How Gustavus Adolphus Combated the Winged Hussars
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2024
- Between 1600 and 1629, the Swedes faced one of the most successful cavalry forces of the early modern Period: The Polish Winged Hussars. During the Polish-Swedish Wars the Swedes suffered many humiliating defeats on their behalf - until, in 1621, things changed: Gustavus Adolphus entered the stage. He found innovative ways to combat the Polish horsemen and learned a great deal from them. This is how contemporary historiography explains how Gustavus Adolphus dealt with the Polish Winged Hussars.
Patreon: / sandrhomanhistory
Twitter: / sandrhoman
#history #education #sandrhoman
Our reading list on military history:
Duffy, C., Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern World 1494-1660, Vol. 1, 1979. amzn.to/32dvvwM
Rogers, C.J., The military revolution debate. Readings on the military transformation of early modern Europe, 1995. amzn.to/3geVDMM
Rogers, C.J., Soldiers' Lives through History - The Middle Ages, 2006. amzn.to/3j2kQvG
Parker, C., The Cambridge History of Warfare, 2005. amzn.to/32ggn1L
Van Nimwegen, O., The Dutch Army and the Military Revolutions, 1588-1688, 2010. amzn.to/2E3Fc95
Bibliography:
Clifford, J. R., Tactics and the Face of Battle, in: Tallet, F., (editor), European Warfare 1350-1750.
Eltis, D., The Military Revolution in Sixteenth-Century Europe, London 1995.
Frost, R., Northern Wars, State and Society in Northeastern Europe 1558-1721, 2000.
Grbasić, Z., / V. Vuksić, L'âge d'or de la Cavalerie, 1989.
Kloosterhuis, J., “Cavalry” in: Encyclopedia for Early Modern History.
Love, R.S. «All the King’s Horsemen”: The equestrian Army of Henri IV, 1585-1598, SCJ 22 (1991), 511-33.
Meyer, H., Geschichte der Reiterkrieger, 1982.
Oeser, E., Pferd und Mensch. Die Geschichte einer Beziehung, 2007.
Parker, G., Dynastic War, in: Parker. G., (editor), The Cambridge History of Warfare, 2005.
Roberts, M., Gustav Adolf and the Art of War (first printed 1955), in: Essays on Swedish History, 1967.
For those who were asking for more content on Gustavus’ campaigns in Germany: there will be more on that In the next few videos.
Time for some capitalism
At some point it'd be cool for you to also cover the second most notable polish cavalry unit - Lisowczycy/Elears.
They seem to only be recognized in Poland and Russia, and completely unrepresented in UA-cam history-sphere.
He dont deal cause none of battle against Winged Hussars was win - i mean unit on unit not army on army.
The Carolineans when!?!?!?
Grateful to you
The real winner of the Polish-Swedish wars? Russia
Indeed. Russia had time to grow and then beat them bough.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 fishing Hubert
Yeah man we could have both teamed up against Russia and take it.
@@bicepbrah8179 But who would have conquered Sibiria then?
Indeed! Russia did not shared border with nobody strong from south side or east, they have possibilities to grow.
Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth did not have this luck -> almost always was attacked by couple enemies in the same moment (for example 1655 Moscow, Sweden with Branderburgia, Rakoczy from Transylvania and Cossacs) and holded this attack -> which nations could hold in same situaction? Swedish politics was very stupid (very fast they lost all lands with Finland inculded), only geographic location made them strong, other things are not impresive.
One of the most underrated tools at a soldiers disposal. The shovel.
*Happy mask-muffled Krieger noises intensifies*
@@Mariner797 Imperial fist nods approvingly
@@ieuanhunt552 F O R T I F Y
Meanwhile: *sinister shotgun noises*
“You were loud and ugly and now you’re dead!”
~TF2 Soldier
Polish cavalry: *charge with cold steel*
Gustavus Adolphus: "WRITE THAT DOWN, WRITE THAT DOWN!"
Steel is normally cold
@@assumjongkey1383 As opposed to hot steel, guns. :D
@@shorewall no .just ..no
@@assumjongkey1383 war
@@assumjongkey1383 Try touching the gun barrel as it fires.
How to defeat the winged hussars
Gustavus: Dirt, we need dirt
They flew right over his dirt. Wings, remember?
I have a jar of dirt!
@@LuzikArbuzik77 who am who are you
@@teaCupkk And get a pike in the belly.
The most tactically important weapon, ever since it was introduced, it has been used by every army, even nowadays. It has changed, improved with new technology, but it remains so that the first user would recognize the must modern versions. There are no indications that it well ever fall out of use, especially given its uses outside the battlefield.
The knife? No... the shovel!
it takes a legend to take down a legend
Words of wisdom!
Epic comment!!!
@@True_black_swordsman bring the blood
He didn't take it down tho. Just chellanged it more boldly.
@@civishyperboreum6853 Gustavus Adolphus is greater than any Polish leader in history, he definitely destroyed it.
Battle of Gniew (Mewe 1626) was won by neither of sides, but it was strategic victory to both of them, Sweds broke the siege of Gniew, Poles forced Gustavus to stop his advance to Gdańsk. This battle showed also that you can no longer win a battle with mostly infantry against cavlery (like Swedish forces) or mostly cavlery against infantry (like Polish), you need both to be succesfull.
Your videos are of the highest visual and historical quality, it's pure joy to watch it. Keep it up, you deserve far more viewers!
I don't understand, what does Gdańsk have to do with the battle of GNIEWO? Gdańsk was a really hard city to capture; I don't think Gustavus would've been able to even if he reached it. Do you know any first hand accounts which says the Swedes were planning to capture Gdańsk?
@@Leaffordes Found some sources in Polish saying about it, Gdańsk was important trade center for Poland, and Swedish forces already captured many surrounding fortresses. They even tried to negotiate with the city. Gustav started to build a bridge across Vistula River to cross it. There was even a letter in which Gustav said thah he plan to capture Gdańsk. Futhermore Gdańsk had weak point on it's eastern side. City asked king for help, that's why they besiedge Gniewo, which had only weak garrison and was important to secure Swedes flank.
