weapon which was unique to the Poles), as well as a pair of pistols, a short carbine, a bow and arrows and a variety of other weapons, the most lethal of which was the "czekan", a long steel hammer which could go through heads and helmets like butter.

The ultimate weapon of the Husaria was psychological. As well as wearing helmets, thick steel breastplates and shoulder and arm guards the Husaria also wore wings; great wooden arcs bristling with eagle feathers attached to the back of the saddle or the shoulders. Over their shoulders they wore the skin of a tiger or leopard as a cloak. Their harnesses, saddles and horse-cloths were embroidered and embellished with gold and gems and their long lances were painted with stripes like a stick of rock and decorated with a five-foot-long silk pennant which, along with the wings and jingling jewellery, made a frightful sound (described as "an evil hiss" by some) and sight during the charge. They even sometimes painted their horses red and white.

For over a century, the Husaria were the lords of the battlefield, delivering the decisive blow in many an important engagement; at Kircholm (1605) 4,000 Poles accounted for 14,000 Swedes, at Klushino (1610) 6,000 Poles (of only 200 were infantry) defeated 30,000 Muscovite and 5,000 German and Scottish mercenaries, at Gniew (1656) 5,500 Polish cavalry defeated 13,000 Swedes and outside Vienna (1683) the Husaria saved Europe from the, until then, unstoppable might of the Ottoman Empire.

After Vienna every lancer must be a Pole or dress like one, and since there were not enough Poles to go round armies were compelled to raise their own lancers dressed and equipped on the Polish model. Napoleon had his Polish lancers who rendered him good service, especially at Somo Sierra in Spain (when a squadron of 125 men cleared 9,000 entrenched infantry and four batteries in the space of seven minutes) and once again the Poles were able to inspire the rest of Europe. There have been few more gorgeously dressed soldiers in all the history of armies than the lancers of the nineteenth century. The lance cap was modelled on the Polish style and even called the "chapka" (hat). The short, double-breasted jacket of scarlet or blue was similarly known as a "ulanka" and German and Austrian lancers were called "uhlans". To the glittering uniforms, waving plumes, and splendidly caparisoned saddle-cloths there was also added the colour and flutter of the waving lance pennant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.202.108 (talk • contribs) 15:35, October 21, 2008

protest note
The polish hussars are not the only unit, that used accessories like the wings to show the ememy "here are we,the elite". The experiments carried, that the wings are no handicap in battle. Look to the cavelery in the Naopleon wars, they used uniforms, that make it impossible to sit in it. How can you fight in it? But we dont discuss about it today, how could the french or british fight in that big hats. Second is, that the tactics are much more complicated, than only to run into the enemy. Third is, that the serbs invented the first hussar formation as a light cavalery in the 15th century and fought in hungarian armies against the turcks and later also in the polish-lituanian armies. In the 16th century hussars were used in the whole centraleast europe. The polish hussars developed since 1580 to a heavy-storm unit, The hungarians gave up this idea after 1660 and went back to the roots. The light hungarian hussars were used in the 18th century in most western armies. The polish tradition to break through cavelery and infantery formations was continued by Ulans...in england called lancers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.5.146.89 (talk • contribs) 08:29, February 19, 2009

2 things from me: horses did NOT have armor; Karacena became popular because of growing turkish influences- those were heavier, more expensive and were giving worse protection then cuirass, but were more... fashionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.2.87 (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

deaths head hussars??
i dont know much about polish history but the deaths head hussars were a 18/19thth century prussian unit. the polish may have had a "deaths head" regiment too, but the picture shown in the article is definitely a prussian one. the cross there is an iron cross, something that no polish soldier would have worn, since it not only originates in the teutonic order that suppressed the polish for centuries, but by then was official insignia of the german army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.218.83 (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The "death head hussars" are a fake. Could anyone having administrator rights correct this stupidity? Black cross on white ground belongs to the teutonic "Deutscher Orden" which fought against the Poles in 14/15 century telling the world Poles do not belong to Christianity which had been a lie as Poland is christian nation since 966 a.D. The black cross on white could be found at every step of later prussian history, as prussia came out of the "Deutscher Orden". Same during III.Reich time (you can see black crosses on nazi-german tanks) and even german Bundeswehr is having black crosses on their military equipment. Poles never used black crosses. Polish coat of arms is white eagle on red ! The flag is white-red. There had been no black crosses in polish history! Never! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.248 (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not really sword
Description of the picture reads: Polish-Lithuanian hussars sword. It is not sword but sabre. Even original file name is "File:Szabla husarska GIM.jpg". Szabla = saber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.31.138 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A sabre is a sword. So a Hussar's sabre is therefore also a Hussar's sword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.180.166 (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Timeline query - which came first, Polish or Hungarian hussars?
Hello,

I have spotted an inconsistency in the article and its referred articles. The opening paragraph states that the Polish hussars were "were one of the main types of Polish cavalry in the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland and in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth between the 16th and 18th centuries" but then states that they were "Modeled on the Hungarian Hussars". In the linked article on Hungarian Hussars, it states that Hungarian hussars "madde up the cavalry of the Austro-Hungarian Army from 1867 to 1918".

