Polish historical myths - to break or not to break them?

It wasn't to you. Normally the quoted text had an automatic LF attached, and didn't line up with my own text. Basic layout rule, who thefck didn't like it.

Wow. A fighting horse.

Wow so it is true that lower ranking soldiers got the better looking furs. That is very interesting.

Yes, it is true, I remember reading the anecdote about the banquet misunderstanding as a child. It was so amusing I have remembered it till today.


Very rarely - to battle (see the red white horse at the top)



more often - for parades:

Here is a text, which contains an explanation of wings usage in battles , it is in Polish only , but I bothered to google translate it for some , who want to find out more :


To answer a question concerning the usage of special furs used by hussars , my suggestion is that , usage of bear or wolf skins, looked more frightening , as they were less fancy, but more rough .Also you have to remember that those exotic furs were already been worn by Tatars or Turks .

husaria.jest.pl/skrzydla.html

Monia, google translations are tricky, I'd say if you want to present the non-Polish speaking people with Polish texts, then just do it yourself and let them trust you.


somehow I can't see it. I would think it possible that some specific hissing sound could be extremely annoying to horses not acquainted with it, and would be audible to them despite the thunder of hooves, thanks to that big difference in frequencies. Still... if you take a feather, and move it quickly, there's not much sound. And you are moving it much faster than those 30-40 km/h.


Could be, hussars armour had no backplate. Then why not use a backplate, or just a couple of metal rods there. They just never needed it.


Now that's utter crap. Tartars hunting hussars with lassoes? Hussars considering being hunted with lassoes as a real threat? Like, there's a hussar regiment, suddenly Tartars charge on them like on a herd of cow, and each picks up his hussar and lassoes him?

All aside, mounted Tartar was maybe half the weight of a mounted hussar. A hussar captured with a lasso has two options, either attack the captor, and then being circled by a loose string is of no importance, or flee. In the second case the best decision of the Tartar is to let go. Or he finds himself unsaddled and dragged behind the fleeing hussar. Not only the hussar in armour is substantially heavier than the Tartar, but the hussar's saddle is specially designed to withstand an attempt to dismount him by pushing from he front, and, consequently, by pulling from the back. That would be a very sorry Tartar who'd hold to the lasso. Absolute rubbish.

Another thing, the wings and all that were left for an individual to provide for himself. Even if wings or wing had been used in battle, now and then, it would be most probably different wings from those presented in movies.

You have just answered yourself , they didn`t need a back armour , because the wings attached protected them from back cutting


You should read some historical books about Tatars fighting methods , they were using lassos , in fact .


Are you suggesting that the Tatar would hold hands on the lasso, and allowed himself to be dragged along the ground instead of releasing a lasso ? It is probably a total misunderstanding on your part of fighting against Tatar hordes .

because it hadn't for the most part

I am no specialist but I guess the rope used for lassoeing was attached to some hook on the saddle and the warrior's arms were mostly used to throw the lassoe and then quickly fasten it arround the 'hook'

pulling from the back is I guess considerably more effective in dismounting any rider then pushing from the front - in case of pushing from the front the body automatically reacts to oppose, a reaction which is not present in puling from behind - there is also a difference in where the force is applied - lassoe can catch the upper part of the body (including the head only which is very dangerous) - in all I believe lassoing is a very effective way of dismounting (and consequently harming) a rider of any kind (especially pulling from behind) and thus very dangerous

again hussars fought not only in formations and not only in frontal attacks - in case of fighting Tatars they could have been easily mixed in or surrounded by their mobile cavalry (mobile skirmishes) - having said that it is not that I am 100 per cent sure that the 'wings' were actually used this way - I just think they could have been used this way and if so probably originated from anti-lassoe measure

By considering the fact of wings beeing used , is that mean, that you `ve changed your mind ?

Nice try, but no. Hussars were the elite force, professionals, they had enough money to buy or fashion any weapon and armour currently available. Or they went to pancerni, a.k.a. kozacy a.k.a. zaporożcy. A wooden pole is no match to a metal rod, price difference laughable if you consider an armour plate, szabla, koncerz, pistols, and, last but not least, a hussar horse.

They didn't need the back armour, because they were hardly ever pursued, Monia...


They did, but not against hussars. Against hussars their only possible engagement methods were to shoot an avalanche of arrows from distance and flee, or to stand fast en masse against the hussar charge and hope to just drown them with the sheer weight of numbers.

