Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 19th, 2012, 11:27 AM   #21

bartieboy's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,241
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
On the pciture is winged hussar - so he is definatelly not a light cavalry class.

In the old Commonwealth to fight steppe archers was used light cavalry which made about 20% of all cavalry forces.
On the begining there was two types of those cavalry in the Polish army: Light Tatar Cavalry and Light Wallahian Cavalry. Later was created also Light Cossack cavalry.
They were usually armed with lance, pistols, bow and sabre,
shield.
In the second half of XVIII century all those types of Polish light cavalry (but especially Tatar) changed into uhlans which became popular type of cavalry in the whole Europe and even overseas (the word ulhlan also comes from Tatar language).

Uhlan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From what I have read the earliest winged hussars were actually light cavalry forces...
bartieboy is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 19th, 2012, 01:07 PM   #22

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,416

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartieboy View Post
From what I have read the earliest winged hussars were actually light cavalry forces...
Thats truth, they were light cavalry mercenaries from Balkans.
Mosquito is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 03:21 PM   #23

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 12,269

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartieboy View Post
From what I have read the earliest winged hussars were actually light cavalry forces...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
Thats truth, they were light cavalry mercenaries from Balkans.
Except they were not winged, they were just hussars.

Hussar Hussar
arras is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 05:12 PM   #24

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,416

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
Except they were not winged, they were just hussars.

Hussar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wrong, they were winged, I mean original hussars from Serbia and other Balkan countries, who served for example in Venice.

This is picture of Stradiotti - balkan mercenaries.

Click the image to open in full size.
Mosquito is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 12:37 AM   #25

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 12,269

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
wrong, they were winged, I mean original hussars from Serbia and other Balkan countries, who served for example in Venice.

This is picture of Stradiotti - balkan mercenaries.
You seems to be correct:

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.
arras is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 07:51 PM   #26

emperor of seleucid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Arche Seleukeia
Posts: 2,374

The Han Dynasty approach was to raise their own horses. Other than matching them with horses, no.

Here the basic reasons:

1. Horses are too fast for foot troops. Even if a nomadic army is losing, they can also safely escape against a foot army.
2. Archers deal damage at range. Only foot archers can really damage Horse armies.
3. Horse army can easily wipe out a routed infantry army.

The only battles in which horse archers had crucial losses was the result of a poor commander or hostile terrain.
emperor of seleucid is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 09:29 PM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,676

Generally so, but massing ancient armies was a serious business, most ancient battles happen because both sides want to resolve things now, or they are forced into the field (defending something whatever), Gathering a large Army is costly, (even for Horse nomads) and refusing battle, withdrawing is admitting defeat with the consequent re-evaluation of real strength by everyone involved (allies and subjects are much less inclined to show up next time) IF the army includes anything that isnt cavalry it's abandoned and lost.

Battles not fought in large open spaces present problems, a plain with few large exists would mean through faster cavalry can not withdraw quickly, prime example when facing an opponent on and exit valley from a Mountain range, common enough occurrence occasionally one must cross mountains to fight the enemy, best to do it away from the enemy force and approach over less dense terrain. But fast Marching of armies is often about organisation and a foot army might well be better organised and appear sooner than one thought as one exists the Mountains.
pugsville is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 10:53 AM   #28

Darth Roach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: Jelgava, Latvia
Posts: 1,325

Quote:
Originally Posted by emperor of seleucid View Post
The Han Dynasty approach was to raise their own horses. Other than matching them with horses, no.

Here the basic reasons:

1. Horses are too fast for foot troops. Even if a nomadic army is losing, they can also safely escape against a foot army.
2. Archers deal damage at range. Only foot archers can really damage Horse armies.
3. Horse army can easily wipe out a routed infantry army.

The only battles in which horse archers had crucial losses was the result of a poor commander or hostile terrain.
And that only applies when the other army has caught the horsemen for a pitched battle. Which, if the cav have it their way, wouldn't happen most of the time.
Darth Roach is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 11:57 AM   #29
Academician
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Montana
Posts: 58

agreed that horse armies are pretty hard to defeat if they simply choose not to engage you. Even if you break them, they can just slip away. Defending against them is one thing.
the mighty pen is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 05:32 AM   #30

Darth Roach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: Jelgava, Latvia
Posts: 1,325

Quote:
Originally Posted by the mighty pen View Post
agreed that horse armies are pretty hard to defeat if they simply choose not to engage you. Even if you break them, they can just slip away. Defending against them is one thing.
No, no, you assume that the only way of engaging is a pitche battle - which is simply not true. Cavalry armies are known to have defeated much larger forces in detail by harrassment and/or swift surprise action.
Darth Roach is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
archer, army, cavalry, defeat, difficult


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Amesbury archer AlpinLuke Ancient History 1 September 16th, 2012 12:20 PM
Is political defeat in war the same as defeat? Dr Realism War and Military History 4 July 9th, 2012 11:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.