There is zero evidence in the Swedish sources supporting the idea that Gustavus intended to capture Danzig/Gdansk in 1626. Even before Gniew Gustavus had not only detached much of his army to provide garrisons in towns and forts but was moving south rather than west towards Gdansk. If he had intended a siege of Gdansk which was the most powerful fortress city in the Baltic he would not have landed so far away nor dispersed his army. Instead he would have landed at Putzig aka Puck and moved directly at Gdansk. That is the plan established earlier when a counter-invasion was planned due to rumors that Sigismund Vasa was assembling an army for a 2nd invasion of Sweden a few years earlier. Rumors turned out to be false but the plan was kept and updated.
@@Vonstab As it was said in this video it is hard to tell the truth today, because both sides tells different story.
There was a letter from 19 VIII 1626 written by Gustav to his brother-in-law George Willhelm in which he said that WHEN he will take Gdańsk, he will give Piława back to George. He already capture most of important fortresses or cities, securing his flank, like Puck, Elbląg, Gniewo, Tczew, Malbork or others. Gdańsk was cut off and the truth is it felt threaten, and made active preperations for siege.
Then there was a failed negotiations, in which Gustav demanded not only City's neutrality, but disarment and giving up polish ships and others. After this failed, Gustav announced Gdańsk as Swedish enemy.
Swedish forces were already present near Gdańsk, when Poles started besieging Gniewo, they fired upon Gdańsk at night of 17/18 IX, but then retreated to Gniewo. Gdańsk itself had weak point on easten side, it was only protected by narrow river (Motława and Green Gate), and some earth works.
No matter what was the truth, Gdańsk felt threaten and Polish forces main objetive was to secure it, that's why after battle of Gniewo, they marched north. And thus Poles achieved strategic victory at Gniewo, alongside with Swedes.
@@alder2460 lots fo food
Sabaton fans be like: "What is this? a crossover episode?"
WHEN THE WINGE- GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS!
GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS GO FORTH
DEATH FROM ABOVE MAKE THE ENEMY KNEEL
ACERBUS ET INGENS GO FORTH
DEATH FROM ABOVE IT'S AN ARMY OF KINGS
The wars were pretty much the definition of Cool vs Awesome
Gustavus became a badass fighting the Poles, and Sobieski fought on both sides in the Swedish wars, so yes
Gustavus Adolphus: I am altering warfare, pray I don’t alter it any further
He has an evolutionary overdrive.
@Marcelo Henrique Soares da Silva A bit like Steve Jobs then? Take stuff that already exist, put it together in a new way (or in a more successful way, at least) and then being hailed as a ingenious inventor! ;)
Gustavus Adolphus to shipwrights: I'm altering the ship, pray I don't alter it any further.
Gustavus Adolphus reminds me of Philip II of Macedon.
Not the best, he was far from unbeaten. But damn, he was so reliable, effective and, most importantly, he damn well knew to adapt and bring the changes his people needed when they needed them.
A genious and a legend.
Phillip of Macedon built his army from scratch and introduced new ideas and tactics that ensured Macedonian dominance on the battlefield for generations. Had he not been assassinated his overrated son would of never been remembered.
"But damn, he was so reliable, effective [...] A genious and a legend."
Though he goofed pretty badly in ship design.
@@seneca983 What! I cant just double the size of artillery and reinforce the entire ship without making everything unstable?
@Alvi Syahri But i sometimes think we underestimate that the persians were the ones who created an empire, Alexander just usurped that empire, while by no means a small feat his empire was not that much bigger than the persian.
@Alvi Syahri I see what you mean. Ursurp does have a flavor of scheming courtiers while the behavior i was after was more something like how the invading nomad tribes of central asia conqured great nations just to form a thin layer on top of the newly conqured.
I love to see the history of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth being presented in-depth, especially in the larger European context!
A note about pronunciation: C in Polish is never pronounced like 'k', it's usually pronounced like 'ts' (unless it's in a digraph with h or z).
What do cz and ch mean to you?
For my people is symple exactly that c-z and c-h, we mainly use single letters for singe sounds.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 questions
cyrilic letters suit slavic languages so much better, in my opinion. I as a Ukrainian have no problem pronouncing polish but reading it is confusing AF
@@johndoe-qj2kt Its not the latin letters that make polish strange its the things they have added in combination with not adding some more.
Id say that out of all the slavik ways of writing cheholovak is the best. And out of all baltoslavic latvish is the best.
My problem with kirilik is that you cant write many things in it snice many letters change what sound they make depending on the next one. The best writing systems are ones where this is minimized by giving every sound a letter of its own, and for ease of learning similar sound should have similar letters.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 cz is like English ch in 'check' or 'chop', while ch is pronounced just as h. I believe that they used to be slightly different sounds but we stopped distinguish between them.
Interesting. Gustavus fascinates me, and his death during the 30 Years' War poses one of the great "What ifs" of history. Though Gustavus found ways to deal with the Hussars, they were still around almost 60 years later when Sobieski led them to the relief of Vienna - 50 years after the Swedish king's death. A fine video; many thanks.
Your channel is god's gift to humanity (metaphorically saying "its the one thing youtube historiography needed" for those that take things seriously). Thank you for the effort and dedication you put into doing this, you are my absolute favorite!! love your work man!!
Is that war
He just muted their music
Nice to see you here
@@FieldMarshalYT same with you friend
@@CivilWarWeekByWeek but not u:(
@@assumjongkey1383 how disorganized
I feel like there's been a collision of Sabaton songs.
Then the winged hussars arrived
Coming down the mountainside
vs
Gustavus Adolphus, Libera et impera
Acerbus et ingens, Augusta per augusta
WE REMEMBER
IN SEPTEMBER
WHEN GUSTAVUS. ADOLPHUS. LIBERA ET IMPERA.
It's amazing how adaptible Gustavus was.
Shame he got nerfed
@@firstnamelastname4249 arms
Well, he learned from one of the best: Frederik Hendrik van Oranje Nassau.
Except when it came to ship design.
I love how everything in these animations gets shattered like glass.
That's how people die back then.
Winged Hussars vs the Lion From the North.
Legends are taught, battles fought in September, when the Winged Hussars arrived from the North.
polish lithuanian swedish empire would be op
Great material. Funny thing was u mentioned around 5:40 was a battle near village of Koniecpolski which literally means in polish 'end of Poland'
I love how the thumbnail of this video makes it look like Gustav "dealt with" the Hussars by personally shooting them in the face.
