Non-Polish soldiers Poles are proud of

One of the legends the Pole would hold dear in their heart is that of husaria. You know – the winged, well armed, invincible Polish cavalry everybody knows. (You do know, right? Well, you do now.)

British hussar, next of kin?

But why well-armed? But why winged? But why invincible? But why Polish?

The hussar’s scale armour wasn’t the best solution, not to mention other flaws.

The wings were probably for parades only and not used on the battlefield. Don’t believe that the sound of the vibrating feathers was to frighten enemy horses. (Pointless, it would be. Infantrymen and artillerymen are not horsemen, while any hostile cavalrymen could just put plugs in their horses’ ears, right?)

Husaria was not invincible. It’s quite ironic that many YouTubes glorifying the supposedly greatest horsepower mounted by man use Krzesmir Dębski’s tune (often started at 1:30) named Husaria ginie – “Hussars Dying”. Dying? Someone managed to kill them? Yup.

Thank you Mr Dębski, we know some great composers are Polish. Husaria of the Polish legend, however, isn’t Polish: The cavalry became a heavy formation, when a Hungarian prince of Transylvania made it such. “Our” CO in the battle of Kircholm (1605) was Ruthenian; his forces were more Lithuanian than Polish. The same Ruthenian led “us” at Chocim (1621). The commander at Kłuszyn (1610) was as Polish as his Ukrainian birth-place or his Ukrainian burial-place. And so on.

Whenever an English name for husaria is required, the terms “Polish Hussars” or “Winged Hussars” are used, both not accurate. When you take a look at a Kossak, don’t believe your eyes:

More winged, more Polish

Take some Brandt for more reality:

Less winged, more real

And the statistics are not too favourable for the Polish worshipper of husaria: had he a time machine, he’ll probably end up non-Polish. Even more probably, he would not be a nobleman. But a peasant, a townsman, a merchant, a jester. What’s wrong with jesters? Well, the company of brothers keeps dreaming of the days of the old winged glory.

Henryk Sienkiewicz, a genius, no doubt, who led the Polish mind into such twisted and lazy patriotism had to work out something for the little folk, too. Not every reader can imagine himself tall enough to jump to the hussar’s saddle. You know: “Aren’t you little short for a stormtrooper?” And so we were given Michal Wolodyjowski.

He was short. He had that French problem. He was not too good with ladies, he would fall in love quickly, platonically, not too physically. When he finally got married, he didn’t leave offspring. Though he tried hard. It’s no laughing matter, in the times of wars, it’s was an important man’s duty to produce more defenders of the state. Some offenders, too. (See PS.)

In the books, Wolodyjowski is called the First Sabre of the Republic, a most skilled duellist. Not the last one, sure. But generally, he was a raider, quick for forays, quick for retreats. He knew how to hide behind his horse when the enemy started shooting. Accidentally shot, that’d be a stupid cause of death for a fine swordsman, right? (So what it’s not chivalrous? I’d love the skill! But ask the greater Polish mind if it is ready to take pride in the ability of getting under the horse to avoid a stray bullet.)

And how did Wolodyjowski die? What were his lifetime’s dodges and tricks good for? Well. How Polish. He decided to blow himself up with the castle he didn’t manage to defend. A romantic death — so that someone else’s grandsons may revel in the biography’s unhappy ending.

By the way, Wolodyjowski didn’t pluck up all of his courage to follow the lit fuse. But there was a Scotsman beside him, fortunately, who did the boom job.)

PS: Did Poland have any other good formation? Of course! Try to learn more about these guys, mercenaries, murderers, pillagers, rapists, outlaws, adventurers, some quite usual breed of their times. And damn, they were efficient!

Stay tuned for more.


Here, I’m nice. There, I’m mature.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

39 thoughts on “Non-Polish soldiers Poles are proud of

  1. […] are young?) 2. Polish soldiers. (Why they never won their battles, anyway? The whole truth in two half-truths.] 3. Polish artists. (Why no one heard of them?) 4. Polish scientists. (Why they speak American […]

  2. scatts says:

    “What’s wrong with Jesters?” you ask. Well this one doesn’t seem to be enjoying himself, does he!

    F*ck it. How do you get an image in a comment for crying out loud!

    IMAGINE A PICTURE HERE OF STANCZYK BY MATEJKO.