It seems therefore that the Polish hussars were formed 2-3 centuries before the formation of the Hungarian hussars and so could not have been modelled on them. Indeed, it seems from the article that the Polish hussars were disbanded before the formation of the Hungarian hussars.

I am not knowledgeable about either subject so I have not attempted to correct, perhaps someone here can advise?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.216.130 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed linkinh.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC))

Requested move 1 March 2022



 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. Editors working on this subject may be advised to create a separate article on Winged hussars. BD2412 T 03:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Polish hussars → Winged hussars – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the name Winged hussars should be prioritized over Polish hussars, because the name Winged hussars is more commonly used, e.g. on Google, Google Scholar and Google Books. On Google, Winged Hussars has about 197.000 results, while Polish hussars has about 48.000 results. On Google Scholar, there are about 141 results for Polish hussars and about 156 results for Winged hussars. In Google Books, there are about 1,830 results for Winged hussars and 1,770 for Polish hussars. Moreover, Polish hussars as a term also include Polish hussar regiments in the Napoleonic Wars, in addition to the 10th Hussar Regiment in the II Corps (Poland) during World War II. This article definitely does not cover them, as something totally different is in mind, which is the Winged hussars. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak support, per user's (Cukrakalnis) comments and justification. However, I am not sure whether the term 'hussars' should be capitalised e.g. Winged hussars vs Winged Hussars. Merangs (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Following WP:TITLEFORMAT (The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text.), it seems like it should be Winged hussars instead of Winged Hussars. I will fix it accordingly.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. So long as the article remains focused on the Winged Hussars exclusively, and doesn't include other Polish hussars. Walrasiad (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. While the name "Winged Hussars" is popular, it's also misleading. Hussars didn't wear wings all the time, certainly not in battle. It was one element of the costume that was unregulated. Hussars appeared in the Polish army in the early sixteenth century and were light cavalry, wings appeared much later. And as he said only for ceremonial purposes. The name "winged hussars" may be popular in popular literature and in Sabaton songs, but it is certainly not correct and not popular in the literature. Marcelus (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is much more misleading to name the Winged hussars as "Polish hussars", as these "Polish" hussars are inextricably connected to and included people from the Balkans, Hungary, and, of course, Lithuania. The nitpicking about wings not always being used, although factually true, does not stand up to scrutiny, considering that every single picture on the article depicting those hussars shows them with wings and those wings are their defining trait. That is undeniable considering that Winged hussars is the most frequently used name for them. Moreover, it is wrong to say that the name "Winged hussar" is not popular in literature, because in the opening message I show that in literature the name "Winged Hussars" is more frequently used than "Polish hussars".--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not popular in academic literature, this unit is a common theme in a popular culture therefore term "winged hussars" was popularised. The adjective "Polish" doesn't mean that all the hussars were ethnically Polish, just like not all "Cossack riders" were Cossacks, and not all Hungarian or German infantrymen were Hungarian or German, quite contrary actually. I think as an editor of military history should be familiar with that distinction. Marcelus (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Marcelus, in the opening message, you can see that "Winged hussars" is used in academic literature even more than "Polish hussars" (which included results about Polish hussars that were not the winged hussars): On Google Scholar, there are about 141 results for Polish hussars and about 156 results for Winged hussars . In Google Books, there are about 1,830 results for Winged hussars  and 1,770 for Polish hussars . . Moreover, you should be aware that Piechota niemiecka is equally translated to German-style infantry, and not just German infantry, because German infantry would more frequently mean an infantryman from Germany or of any of the German armies, be it the Imperial German Army, Wehrmacht or Bundeswehr. By the way, entering "German infantry" "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" into Google Scholar results in way too many mentions about World War II . "German-style infantry" perfectly resolves this issue, because no one will use that term for WW2 Germany. In addition, the English equivalent of the pl.wiki Piechota węgierska is translated to Hajduk (Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth).-Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose mer Marcelus, but I'd support further discussion about disambiguation. Splitting the 'winged hussars' part into a winged hussars article while discussing other Polish hussars in the Polish hussars article, to which winged hussars would be a subarticle, could make sense. What do you think, User:Marcelus? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Polish hussars is the name of a concrete formation. We can create an article Hussars in Polish army, when we discuss all hussar units in the history of the Polish military. "Winged hussars" is just historically accurate, that's I think it shouldn't be the name of an article. Marcelus (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as this article is dedicated specifically to Polish heavy cavalry. I would support Polish Winged Hussar per RS’s --> or Polish winged hussars .. as per  quote -->  The main focus of this book is the final 15-hour battle for Vienna, which climaxed with a massive charge by three divisions of Polish winged hussars .  -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Winged hussars were not exclusive of the Polish cavalry and similar arrangements were common for the Ottoman border cavalry. - plus a drawing of a Hungarian winged huszar in the page before that phrase. Currently, winged hussar is just a redirect to Polish hussar, which is historically incorrect. Even Polish winged hussar is incorrect, as this article touches on non-Polish winged hussars. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the reason why "winged hussar" isn't a proper name because wings were used by "hussar" units in other countries as well: Serbia, Hungary, Turkey; which aren't the topic of this article. Marcelus (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Marcelus, if so, why does winged hussar redirect to Polish hussars? Then, there should be one article for the other winged hussars and one for the Polish (winged) hussars.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.