Well, sadly we too have to play the 'UA-cam game' to some degree. We try to stay away from much of the other stuff that is bad for the overall viewer experience but spikes engagement such as calls to action, pop ups, cringy humor and the like.
@@SandRhomanHistory That's okay, I genuinely thought it was a funny thumbnail.
I wouldn't worry about having to play the algorithm's clickbait game, as long as you provide good content like this I think viewers will forgive you for the occasional silly title!
Greetings to Swedish friends from Poland!
What nice afk
Greetings to Polish warriors from Sweden :)
Greetings to both from Finland!
NO? Ceasar was a Roman.
Good try tho.
@@peternystrom921 Not the one from fallout!
Always happy to see a new video being uploaded to this channel!
Bloody how quite
Gustavus was nearly killed in the battle of Honigfedle. Who knows how history would go on without his involvment in the 30 Years' War.
Gustavus was nearly killed in many of his battles. At Dirschau he got a bullet in his shoulder that couldn't be removed, the nerve damage from it paralyzed two fingers on his right hand. It would have been really interesting to know what would have happened had he survived Lutzen.
*Battle of Trzciana
@@Jauhl1 We would write in Swedish language.
The book 1632 explores a Swedish Empire where he never dies.
@@Jauhl1 Yeap, and that was the reason the battle was tactically undecided, cause the Swedish next in command wouldn't continue the assault
I haven't appreciated this period of history for a long time. You changed that.
Good times
A very good video and analysis overall. I have only a few remarks:
The first one regarding the Battle of Gniew (Mewe), The success of Swedish infantry in fending off the Winged Hussars is largely attributed to the field fortifications (including flood embankments that Swedes appropriated for their defense) rather than firepower. Yes, at first the Salvo tactic surprised the Hussars enough that they retreated in disarray but soon after they repeated their charges and managed to reach the Swedish lines despite the firepower. They were unable to break the Swedish lines because of the field fortifications protecting them. Although you explained it later quite well.
3:38 The claim that muskets were now able to penetrate the Hussars armour while arquebuses couldn't is false. It didn't have any effect on the hussars since their armours could be penetrated before. This claim about supposed greater penetration offered by muskets which in turn reduced the effectiveness of hussars was made in the 80s and was since disregarded. The higher firepower achieved by the massed volley introduced by Gustavus was probably more decisive. Although casualties suffered by Hussars didn't increase rapidly.
Slowly walking
Lol, I always wait for your response when the polish are in his videos
@@toootdooot710 I "sound" like I'm crazy, don't I?
Weren't muskets also faster to reload and lighter to carry? Also what about accuracy and range in comparison to an arquebus? I think those four were the biggest difference, am I correct? Although I guess this all would still depend on what kind of a musket is being talked about.
@@darthwalrus4740 Muskets weren't exactly lighter and because of their length, they weren't easier to carry, although Gustav was trying to decrease the overall weight of his soldiers' firearms when possible.
As for the reload speed. I honestly don't know how arquebus would be slower to reload than a musket. I think that mostly goes down to training as well as loading procedures. Soldiers were usually loading their weapons by following a series of commands given by NCOs. Such loading procedures contained between (give or take, I don't know all of them) 16 to 24 different commands.
As for accuracy, theoretically, longer barrels of muskets should offer higher initial velocity which in turn should mean musketeers should be able to shoot with better accuracy and on longer distances too. But, that's just a theory. Considering that soldiers in this time period often lacked training in accurate shooting it usually meant that the overall difference wasn't huge. It was however significant enough to make musket a dominant firearm of the period.
As for the accuracy in the actual battles between Swedes and Poles. This is how it was analyzed by Ph.D. Radosław Sikora: "In the battle of Gniew there were a total of three attempts undertaken by Polish cavalry to break Swedish foot. In the first attempt - September 22, 1626 - the hussars charged several times were hit by a hail of missiles from 2 squadrons of infantry and 6 guns (2 squadrons had 576 shooters). It should be added that the hussars' charge conditions were very inconvenient. The hussars first had to cross the flood embankment, behind which the Swedish infantry was formed. That's not all. The hussars had to charge on the powdery sands of the Vistula. The aforementioned embankment currently has a height of up to 8 meters and is not easy to cross, even on foot. It was lower in the 17th century, but it was a very serious obstacle on the way to infantry. The hussars, "jumping over" this embankment, certainly were not able to do it without disorganizing their own ranks.
The result of these charges was that every attack by the Polish cavalry was repulsed. It looked like that after the fire of the infantry, the hussars' charge broke down and the hussars retreated. The infantry, on the other hand, began to load weapons in a hurry. At that time, the Polish Cossack banners in the second wave tried to approach the infantry group and take advantage of the fact that it Swedish foot was almost defenseless while reloading. However, the Swedish reiters each time went against the Cossacks and tied them up with a fight. In the meantime, the hussars were reorganizing their ranks and returning to the fight. At this point, the Swedish reiters withdrew trying to avoid confrontation with hussars. However, this time was sufficient for the infantry to reload their muskets. Subsequent charges of the hussars met with the fire of the infantry. The situation repeated several times, and finally, the Poles gave up and withdrew.
Considering that Polish cavalry only tried to break the Swedish ranks three times, we can count how many missiles fell on it. Well, at least about 1,728 musket balls and 18 canister shells were fired. What were the Polish losses? Well, they amounted to (in 3 different diaries) from 20 to 50 killed riders (one of the diaries gives the number 19-23 dead, the other two - 30 and 50)." --- Hussar phenomenon by Radosław Sikora
Full Recpect Polish from Vietnam
Sir, we praise sweedes here
@@hannibalburgers477 Nope.
Great video. Gustavus Adolphus is one of those consistently interesting figures in history. Can't wait for your next video on the man.
you're bringing us the good stuff. as usual. thanks!
Good old lord
We Remember
In Septmeber
When the winged hussars arrived
Only to find Gustavus Adolphus
Who lost many times to Koniecpolski and nearly lost his own life twice! After one battle with Koniecpolski, King of Sweden said „ I never saw such masacre”.
@@lothar3610 It's a good thing he learned from his mistakes. He was no mediocre commander.
@@FieldMarshalYT I am not saying that. Personaly I think he was a genius, same for Koniecpolski. Clash of titans.