  3. darthsida says:

    [Nudge-nudge, wink-wink. Say no more, say no more:] The image of Stanczyk is carved in every Polish heart. We know his visage by heart.

  4. guest says:

    lol

    darthsida our 478 years old history witness strikes again.

    You should write a book about it, lol.

  5. darthsida says:

    Hi, guest. (Me, write a book? Lol.)
    What do you mean by “our” history? Why “478”?

    PS Weren’t hussars beaten black and blue by Moscow in 1612 as we saw in that splendid Russian movie? Unicorns and angels, heroes and magic, you know, “our” kind of legend.

  6. guest says:

    Yes they were beaten black and blue in the russian movie and not only there. You are right.

    But you will find maybe 10 (drunk)Poles who say that Poles did not lose a battle in the last 1000yrs….

    So what’s your POINT darthsida, lol ?

  7. guest says:

    “The wings were probably for parades only and not used on the battlefield.”

    or probably not ;)

    http://www.rencentral.com/sept_vol1/hussars.shtml

    and who is right ? you or me ? who knows ! Thats why your blog entry does not make any sense ;)

  8. darthsida says:

    My point is the Commonwealth was not Poland. Szlachta was a minority and not Poles. Husaria did not include Poles. The false mythology, however, goes on about Polish victories of the Polish winged riders ruling the (g)old centuries of Poland.

    As to the wings: if, in some archeological area, you dug out a thing that looks like a fork, you could argue it’s not a fork but an alien tv transmitter. There’d be no one 100% sure it’s not an alien tv transmitter. However, it seems better to stay with simple answers: it is a fork. Let’s have it simple: wings are a rare decoration. They were not a weapon.

  9. guest says:

    Do you think the US army is 100% american ? or the french or the British army ? Do you know the British Gurkhas for example ?

    Of course the Husars were not 100% Polish.

  10. darthsida says:

    Note that I was not talking about the Polish army (incl. heavy cavalry, light cavalry, Cossacks, Tatars / Lipkas, artillery, mercenaries etc.) but about a single formation: husaria. (Yes, there’s a part of the post about non-hussar Wolodyjowski, but that was more personal.)

    So what other nation’s there in the US army? (Except for the American one?) Non -Gurkha (read British) commanders were few in number, so the Gurkhas can probably be proud of fighting as Gurkhas. Were there any other largely represented nations in their regiments? You tell me.

  11. some dude says:

    Compared to other nation at that period: Szlachta was 10% of the nation, it was living near the peasants, there were no significant peasant rebellion.

    The Commonwealth was not Poland as much as Great Britain is not England.

  12. darthsida says:

    I know guys all excited about those times when “we” used to kick every arse around (Swedish, Turkish, Russian etc.) and I wonder what’s that “we” exactly. It’s something to do with nation rather than with state. But what could “Polish nation” mean then? For instance, were there any “Poles” in Gdansk besieged by Batory?

    I’d like to know your sources that let you say there were no rebellions as “szlachta was…living near peasants”. I mean, a dog might live near me, and I wouldn’t hang, burn or impale my dog, so its life could be better than those peasants’.

    Peasants would not consider themselves a part of any nation. Neither would magnates, more powerful than the Crown (so resembling some mighty Scottish clans): who cared not for Poland (whatever it would mean). The pictures Sienkiewicz proposes are in some weird Szlachta-land.

    Assume your 10%, deduct “traitors” (Kuklinowski types), deduct “nobles” (Radziwiłł types), don’t forget to take away szlachta from Lithuania, Ruthenia, Ukraine, anywheres that was not core-Poland. — What’s left?
    5%? 1% of the population? For sure not any number to stand up for “a nation”, Polish or other.

    When some szlachta were as poor as a churchmouse (and as their peasant neighbours), how would we reckon them? Or, what were the Cossacks revolting under Khmelnytsky? Peasants, or?

  13. guest says:

    “I know guys all excited about those times when “we” used to kick every arse around (Swedish, Turkish, Russian etc.)”

    —————————————————————————————–

    How old are the guys ? 13 ? 14 ? You give a totally wrong picture of Poles…

    If Poles talk about szlachta ,hussars and so on ,they just talk about the Polish history and not about “kicking someones ass” “being the greatest” and “ruling the world” ….

  14. darthsida says:

    Gee. Out of many questions you pick up the issue of age. OK, it’s your call.

