Polish Hussars?

Why were the Polish Hussars so damn effective on the battlefield. Especially considering during the period of increased gunpowder technology they increased their heavy plate armor.
 
Because even up until the 19th century, never mind the 16th and 17th centuries, thousands of angry men on vicious 2000-pound animals coming towards you at 35 mph holding long spears and making some frightening noise with their dubious fashion statements was really, really, fucking scary.
 
Because even up until the 19th century, never mind the 16th and 17th centuries, thousands of angry men on vicious 2000-pound animals coming towards you at 35 mph holding long spears and making some frightening noise with their dubious fashion statements was really, really, fucking scary.

This. At the time most battles would still be resolved by closing for hand-to-hand combat so the heavy armor was still effective once they had closed the range. Also the shock of the charge could break the enemy in and of itself.
 
There were several reasons.
- Good tactics. Polish hussars' charge was much more than a bunch of riders galloping at you. Usually hussars started their attack in relatively loose formation, which made them less vulnerable to musket fire. Short before clashing with the enemy they would close their ranks creating pretty much a wall of steel and lances. If the first attack didn't succeed, they would withdraw and immediately hit you again, and again. Usually however, the first strike was enough. Hussar units were also quite fast and maneuverable.
- Good equipment. Hussars started as rather ligth cavalry, attacking in close formation with lances, with shield as their main defence. With time they started wearing steel helmets and chainmails, later plate armour. The armour mostly consisted of breastplate, backplate and protection for neck, arms, often also forarms. The armour was relatively light, which allowed the hussars to move fast, but offered surprisingly good protection, even against musket fire in 17th century.
- Good horses. Actually, excellent horses, very strong, fast and intelligent and very resilient. Hussars's horses were very carefully selected and trained, they were extremely expensive. Hussars always tried to give them the best care possible and often considered them comrades in arms, not simply animals. Thanks to those horses hussars were deadly quick on the battlefield.
- Good weapons. Polish hussars' main weapon was a "tree", i.e. very long lance; they were hollowed inside, which made them lighter, they also would break in the first clash, but usually it was enough. Against lighter armed opponent (like Tatars) hussars often used lighter and shorter lances; in close combat hussars used estocs and then sabres, they also were armed with pistols. That was the companion (towarzysz) a knight in the hussars' units; each companion had also retainers, with less expensive arrmour, armed with sabre, sometimes a light lance, and arquebuse, who fought in second and third rank. In short Polish hussars were perfectly capable of dealing with any kind of opposition, from pikemen to enemy cavalry.
- Good training and high morale. The service in hussar unit was very prestigious but expensive (soldiers had to provide their equipment on their own, except the lances) so only those who really, really wanted to be hussars were able to join them; high morale made them also work hard while training, since "noblesse oblige".
- Psychological effect. There is still debate concerning wings - were they used in battle or not (some sources claim that they were); however even without wings a Polish hussar in armour covered with tiger/leopard skin made an impressive figure. And a wall of steel bristled with lances coming at you with amazing speed is not something you want to see.

In short Polish-Lihuanian hussars were quick, well armoured and armed, very well trained and with high morale. They were more or less an equivalent of tank units which, correctly used, were indeed almost unstoppable. They used experience from wars against western style units (like Swedish) and eastern style units (Ottomans, Tatars). They weren't always victorious but until the end of the 17th century they were a terrifying adversary
 
Weren't guns still inaccurate and not really effective against plate armor, and had slow reload times.

Actually guns were pretty long-ranged, reasonably accurate at about 50 m. and punched through a lot of armours that were still widely used at the time (like mail; mail and plated mail was very common at the time and had poor bullet-stopping capability at shorter ranges). They were also packed in deep ranks interspersed with pikemen (up to 16 rows deep!).

So the volume of fire with countermarching was pretty impressive, but cavalry would still beat gunners if they weren't protected (by terrain, fences, or pikes). One of the key issues was the much shorter infantry pike of the 17th c. which was some 10-12 feet compared to 18-foot pikes of the previous century. It's possible the Husaria simply outreached the infantry, so repeated charges would increase their psychological effect by also inflicting casualties.

Husaria were especially famous for a few big wins against reasonably well-trained infantry at an age where cavalry winning head-on wasn't common.
 
Well, the Battle of Vienna in 1683 proved how effective Polish cavalry could be! Pity the HRE didn't do loyalty....
 
Actually guns were pretty long-ranged, reasonably accurate at about 50 m.

The problem is that the shooters weren't accurate. Seeing the wall of horses and humans mounted on them approaching with great speed they either shoot too early or tended to panic and shoot over the heads of hussars. And they could do it only once before the were impaled onto their lances.

One of the key issues was the much shorter infantry pike of the 17th c. which was some 10-12 feet compared to 18-foot pikes of the previous century. It's possible the Husaria simply outreached the infantry, so repeated charges would increase their psychological effect by also inflicting casualties.

Indeed. Hussar's lance was 5 m long.
 
Much of what needs to be said has been said already.
Also a factor is that the hussars generally faced up against levies (cue: Prussia), not full time soldiers. The big scary guy riding towards you factor is even stronger there.
 
I wonder how well they'd have fared against a good old-fashioned English longbows-&-bills (& mostly dismounted men-at-arms) army, with the latter in a suitably defensive postion as at Agincourt?
 
They would not have been so stupid to charge emplaced foot in a quagmire. Thats what the mounted arqubusiers, dragoons and infantry are for.

If they had of attacked then each hussar has a couple of pistols so that would have dented the men at arms somewhat.
 
They would not have been so stupid to charge emplaced foot in a quagmire. Thats what the mounted arqubusiers, dragoons and infantry are for.

If they had of attacked then each hussar has a couple of pistols so that would have dented the men at arms somewhat.

I wouldn't fancy lancers, hussars or dismounted cavalry against an Infantry Square, though, if such had been thought of in the time-frame.
 
I wouldn't fancy lancers, hussars or dismounted cavalry against an Infantry Square, though, if such had been thought of in the time-frame.

You misunderstand me - lancer wouldn't dismount (although dragoons would in this time frame) Lancers and mounted crossbowmen / arqubusiers would just caracole (essentially take it in turns to fire their weapons and retire).

Begfore you say the longbowmen would massacre them then consider it worked against arqubusses and early muskets (and the occasional crossbow and longbow) up to circa 1630
 
Top