@@lothar3610 Oh yes, Koniec was a damn great military leader for sure.
@@FieldMarshalYT ring the blood
I hate videos on the Polish and Swedish, because I love both and hate to see either lose. Great videos my man, keep them up! :)
If only those Vasas could have avoided quarrelling with each other.
@@alanpennie8013 that can be also said of the Polish dynasty - the Piasts.
In 1138-1295/1320 they were nothing but a quareling family, making Poland into 7 warring principalities, instead of a unified Kingdom that matched the strength of Hungary and outmatched Bohemia (well, that might've simply been the earlier Piasts being more militarilly savvy/skilled than Przemyślids, but whatever)
Thank You very much for the hard work making those videos! They are extremely interesting and informative.
Learning new
'Oh! If only I had such cavalry, with my infantry I would be camping in Constantinople this year!'
Gustav II Adolf, about Winged Hussars, at Mewe
Liar
I can't find any source confirming this was said
@@seanbeahn6895 There are some polish sources claiming that.
@@maverick8697 I'd take those with a pinch of salt if I were you
@@seanbeahn6895 IMO they as believable as others.
A time of religion and war legends tell the tale of a lion
A cli4
A beast in the shape of a man with a dream, to rule sea and land
Dedication. Dedication. They're outnumbered 15 to 1.
@@ailius1520
Round them up look into their eyes
They beg for their lives
The Lion Of The North, the Warrior King!
You got me into early modern history, thank you
What it it
Really well researched and explained as usual. Thanks for the great work
Firing on people
That was fascinating, thanks for posting this!
*Then the Gustavus Adolphus arrived*
Gustavus didnt save the europe like hussars did
@Niek Vels Holocaust wasn't Catholic, it was based on nazi ideology worshipping their own views
@Niek Vels Not gonna comment on the catholic debate stuff here, but it is true the Winged Hussars didn't save Europe. Even if the Ottomans captured Vienna it would be nearly impossible to keep control of, send troops to, and maintain the city. Especially during winter which many Ottoman troops were not used to. The Hussars were legendary cavalry indeed, but the whole 'Saved Europe" thing is just propaganda.
@Niek Vels dude the Catholic Church got almost kicked out of germany by the Nazis, they got a shit tone of land stolen and the German government still pays reparations for that. Hitler represents christians less than Timur represents Islam
@Niek Vels Adolf Hitler was protestant
Battle of Mewe, Nowe - damn it. I didn't know such technically important battles took place. Mewe is some 20km away, on the other side of Vistula from where I lived. For the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth army hussars were kind of motorized division, but without the artillery support.
Like it or not the Swedish-Polish war was devastating for Commonwealth. All because of the disagreements within family, as the Vasa family also king of Commonwealth.
Awesome piece of military history.
nie zrób kupy z wrażenia
this channel deserves more growth. Well done
thanks man!
Another great piece by one of the best content creators on UA-cam.
Look at those numbers
And yet, Koniecpolski with his winged hussars, though outnumbered, managed to defeat finally Gustavus Adolphus at Trzciana on 27 June 1629. 5.000 Poles and allies fought against 9.000 Swedes. The Swedes were completely defeated and Gustavus Adolphus nearly got killed.
(this was mentioned in the video, but very shortly, as the battle of Honningfeld - in Polish: Trzciana)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trzciana
After the battle of Trzciana the Swedes never regained their initiative and the Truce of Altmark was signed. Gustavus Adolphus withdrew from Poland.
And what wasn't mentioned was that 40% of that army consisted of an Imperial German relief force, Reiters, professional heavy cavalry that actually could fight the Swedes head on.
There was no "9000" Swedes at Honigfelde, the Wiki page you link to shows this as do any look at the Swedish sources, indeed the 5500+1300 listed in the Wiki is probably a bit too high since the numbers have been rounded up in the case of the infantry while the 5500 cavalry was the ration strenght in number of horses who had to be provided food and paid for rather than the number of men able to fight. (The Regimental staff and the officers in each company had additional horses, for example a German cavalry company in Swedish service had 12 officers with 26 horses in each company.) Apart from a small force of 50 musketeers the Swedish infantry was not engaged in the battle but rather continued the march to the Swedish camp at Malbork while the cavalry fought a rear guard action to cover the movement of infantry, heavy artillery and the wagon train. If you want to count the Swedish infantry they we should also count the Imperial infantry which was present but never joined the battle.
Documents show that after the exchange of prisoners the Swedish dead in the battle numbered fewer than 500 with up to 1000 wounded. (The number of wounded is hard to fix since Swedish records listed sick and wounded together and sickness was common in the army in Prussia. 1052 men were listed as sick post battle.). Had the Swedish army been 'completely defeated' then losses would have been far higher and included the slow moving wagons and artillery as well as the entire infantry force.
Swedes had no need to regain the initiative, they got what they wanted from the Truce of Altmark which let Swedish troops occupy important parts of Royal and Ducal Prussia with the right to collect tolls from the rich trade going through Gdansk. The treaty also secured the Swedish possession of most of the Duchy of Livonia. The only thing the Swedes did not get was Sigismund giving up his claim to the Crown of Sweden.
@@Jauhl1 Reiters were divided into light, medium and heavy you should remember that. When it comes to quality the German reiters were far worse than the Winged Hussars and even Polish medium cavalry (Pancerni, at that point known as chorągwie kozackie) were better and Gustav was mostly surprised by their fierceness as well as the hussars of course. It was 1,200 Polish Winged Hussars, 1,200 Polish medium and light cavalry and 2,000 Habsburg cavalry vs. 6,000(apart from this there was about 3,000 mostly infantry which did not take part) Swedes (mostly cavalry). Polish light and medium cavalry as well as the Imperial cavalry attacked from the front, while the hussars attacked from the Swedish left and caused the entire force to suddenly rout.
@@aleksandersokal5279 Never heard Reiters being referred to anything but heavy cavalry. Moreover the Reiters was the direct development and replacement of heavy lancers of Europe, Unlike Lancers their pistols allowed them to fight with the Pike and Shot formations, while Lancers could only charge and against a secured Pike and shot front that was suicide. Lancers could still do incredible damage if they caught the enemy in disarray but they lacked flexibility of modern cavalry Fighting with a lance also demanded alot more skill and training. Which is why they were replaced everywhere but Poland. At Trzciana the Reiter's was the crucial element the Commonwealth lacked. Something that could fight and tie down the Swedes head on without being massacred, which allowed the Hussars and Cossacks to flank and intercept reinforcements.