    The pride about “kicking everyone’s arse” concerns many age brackets. Teens would call the pride using words such as “asskicking”. Others would use different words but mean the same. ‘You never heard of the pride about the Polish army, Polish victories, Polish golden age(s)? The nearly proverbial capture of the Kremlin: “we took Moscow, when no one else could”? Don’t you agree than husaria is regarded as a Polish military formation? If not, then, well…Where d’you think all those people excited about Sienkiewicz’s books, in Wajda’s movies etc are?

    [I put this post in the category”Polish Thinking”, not “Polish History”. Hope it doesn’t get unnoticed.]

  15. guest says:

    What is so wrong about being proud of “Polish/english/dutch/portugese/spanish/italian golden age” ?

    I think this is something different than being proud of “kicking someones ass”.

  16. darthsida says:

    guest,
    I’ll skip other lands: “What’s wrong with being proud of Polish golden age(s)?” — Nothing. — As long as you remember:
    (1) it’s not any Polish golden age(s), but Commonwealth‘s golden age(s),
    (2) of which Commonwealth Poland was but a part,
    (3) of which szlachta were a small per cent of all the population
    (4) whose thinking was generally not Poland-minded.

    For now, when I hear people talking about husaria (arse-kicking or else) I hear people talking about some Polish cavalry, which is a myth (read: a lie).

  17. guest says:

    (1) it’s not any Polish golden age(s), but Commonwealth’s golden age(s),

    ———————————————————————————————

    I think you misunderstand here something ;)

    The fact that Poland was part of the Commonwealth was of course a golden age for POLAND. It was the “polish golden age”.

    If you create and become part of something special (for example part of a successful sports team) you will tell your grandchildren in 40 yrs that it was “YOUR golden age” …. And there’s nothing wrong about it. ;)

    The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Lublin is a great achievement and Poland can of course be proud of it.

    Just compare it to the “Guillotine tradition” in France and you will see where the so called “western civilisation and democracy” was more present at that tme and where many of the arrogant (towards Poland)Daniel Cohn Bendit’s and other western politicians could find many similarities to their “unique” european union…

  18. darthsida says:

    OK, maybe I misunderstand. So help me :)
    Does the pair Polish Golden Age / Commonwealth mean to you:
    1) Commonwealth was a great Polish-only achievement
    2) Commonwealth was a great Polish achievement but average Lithuanian achievement at the same time
    3a) Commonwealth was a great Polish-Lithuanian achievement
    3b) Commonwealth was a great Lithuanian-Polish achievement
    4) Commonwealth was a great achievement of the nations forming it

    Personally, I choose 3) or 4). And, consequently, I say husaria was not Polish cavalry but Polish-Lithuanian = Lithuanian-Polish cavalry. Or better yet: husaria was a splendid formation, achievement of every nation within the Commonwealth.

    Then, as we get into more detail, instead of simplified: “Polish hussars defeated Russia at Kluszyn” we’d have a more precise description: “Ukrainian (Ruthenian) commander [Żółkiewski] led Lithuanian and Polish hussars to defeat Russians at Kluszyn”. Then, Lithuanians, Poles and Ukrainians (Ruthenians) alike could be all proud of their husaria.

  19. guest says:

    “Then, as we get into more detail, instead of simplified: “Polish hussars defeated Russia at Kluszyn” we’d have a more precise description: “Ukrainian (Ruthenian) commander [Żółkiewski] led Lithuanian and Polish hussars to defeat Russians at Kluszyn”. Then, Lithuanians, Poles and Ukrainians (Ruthenians) alike could be all proud of their husaria.”

    ———————————–

    This is a pedantic overanalysis ;)

    As I said bevore ,every Commonwealth army is multiethnic ,and it is still OK to call them “polish” “french” “british” and so on because they fought for the polish ,british or french state no matter which blood was in their veins.
    Just look how many poles fought for the prussians or for napoleon or for the sovjets…even Hitler had his polish “Beutesoldaten”…

  20. darthsida says:

    I don’t know if the other name for the Commonwealth of Nations [I mean: the British Commonwealth] ‘s just a popular name, or a legal name used in politics. Which does not really matter when we turn to “our” Commonwealth: its name was neither Poland, nor the Polish Commonwealth, nor the Polish Republic. So, there’s nothing too ‘pedantic’ in saying there’s never been Polish husaria, so Wiki’s “husaria” entry is wrong, just like numerous other sources, etc.