SandRhoman has another video on the black riders if you are interested ua-cam.com/video/MZkjyFfmXbU/v-deo.html
@@Jauhl1 Are you serious? You never heard of reiters without armour? Reiter heavy cavalry in 17th century was properly known as the Cuirassier
s (who wore the 3/4 armour), medium known as just reiters (who wore breastplate, backplate and a helmet or no armour and helmet or even a cap and no armour), light known as arquebusiers (who had cavalry arquebuses). You are wrong about the lance, as in Poland the hussars had lances which were longer than pikes which allowed the hussars to break a pike formation without any issues (at Trzciana the fight was mainly against cavalry so this does not matter). Hussars were far better at charging head on than reiters (because of their lances).
More information in their muskets would be very interesting. How much ammo was carried and how long did it take to load? What range did they prefer to engage at?
Very engaging and well presented. You easily earned a subscription
Your videos on the evolution of warfare are very educational. War is hell😢
Those pointy sticks again...
Very useful
*pipes ;). Long ass pointy pipes ;)
One can only wonder, what would've happened if the personal union between the Commonwealth and Sweden would've lasted. Polish cavalry fighting alongside Swedish Pike&Shot infantry, with commanders of both sides cooperating? That'd be certainly interesting.
@SandRhoman History great channel and excellent videos. Greetings from Croatia
Please, keep covering the 80 years war, there is a very small quantity of videos covering this topic. That is what made me suscribing to your channel
Indeed, in the Polish school, these four battles were left unmentioned, while Kłuszyn and Kircholm were exposed beyond all measures. Very valuable material, thank you. The only thing that can be improved is the pronunciation of 'Koniecpolski' (here 'c' should read like 'ts' in 'tsar') and also 'Gorzno', read more like 'Gozhno' or 'Goshno'.
Lepiej się weź za książki Radka Sikory, zamiast miauczeć o podręcznikach i chwalić ten filmik.
It baffles me that the Total War series hasn't visited this era yet.
Soon... soon...
Couldn't agree more.
To be fair, the very first Total War was set in this era - in Japan. Ditto its sequel. The Japanese had shorter pikes, no mounted pistols, and no artillery, but otherwise very similar weapons and tactics.
Hey geniali Videos! Sehr spannend und informativ;-) warte gspannt uf dä nächsti Upload....
So happy! Thank you very much!
What’s new
excellent. i've been wanting to know more about this!
now, is this the guy.... someone said... drop him in ww1 or ww2 and he'd understand it perfectly?
Yes.
firstly, the battle of Dirschau lasted two days, not one, and the Swedes withdrew from the battlefield after failing to capture the river crossings and shooting first gustav adolf and then johan banner by the Polish infantry, the war ceased for almost a year, making the main goal of the Poles achieved, that is to give Gdansk time to fortify, there is not a single reason to consider this battle as a Swedish victory, neither tactically nor strategically achieved anything, adequately no one considers the battle of Mewe to be a Polish victory....
Awesome as always
Your videos are super informative and interesting!! On another note, would someone be able to share the song in the background of the video (during the beginning). I absolutely adore it
Swedish historian Dick Harryson said that the time around the thirty years war no nation had a single unified uniform. That happened afterwards. Sigismund III Vasa was the the son of Johan III, the older brother to Charles IX ,of Gustavus Adolphus's father. So this was a war between cousins. Johan III and Gharles IX had a half-Brother, called Eric XIV. It's really wierd to see a much a thin Gustavus Adolphus as he loved to eat much food and eventually became too fat to wear cuirassier.
I was convinced he couldn't wear armour because of the wound he suffered at the Battle of Tczew against the Polish. I don't see how being fat would stop you from wearing armour.
Few words of comment to this film. Most of the battles of Polish-Swedish War in fact were inconclusive because, as you said, Swedish army fought only in terrain bad for cavalry, dug in and hid behind field fortifications or quasi-field fortifications. Usually it was so that winged hussars and Polish cavalry charged or tried to charge and if it was impossible to charge they resigned. This resignation is by some interpreted as defeat but in fact it should be treated as draw or inconclusive fight. Battle of Gniew (Mewe) was such battle, winged hussars were stopped rather by bad terrain than Swedish infantry fire. There were also exceptions. Battle of Tczew (Dirschau) in fact was inconclusive. It is sometimes described as tactical Swedish victory and strategical Polish victory. There was rather an exceptional situation what caused such result. Newer researches show it in a bit different light than older you probable base on. Only battle of Gorzno was definitely Swedish victory over Polish cavalry simply caused by bad command on the Polish side. You little said about decisive battle of Trzciana (June 27, 1629) victorious for Polish army and winged hussars. Other my remark is that making this film you completely focused on comparing tactical features while the result of this war and battles was influenced by any other factors like: 1) When the war started, Polish army was engaded in other conflicts and could face Swedes only limited forces, 2) Polish parlament did not voted enough taxes so army was unpaid what caused many problems. One more thing is that, as it was highlighted in the end, battles not always had the greatest impact. Polish army superior with their cavalry, preferred so called 'little war', attacking supply lines which caused hunger in Swedish army, and some operation caused more loses because of it than battles.
Well done ! Thanks !
Excellent video!👍🏻
What is this, a crossover episode?
This is really small nitpick completely unrelate to the main video, and nothing that you should worry about but:
Back in the day Helsinki wasn't really significant city. While helsinki was founded by Gustav 1 of Sweden around half a decade ago, it was generally very insignificant town, until the 1812, when Alexander 1st of Russia moved capital there.
Until then Turku was the most significant city in Finland (or technically region of österland).
Amazing vids keep it up
Every time you release a video it Sweden’s my day Ba dum tis
welp this would make a great sabaton crossover XD
Better muskets weren't more deadly for hussars. Even if charge was broken, casualties were similar as in previous battles. More dangerous was firing everything at once instead of 6 volleys during countermarch (more devastating psyhological effect).
Hei man great work again, i wonder how do you make units shatter when they get defeated? Do you have any tutorial for it? Keep up the good work
I love this channel!👍😀
And for those of you who do not want to read longer comments (like this one I have placed before) I will only put what Gustavus Adolpus said about Polish winged hussars: "Oh, If I had such cavalry, I would camp with my infantry in Constantinople this year".
Do you have a source?
@@MrVonTrolling This honestly sounds like propaganda than fanboyism is keeping alive
Yeah, according to some Polish sources everyone praised polish soldiers
@@MrVonTrolling mentioned in the book: Radosław Sikora "Z dziejów husarii" (but it is in Polish so probably it won't help you. The author is a professional historian.
@@demilung except winged hussars rather not, but they were really exceptional and this is not a creation of propaganda.
Oh, okay, so the conclusion here is: how Gustavus Adolphus dealt with Winged Hussars? Poorly ;P
Rather well*. These charge-filled battles either remained undecided, or a Polish-Lithuanian defeat. And all it took was actually using the terrain to one's advantage, who'd have thunk?
@@mateuszjokiel2813 There were two defeats (Kiesia 1626 and Górzno 1629), two stalemates (Gniew 1626 and Tczew 1627) and four victories (Czarne 1627, Oliwa 1627(sea battle), Treiden 1628 and Trzciana 1629) for the Polish Commonwealth in this war. Apart from loosing some Prussian castles and towns at the start (which were regained after the finalized peace treaty in 1635) the Commonwealth did pretty well in this war.
@@aleksandersokal5279
Swedish victories: Wallhof 1626, Gniew 1626 is classified as a "formal Swedish Victory" by wiki, Selburg 1626, Weden 1626, Dirschau (tactically) 1627, Gorzno 1628,
Polish victories: Czarne 1627, Dirschau (strategically) 1627, Oliwa 1627, Treiden 1628, Trzciana 1629
I count 5 Swedish (discarding Dirschau) and 4 Polish (discarding Dirschau)
@@seanbeahn6895 Gniew 1626 and Tczew/Dirschau 1627 were both stalemates because both sides achieved their goals and claimed victory. Walmozja/Wallhof 1626, Selburg 1626, Wenden/Kieś 1626 and Treiden 1628 were part of the Livonian Campaign. While Gniew 1626, Czarne 1627, Tczew/Dirschau 1627, Oliwa 1627, Górzno 1629 and Trzciana 1629 were part of the Pomorenian-Prussian Campaign. This is why I forgot about the other battles (I focused on the Pomerenian-Prussian campaing as the war since it was the main part but forgot parts of the other). So when adding all up, we end up with two stalemates (Gniew and Tczew), four Swedish victories (Wallhof/Walmozja, Selburg, Kieś/Wenden and Górzno) and four Polish victories (Czarne, Oliwa, Treiden and Trzciana).
@@mateuszjokiel2813 wonder if there is any conection to the way swedish peasant armies managed too sometimes deafeat german landknechts and noble knigths 100+ years earlier? By preparing fortified ambushes in tigth forests.
Love the channel
I think that is good idea to make a movie about different kinds of polish cavalry. Hussars was only one of them and in many battles there were no hussars. Different kind's of cavalry was petyhorcy, pancerni and cosacks (don't mistake them with Cossacks). The cassacks cavalry was light cavalry especially good at fighting behind enemy lines and i think that talking about them is worth idea as it could show that polish army was no one card idea but they have multiple units for different tasks. But i must admit that your movies are great and i wait for more of them, especially about thirty years war
The clip implies that all polish cavalry was so cold wing hussars. In reality this was only a small part. Usually lighter formations was in use. Hussars was elite force. Ofly expensive and rare.
I think they where the heavy cavalry of the Polish army?
@@alicelund147 Yes, Hussars were heavy, shock cavalry. However they were often a minority among Polish cavalry. Poland also had light cavalry (armed with sabres, bows, pistols and musqets) and mid-tier cavalry called "Pancerni", armed very similar to light cavalry with two small differences: they wear mail armour and often they used short lances.
@@alicelund147 Yes they ware but bulk of polish forces of the time was made by light cavalry without heavy armor and lances. Husars ware used for breaking enemy lines with lances and the others killed what was left.
@@pawekobylinski4634 Yeah, Hussars were kind of like the knights of their era since weren't they also noblemen?
@@darthwalrus4740 Thay was noblemen but it was the case with all cavalry. Only infantry could be made with no noblemen except officers. Some exceptions ofcourse occur. Hussars consist mostly with rich and very rich because thay had to pay for their own equipment. About 10 helpers, 12 horses, 2 wagons, number of special hollow lances etc. Horses were very expensive due to special 3 years training and every couple of charges happen thay were shot. Hussar was equivalent to today's tanks in costs.
"C" in "Koniecpolski" is pronounced "ts", so it's "Konietspolski" :)
Wow. In Russian it sounds like "The end of Poles". What Koniecpolski means in Polish?
@@-_Hatred_- Hah, literally "The end of Poland", though it's simply a coincidence of grammatical conjugation. The name of that noble family is derived from the name of the town of "Koniecpole", so "Koniecpolski" basically means something along the lines of "one who is from Koniecpole".
Your channel is rich in content! The video is interesting! thank you for your sharing! I like it very much! I wish you happiness every day!
The fun part though is that Sigismund and Gustavus were cousins. In fact, Sigismund had shortly ruled Sweden after the death of his father John III, only to be ousted by his uncle (Gustavus' father) Charles IX for being too catholic to rule Sweden.
The war was a family quarrel.
AND THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRI...
Gustavus: NO
Koniecpolski: YES
fails
@@civishyperboreum6853 Who?
@@onehope6448 Stanisław Koniecpolski.
@@ChillDudelD Literally who? A nobody. Meanwhile Gustavus Adolphus is considered one of the greatest European conqueror and the Father of modern warfare.
The first youtube historian who actually tries to pronounce people's and location's names correctly. Kudos!
Good clip :)
Amazing story! 👌😎
Well, even in 1650s Hussars continued be successful against Swedish forces. However, even such briliant man was not enough to help in battles of Tczew and Trzciana. Anyway, he had right ideas: combined arms, flexible unit, maximum use of terrain ... just tech was not up to the job, until Northern Wars much later in 18th century. On the other hand, Commonwealth forces at the time were built around fundamental flaw that later was even duplicated by Wehrmacht - army to fight decisive BATTLE, not the war, bulit around professional, expensive and hard to replace core. Hussar were basically equivalent of carrier air groups - irreplacable in quality, quantity and reasonable time once worn down. Adequate horses were fiendlishly expensive and took long to breed and train, entire equipment for single banner-man (towarzysz husarski) was basically worth of full infantry regiment of weapons and entire banner could cost as much as galleon.