  21. some dude says:

    Sida, one of the kings of the Commonwealth was Michal Wisniowiecki. His father was an Ukrainian, his mother was Wallachian.

  22. darthsida says:

    some dude, thanks for support!

    That’s exactly what I say: there were Commonwealthy kings, cavalries, officers — not (necessarily) Polish. E.g. — with hetman Zólkiewski not as Polish as he seems and hetman Chodkiewicz not as Polish as he seems, and commander Gosiewski not as Polish as he seems, and Sigismund III or his son, a tzar, not as Polish as they seem — it would turn out Poles never captured the Kremlin / Moscow.

  23. […] about cherishing their history of odd inventions, even not Polish ones (hear ye wings of hussars?). Romantic about their defeats — with swords — or scythes — or charity boxes in […]

  24. Sylwia says:

    There’s one major problem with your logic – that is you apply the 19th century German definition of nationality to Polish people. It’s both incorrect and offensive. As far as I know no Polish government has ever accepted the theory (that to Poles is pretty racist), and of course it didn’t even exist in those times you describe.

    Saying that Batory wasn’t Polish is like saying that Queen Elizabeth II isn’t English, or at least that George III wasn’t, or his son, who after all married a German too. Similarly, you might claim that Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, isn’t American, or that he’s Mexican (in case the Spanish speaking society there revolts in 300 years and joins Mexico).

    In those times everyone who was a loyal subject of a Polish king was a Pole. Their ethnicity, or their mother tongue, was their private matter. My own 100% French grand (many times grand) father fought in the Polish army as a Pole, while by your logic he has no right to be called Polish, nor Chopin does for that matter.

    Being a Polish national has nothing to do with ethnicity, and such a thing like Polish ethnicity doesn’t even exist (and for a good reason!). If someone doesn’t want to be Polish they simply have to move out.

  25. darthsida says:

    Sylwia,

    Huh? -> “you apply the 19th century German definition of nationality to Polish people. It’s both incorrect and offensive.” ??? Why German? Why incorrect? (Don’t explain why ‘offensive’, I take it you have some animosity towards Germans).

    Elizabeth II lives in the century when no care should be given to nationality / ethnicity (“narodowość”) but to citizenship (“obywatelstwo”). She is British. Whatever she feels her nationality is is no one’s thing to discuss but hers.
    Perhaps in Chopin’s times stressing one’s nationality / ethnicity was as important as being a citizen of this state or another. Sadly (if) so.

  26. Sylwia says:

    Narodowość is nationality not ethnicity, and was, from the beginning, linked to the borders of states, that is citizenship.

    Ethnicity is a German concept because it was created in Germany, in the late 19th or early 20th century. They applied it to nationality and we know what happened. Today Germans are barred from even asking the question.

    How do you determine who was Polish or not? Chodkiewicz, of whom you say was Ruthenian, was born to Krystyna Zborowska who was from Wielkopolska. His father polonized. Żółkiewski, of whom you say that was born in Ukraine, was born in Poland, because Lviv was in the Crown, and his family moved there from Mazowsze. It’s like saying that people who live in Wrocław today aren’t Polish. It just makes no sense to look at people’s teeth now to say whether they’d qualify as Poles according to a definition created centuries later in another country. And it’s offensive to arbitrary make people non-Polish. According to you some of my ancestors wouldn’t qualify. People intermarried for centuries. Who was a pure blood Pole then or who is today? All nobles were mixed or polonized.

    Polish Winged Hussars were Polish because they were in the Polish army and not Hungarian. Just as Kazimierz Pułaski is the father of the American Cavalry, and not of the Polish Cavalry in the US. Polish hussars were a light cavalry at first, and they were Serbs, later Batory made them a half-heavy cavalry, and then Zygmunt III Waza a heavy one. So maybe they’re Swedish after all? How do you determine who was Polish or not in the formation is beyond me. Both the Crown and Lithuania were giving their regiments, but they constituted of nobles, even if their ethnicity according to modern standards differs. How peasants, merchants, or townsmen would afford the hussarian armour and horses that were worth the equivalent of a village? I could believe in a rich jester though. ;-)

  27. darthsida says:

    Thanks for the comment, Sylwia. I think we follow different meanings of the same words. So here be the dyad I apply:

    OBYWATELSTWO: citizenship (better yet: “stateship”)
    NARODOWOŚĆ: nationality

    Notice that:

    1. I don’t use the word “ethnicity” (which, by the way, looks English from Greek to me, not German). I believe ‘ethnicity’ (related to “ethnos” or tribe) is synonymous to ‘nationality’ (related to “nation”, a group of tribes). It’s just a difference of scale — and a matter of politics (to call one group a nation and another – not yet).

    2. I use the word ‘nationality’ to stand for ‘narodowość’ though I know that ‘nationality’ printed in, say, a British passport stands for “HM subject” (i.e. for ‘my’ citizenship). I am also aware that the word ‘citizenship’ implies citizens => cities => bourgeoisie. So yes, names can be misleading but let’s blame it on Migdal Bavel.

    Simplifying, ‘citizenship’ [or “stateship”] is a political / administrative notion. ‘Nationality’ is a sense of belonging to a group (usu sharing an area and a language, though not necessarily). Ethinicty is smaller-scale nationality, so Occam in me often razors it out.

    Within these concepts, natione Polonus gente Ruthenus will mean “citizenship: Polish, nationality: Russian [Ruthenian]”. (Provided there’s some Polish state.) A Brasilian footballer with Polish citizenship will not be of Polish nationality. (I’m giving up my own belief here that nationality is what one freely chooses amen – but only for the sake of clarity.)

    My posts about “non-Poles” have been largely provoked by the false recognition of what “Polish” means. Indeed, the popular belief is that:

    (A) Boleslaw I the Brave annexing Red Ruthenia
    (B) Regiments taking over the Kremlin in 1610
    (C) Pilsudski fighting with the Soviets in 1920

    are all examples of Poland fighting Russia. To me, Poland fighting Russia means two states at war. (Not two statelessnesses, so yes, it is open to dispute how to treat insurrections.)

    = There was no [state] Poland in case (A).
    = There was [state] Poland (of szlachta, less so of aristocracy) in times of (B) but the capturing of the Kremlin was a private venture, so we might at best simplify the Kremlin was taken by Polish / other nationals of the Commonwealth.
    = The only time of “Poland vs Russia” got right is (C) then. (Despite the fact Pilsudski was born Lithuanian, we see.)

    Hussars could be regarded as a Polish formation if / when fighting in the name of the Polish state. Or had they been composed of Polish nationals only. (The latter option is purely theoretical and was never actual.)

  28. […] husaria, Lithuania, Polish soldiers, Polish thinking, Tatars, Ukraine Non-Polish soldiers Poles are proud of. How to send foreign serpents in the Polish […]

  29. Let me start by explaining why I decided to post this comment. The reason for my post is not that I am a patriot and your article offended my feelings. As Christian I do not really care about borders or nations and I am not at all communitarian (which, I guess, makes me a cosmopolite). I believe that, despite some minor differences, we all belong to the same family and it is not our origin but our actions what decides of our value (check out Hierocles (the Stoic) and his concentric circles ).
    Long story short, my only reason for writing this post was to help you as I have noticed that, on average, people born and bred in one of the English speaking countries seem to be incredibly ignorant about other cultures. And not just that, but ignorant in a very special way. Let me give you an example. Just yesterday, my friends and I had a conversation about national cuisines. It started when my American friend told me about his sister’s essay concerning Poland and Polish culture. One of the “facts” his sister included in her essay was that the Poles like to eat horses and especially their heads (including eyes). A few minutes later, my British friend (a Cambridge-educated historian) shared with us another revelation about Poland. Apparently we love to fry and eat human placentas. And no, he wasn’t trying to make a joke. He was really sure of his knowledge. I was shocked and disgusted about the mere idea of doing something like this but then, our Chinese friend joined in and told us that people in China do eat placentas. I was ignorant about the fact. That’s one kind of ignorance – sometimes we don’t know something (or, to be more precise, we do not know most of the things most of the time ;)). But my English speaking friends displayed a different type of ignorance. It is not that they did not know about something. Their problem was that they knew something… or rather they thought they knew… like you, when you wrote your article trying to diminish the achievements of the Polish nation. And, from my experience, this is the type of ignorance prevalent among the English and Americans.