The winged hussars were a highly effective calvary at a time calvary was going out of style. But internet memes would have you believe they were demigods riding pegisi or some shit.
Winged hussars in the war against Gustavus, even while outnumbered often defeated the Swedes. They acchieved great victories in the later years against different enemies too. The decline of the hussars came at the beginning of the 18th century and not because their tactiscs were "outdated", but because the middle class of the nobility (out of which members of the winged hussars were recruited) became impoverished and thus the hussars weren't able to fight in great numbers anymore, because not too many nobles were rich enough to buy the obligatory equipment.
No it was because the calvary commanders were idiots. Just like the takeda fighting the oda
@@civishyperboreum6853 Right. As I said, the historical winged hussars were an effective military force. My point is, internet memes are comically exaggerated. Come to think of it, the internet fanboyism is comical, too.
If the part of my comment "at a time that calvary was going out of style" was confusing, I meant in Europe as a whole. I wasn't saying they became obsolete or Poland-Lituania lost interest in them because calvary wasn't cool anymore.
@@piperar2014 they are like the modern "katana fanboys".
@@piperar2014 Point is, that efficiency of hungarian-polish hussars (wings were largely ceremonial) depended on two factors: experienced and brilliant commanders and CRAZY expansive and sophisticated training and equipment from individual, through group (poczet) to entire banner. It was HEAVILY optimized for what it was to do, which in time, proved - of course - ITS UNDOING. Not unlike the Spartans, for example. Remember, at height of hussar power banner-men ("towarzysze") were usually rich nobles, trained literally from birth with huge institutional knowledge. Breeding, selection and training of horses was CRAZY expensive AND LONG (basically, single equipped hussar could cost equivalnet of yearly outcome of few villiages). Hussars were, kind of, equivalnet of batllecrusiers - outrun artillery, outfight everything else in both individual and and more importantly, team combat. There are mentions - usually in russian / moscovite sources - how entire banners were literally able to change direction and reform almost in place. When you have say, 150-300 experienced and superbly trained and equipped professionals used in optimal moment and terrain against essentially expandable draftees ... well, result is forgone conclusion. Still, they were still mortal and once lost, it took a LONG time to replace experience and skills lost with everyone of them within "poczet". Also, inefficiency of contemporary firearmes caused simple effect: unless rider or horse were hit on the head or, in case of the horse, in the hoof / leg, horse was able to keep pace with other horses for next few tens of meters, which usually was sufficient to break opposing formation. Of course, horse fell minute or two later, but any survivor who didn't witness it was convinvced that polish hussars ride on immortal horses xD Few battles and few such testimonies in that day and superstitious age, and there you have it - just like Allies saw "Tirger" in every German tank, even when documents showed that there was company of said tanks, with platoon of them operable :D In time of Northern Wars, when firearms quality and usage doctrine improved and most of institutional knowledge was lost and hussar banners were not replaced with anything but general appearance.... well, the end has come. Problem with Commonwealth in general was inability to turn sometimes stunning tactical / operational successes (Klushino) into lasting strategic victory; do you know, that after famous battle of Kircholm (crushing defeat of Swedes) Polish king WITHELD money for hussars and Hetman Chodkiewicz - their commander - paid them with OWN MONEY? :) ua-cam.com/video/HxEhFnr3aVA/v-deo.html
good sir - which primary and/or secondary source included the statements about the improved muskets?
can we have a video on the battle of Rocroi ?
Just fyi, the Swedish flag had a darker blue back then.
Consternation for the hussars were the earthworks and not the muskets, without the earthworks Gniew would be a victory and not a unresolved battle.
It wasn't necessarily unresolved. The battle itself was a loss, though it did prevent the Swedish forces from advancing to Danzig.
@@mateuszjokiel2813 Therefore it is unresolved as both sides achieved their goals, also it is Gdańsk not Danzig (even though most of the population was foreign it still was a part of the Polish Crown).
@@aleksandersokal5279 When I speak English, I use the generally regognisable English nomenclature. More people are familiar witg Danzig than Gdańsk, and I can't see anyone downloading a Polish keyboard setup just to write city names xD
Both sides achieved their goals, but the Polish only did so in the short term. Poles just lost an important fortified town and were in no position to take it back. Meanwhile the Swedish needed but wait for reinforcements and then did actually advance north. Or at least that is my understanding of the situation, yours may differ.
@@mateuszjokiel2813 The town was lost before the battle, so they did not loose it because of this battle. The entire battle was an offensive action to retake the town from the Swedes, which failed. But the swedes also lost initiative and could not move any further. Also if you are Polish and you are worried about Polish letters not being understood by foreigners use Gdansk(without the Polish letters).
@@aleksandersokal5279 Fine. Use Gdansk. But if using moder native naming conventions Gustav Adolphus would be Gustav II Adolph. Was Gdansk at that time a german or polish speaking city?
Good point that Polish proficiency in raiding made the new Swedish mastery of positional warfare somewhat moot as a strategy for conquest.
A beautiful and informative video...on a fantastic subject, winged hussars are one the most beautiful units...ever!
It sure does hurt
One small note here: Koniecpolski is pronounced "Konyetzpolskee", not "kognacpowlske". Much more simple, isn't it?
stanislav endofpoland
@@r1a1_lactose_enjoyer I wondered about that too.
c'mon guys, he does much better than any other youtube historian. Most don't even try.
3:31 About this I read another opition. That until the napoleonic wars, Bodyarmour of Cavalryunits was still very effectiv and could be only penetrated at an special angle. For example you could look and the Kürras of Prinz Eugen, which had multiple Shot notches. Such Kürras has been tested to be bullet proof.
Yes but at the expense of weigth. Too achive bulletprofness they became heavier and fewer armour pieces were worn.
@@borjesvensson8661 But what I've read that some bullet notches were punched afterwards. But based on logic alone, the cavalry would not have been used for Charges in the 18th, early 19th century if the effect of musketfire would be too deadly.