    Damn! That was a lot of words and I haven’t even started my comment ;). Okay, here we go…

    I am sorry but you do not seem to really understand the phenomenon of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (one of the reasons for your mistake has already been identified by Sylwia, when she tried to explain the difference between ethnicity and nationality).

    Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodow was one country, not two separate countries. Nota bene the term “Poland” was also commonly used to denote this whole polity.
    It was a republic created for szlachta (the nobility) and by szlachta. Szlachta had their own culture and ideology – Sarmatism (named after the Sarmatians, alleged ancestors of the Poles). The culture was Polish. The language used by szlachta was Polish (plus Latin). Both Lithuania and Poland belonged to and were governed by szlachta. They did not belong to Polish or Lithuanian peasants (the latter speaking Lithuanian). This is the same as with Sparta. Sparta belonged to Spartans, not to Helots (slaves) or Perioikoi (free people but not the citizens of Sparta).

    As for husaria, they were all szlachta (peasants were not allowed), which means they could be born in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukrain or many other places, but they were all speaking Polish and adhered to Sarmatian culture and ideology.

    Here is some excerpt (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth) for you to read which explains the situation (you will, again, see the word “ethnicity” – vide Sylwia’s posts):

    “… To be Polish, in the non-Polish lands of the Commonwealth, was then much less an index of ethnicity than of religion and rank; it was a designation largely reserved for the landed noble class (szlachta), which included Poles but also many members of non-Polish origin who converted to Catholicism in increasing numbers with each following generation. For the non-Polish noble such conversion meant a final step of Polonization that followed the adoption of the Polish language and culture.[37] Poland, as the culturally most advanced part of the Commonwealth, with the royal court, the capital, the largest cities, the second-oldest university in Central Europe (after Prague), and the more liberal and democratic social institutions had proven an irresistible magnet for the non-Polish nobility in the Commonwealth.[9] Many referred to themselves as “gente Ruthenus, natione Polonus” (Ruthenian by blood, Polish by nationality) since 16th century onwards.
    As a result, in the eastern territories a Polish (or Polonized) aristocracy dominated a peasantry whose great majority was neither Polish nor Roman Catholic. …”

    And this is why husaria and the Commonwealth were really truly Polish.

    Now let me to respond to that part of your article where you try to prove that modern Poles shouldn’t be proud of their history as most of them are not szlachta. Well, one could argue whether it really matters if someone is a member of a noble family for that someone to gain right to be proud of their country’s history and culture. I will not do that. Instead, I will mention that there is a great possiblitity that most people living now (not only Poles) are descendants of the nobility. It is all about the impact of culture on natural selection and I believe it was described by PJ Richerson in one of his papers. In short, noblemen were, on average, better educated, better fed etc.. Most of them had children (and a lot… and I am only talking about childen from legal marriages here ;) ). The first child was usually a heir. The second also had a good chance for a good life (church, military career etc.). But what about the fourth, the fifth, the tenth? There wasn’t enough resources to maintain them and let them live a life of the noblemen. They had to maintain themselves. Some of them were becoming soldiers, others marchants or, for example, blacksmiths or even farmers. Since they were better fed and educated they simply outcompeted peasants (i.e. peasants just died out or intermarried the noblemen offspring). The good news is that now not only Poles but also western europeans (including the British) can be proud of their history ;)…

  30. Rose says:

    Husaria was the best part of Polish-Lithuanian army. You should respect older more then 500 years history and not write such a bulshit only to show how „funny” and „smart”you are. And what you really are? Sure you are not Pole – you spit on our culture and history – you act like typical arrogant Brit. Your babbling about Hussars has no logic because you simply don’t understand Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth politics and organization. Above post (Tomasz’s, Sylvia’s) very well proves that you were wrong and you only made fool of yourself! Why are you such a coward now? You should just admit that you were wrong and delete your clueless opinion about Hussars. You can also call yourself happy that you haven’t met extreme Polish patriots in real life – or maybe you just cowardly keep your retarded opinions to yourself then. I recommend you to get yourself proper Polish history education before you write about Poland. There are plenty of materials and books in your native english language, books even written by foreign historics if you distrust polish historics cause they according to you „create myths”, funny because its people like you that mess with history and always prove theirs lack of objectiveness and tend to show just small part of history and always in a bad light (you couldn’t write ALL battles that winged hussars win and all that they lost and than compare ratio, compare tactics, write casualties on both sites. You couldn’t write about Golden Age. You didn’t do that because it wouldn’t suite your thesis). AND WHY THE HECK I SHOULDN’T BE PROUD EVEN IF there is some small probability that MY ANCESTORS WERE ONLY PEASANT THEN???? LOL – my god what kind of person you are – you completely missed a point there (your famous ignorance again). And about Polish Winged Hussars you can start by reading this books – http://www.bazarek.pl/produkt/5708/214292/polish-winged-hussar-1576-1775-paperback.html, about Poland you should also read Norman Davies books.
    I recommend decent foreign people not to choose reading this blog, cause its purpose is to be just another english joke about Polish people. You try to pretend that it isn’t, in the same time you try to discredit everything good about Poland and everything that Poles cherish. Po twoich wpisach wnioskuję, że jesteś tu tylko po to, by mącić i dyskredytować wszystko co jest dla prawdziwych Polaków ważne.