@@currentofthesnake5348 most cavalry that performed charges with drawn swords or laces in those centurys where unarmored. Light hussars, lancers, cossacs, the carolean cavalry. None of these wore armor(well lanciers in some armies and carolean cavalry sometimes but seldom) and all performed charges
@@borjesvensson8661 I know. The only cavalery who wears breastplates were the currasiers. I think mostly the shock from such a carge counteract the musketfire.
But the point is, musketfire is very effective at close range, so the key to an succesful charges lies when the Line fires to early.
0:47 Just a small nitpick, back in the 1600's Helsinki was an insignificant town, and the map would be more period-appropriate if it showed Turku (Åbo) instead.
Thanks! From Craig. GB. Polish blood.
Cover up
Poles are very good people, we hope we never again direct our weapons at each other 🇵🇱🇸🇪
Gustavus was also shot in the shoulder at Dirschau, the bullet couldn't be removed and two fingers on his right hand were paralyzed as a consequence and he couldn't wear a cuirass anymore.
As for Trzciana/Honigsfelde might have been worth mentioning that a 5000 strong German Imperial army was helping the Polish-Lithuanians out. You make it sound like the Commonwealth was able to defeat the Swedes by themselves.
The presence of the Imperials was critical since the Poles were repeatedly overwhelmed by Swedish counter attacks against the over extended Polish cavalry. Each time the better disciplined but slower moving Imperial Cuirassiers arrived and crushed the counterattacks.
@@Vonstab I feel like the Imperial "Black Cuirassiers" of that time are severely underappreciated. Probably in part because they didn't have the flare, nor the lifespan of the Winged Hussars or the military genius of Gustavus Adolphus to bring them into the spotlight.
The truth is, as a whole they had a excellent record of putting up a fight and devastating opposing regiments when given the chance. Especially under Albrecht von Wallenstein during the battles of Lutzen, Alte Veste and Steinau
Why wouldn't it? Look at other Polish-Swedish battles of the period, the Poles had an obvious upper hand when it came to cavalry. In the case of Trzciana/Hongsfelde there were only 2000 Imperial Reiters, the entire allied force there numbered around 5000 soldiers.
@@civishyperboreum6853 "Only" 2000 Reiters and 1300 Commonwealth Hussars. The professional heavy Imperial cavalry engaged the Swedes from the front, the thing the Hussars weren't capable of anymore.
@@civishyperboreum6853 First what period are we talking about? The 1600 to 1629 period? 1621 to 1629? 1625-1629? The Swedish-Polish war can be divided into numerous periods if one desires to do so.
If we look at the 1625 to 1629 period there is no evidence of the Polish and Lithuanian cavalry having an obvious upper hand in battle. The balance of power between the two forces was far more complex and shifted back and forth depending a whole host of factors. It is also worth remembering that the Polish and Lithuanian cavalry was not only the famous Hussars, rather the majority was so called 'cossack style cavalry' and mercenary German cavalry. They all performed differently when put to the test of battle, this of course applied to the Swedish, Finnish and German cavalry of Gustavus as well. Units could do well in one battle but fail in the next. At Gorzno 1629 the entire Polish army collapsed and fled when Rheingraf Otto Ludwig charged the Polish centre with four companies of German arquebusiers yet at Honigfelde the same units fought with such courage and dash that Gustavus repeatedly expressed his admiration for their performance.
Unit performance could even shift during a battle, at Treiden two companies of Finns took a frontal charge by Lithuanian hussars and proceeded to defeat the hussars yet a short time later the mere appearance of more Lithuanian cavalry, this time mostly cossack style light cavalry was enough to panic the Finns and they fled leaving hundreds of Swedish infantry to be overrun by the Lithuanians.
A comparison between the period of 1600-1611 and 1625-1629 shows how slim any margin of superiority. More often than not success went to the side which was able to use reserves most effectively, unlike Kokenhausen or Kircholm it was not enough to simply line up and charge, attacks had to be properly supported as well.
Honigfelde is unusual in that we he detailed accounts of the battle by all 3 commanders as well as additional eyewitness accounts from both sides. Even more unusual they all agree to a surprising degree once you factor in biases and points of vieview. Polish accounts acknowledges that they suffered set backs that had to be solved by Imperial troops while not perhaps admitting just how bad things were. Honigfelde was very much an allied victory, without the speed and shock delivered by the Poles the Swedish rearguard would have disengaged without a battle and moved safely behind the river. But without the numbers and steadfast discipline of the Imperial Cuirassiers and Arquebusiers there would have been no way to recover from the Swedish counterattacks against the extended and exposed Polish cavalry. And the Imperial infantry made it impossible for the Swedes to stand their ground and deliver a formal battle. Gustavus had to withdraw into the vast fortified camp at Malbork where his main force of infantry was deployed.
At Honigfelde there were no 'Reiters', the Imperial army had not used Reiter cavalry since 1605. Arnim led a force of 13 companies of Cuirassiers and 15 companies of Arquebusiers into battle together with a considerable number of Imperial infantry which did not engage. The exact strength of the Imperial troops at the battle is not known due to a loss of documents. Swedish spies and scouts counted at least 2000 cavalry and 4000 infantry with Arnim before the Imperial and Polish armies joined together but it is not clear if this included all of the present Imperial units. 1000 Imperial infantry was left behind to guard the wagons and camp while the rest moved to join the Poles. I.e at least 2000 cavalry (a reasonable number for 28 companies) and 3000 infantry. We know that the Imperial infantry was at the battle since Hetman Koniecpolski refers to them in his account of the battle.
One could say they were the last "two handed" lancers, but they were actually so good they could have been the model for the latest lancers in history. It was just that nobody else trained horsemanship with the two-handed lance. During the time of the Winged Hussars this was an ancient and forgotten cavalry tactic that goes directly back to the Indo-Iranian horsemen of central Asia. They did not need armor and if they would have abandoned it, they would have been the model of the modern lancer until the age of the machine gun. They were the biggest, greatest badasses on horseback the world has ever seen since the Norman Knights.
Great history !!
Bring it on
Like needing to choose between mommy and daddy for Sabaton fans
Yay
Then the winged hussars arrived comments incoming...
Wow exelent film!
He battled the winged hussars when warfare was revolutionized, in the true era of the winged hussars they were unbeatable.
No one is unbeatable