  31. island1 says:

    Tomasz J. Kotarba and Rose: This is all very interesting but you are missing one rather important point; this post was written by a Polish person not a “typical arrogant Brit.” DarthSida is Polish.

  32. gforse says:

    Dear DarthSida you lost it
    u look to me like someone who is used to play with words and languages but unfortunetly no much to say.
    at last nothing thats does make sense
    sorry its my candit opinion

  33. gforse says:

    Is he?
    Maybe today
    tomorrow he will be Scotish or somebody else

  34. island1 says:

    He does have certain identity issues, it’s true.

    Academic now anyway since he stopped writing for us.

  35. Pawel says:

    Island1,
    we had a discussion here what does it mean to be Polish, who is Polish and by which standard. Doesn’t matter what is the nationality of your passport/heart – i think everyone has the right to an opinion.

    and you gforce, are you Polish enough? How will you prove?

  36. gforse says:

    Prove ? What for ? I know who Iam.
    Yes it does matter whats the nationality of your heart – if one doesnt understant himself how can understant others.

  37. Anonymous says:

    1. While in Polish – Lithuanian Commonwealth differences beetwen nation was vanishing so pointing who came from lands of Kingdom of Poland, who from Grand Dutchy of Lithuania doesnt rly matter. Like now most of world doesnt really care if you were born in England, Scotlands etc. You all come from British Isles =]. It was a true union. I bet Lithuanians talk about those times same as Poles ares coz… we were one back then.

    2. First hussars that you writed about (from Hungary) were light cavalery. Polish winged hussars were heavy cavalary and was created much later. 2 different type of units.

    3. Hussars was adapted by Lithuanians from Poles and it was mostly Poles but Lithuanians too.

    4. Comrades (as hussars called themselfs) were not peasent or townsfolk. They were elite soldiers recruted from noblman. Only nobleman could afford horse, armor, pistols and stuff.

    5. About the wings. The wings were no doubt use in parades along with animal skins (leopards,lion etc) they would make fast speed charge imposible. But i dont see a reason why artist shouldnt add them on their paintings as they are soo… lets say romantic =) Soldiers today wear more nice, formal uniforms for parades and field uniform in battle.

    6. Hussars charge could scared a sh1t out of you even without their wings. They were partially heavy cavalery (but not as much as teutonic knight) so once on the move (they always atack down the hill) they couldnt be stoped by any force at this times. Also the horses were not random. Special race of horses was created specially for this formation to be both agile and strong. Selling this horses abroad was punished by death =]. But what made this cavalery effective is their unique atack formation that made it effective even against firearms. At greater distance they charged in loose formation thus avoiding most of bullets but right before they hit enemy army they clumb up and moved as one body breaking any infantry line. This maneuver required a lot of skill and training.
    In fact they were almost undeafeated for around 100 yearsand achieved some of the most beautifull vicories in history going against superior numbers and/or technology. Like in battle of Kircholm or Vienna. And we poles like to remember and honor our soldiers.

    “Hussars were widely regarded as the most powerfull cavalry formation in the world” (english Wikipedia). Deal with it.

    You cant disregard hussars with opinions based on YT as Poles will never deny British superior naval power both now and in the past.

    About Sienkiewicz…. Its just a book. Like a Da Vinci Code. It looks historical but it is a fiction.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Ok i failed to notice that author is polish forget last 4 lines. The rest stays the same.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s