The weight difference solves the issue for me, even if we would imagine a Tartar having enough gall and time to lasso a hussar. Seen how the cowboys lassoed cattle? Usually the lasso is tied to the saddle. Loop goes over the cows neck, the horse is prompted to turn around and pull in the other direction - or the risk is that it topples over, as a running cow is about as heavy as a mounted cowboy. And it's running madly. Now imagine a small man on a small horse trying to halt a big man in heavy armour, securely seated on a heavy horse.

Tartars used a different kind of lasso anyway. It was a longish pole with a loop at the end. Easier to catch the objective, more difficult to keep hold of it.

The only scenario I can imagine is Tartars pursuing hussar fugitives, exhausted, disarmed, possibly wounded, after an unsuccessful battle. Now tell me the elite force, the proudest formation of the whole Res Publica habitually bears on its back this symbol of cowardice. OhKey, we are going to charge those half-size mongrels, better have some fancy way to avoid being caught by them after they beat the holy crap out of us. How about a wooden stick with feathers on it.

I am guessing this interpretation is by some contemporary western experts on cavalry. Those who ridiculed the 'impossible' effectiveness of kopia and effectiveness of an actual charge, and imagined both a Tartar and a hussar as just a foreign rajtar in a fancy dress.


Pure physics says you are wrong. But you have a point - while thrusting a kopia against a target a hussar is ready to take the impact and to act against it, and if suddenly pulled from behind he might be unsaddled easier. Still, this doesn't fit the reality of a hussar-Tartar encounter - how come there's a cavorting Tartar behind a hussar, still with his lasso, and undisturbed enough to use it.

everything can happen in the course of, of course, but it's not any reason for the whole army to take serious measures against it.


First thing is you need to contemplate using a lasso at all. A hussar regiment was not a herd of cattle, and they had projectile weapons too, and firearms as well, and were eager to charge. Cant' see a Tartar czambuł circling a bewildered hussars at close range and picking them one by one with lassoes.

Anyway, I can't really see how the wings protected against this hypothetical lasso. After the loop has fallen low enough, I just pull it and don't bother if I got a a hussar with wings or wingless.

off topic here; an excerpt from norman davies' God's playground:

" The myths of Poland's undivided Catholicity can only have been coined by the apologists of a church whose supremacy was constantly disturbed, either by interal dissent or by external force.

"the abominable vice of tolerance"
Lastly, it would seem that toleration as distinct from tolerance, did prevail. In a state which possessed no strong central executive authority, and where the ecclesiastical courts could not enforce their rulings, religious uniformity could not be imposed. The nobility believed what they wished, and protected whom they liked. The bourgeoisie and the jews were secure within the framework of their autonomous estates. No one could overturn the catholic establishment, and no one could realize its bsolute pretensions. The republic was indeed a "land without bonfires". There were nocampaigns of forced conversion; no religious wars; no autos-da fe; no St Bartholomews eve; no Thomas or Oliver Cromwell. The limitations which in time were applied to he confederation of Warsaw were trivial in comparison to the horrors which occurred in most other european countries. The Polish 'anarchy' and the 'golden freedom' of the nobility, proved an obstruction to efficient government and to religious fanaticism alike."

not the end all be all ofcourse.

You are wrong . The armor was made like that , because they didn`t want to put so much burden on a hussar , but especially a horse . That`s why only the front part of a body was protected and the way that wings were not made of metal rod . The horses could approach in canter the enemy line , when carrying hussar during a charge in full armor and instrumentation. So , not to overburden a horse was crucial .

The wings served to many purposes , I cited in my post : "For the glory and terror of the enemy" .

- the rustle of wings had a scare enemy horses
- the wings were supposed to protect against cutting sword from behind
- to protect against capturing the Tatar lasso

And the last but not least factor - psychological .
Hussars were transformed into the essence of an extraordinary warrior, supernatural, equipped with a great power. Agent in any way couldn`t be ignored or downplayed .


That is a very valuable remark.

Contrary to what is trying to convince us, Poles, on international level , like morbid nationalism, we have always been a nation with tolerant views , examples of which , are too many to cover here. Freedom and tolerance are our national traits, in some circles, they want to promote our country in recent times is the country extremely Catholic, anti-Semitic, but it is just plain wrong. Catholicism is more an issue of political correctness, than a fact of credo for majority of Poles . The mere participation in baptism and communion or church wedding, does not constitute a proof of faith .

Why didn't they make their breastplates from wood then. With feathers.

because steel armor is better at protecting equally from musket bullets, other projectiles and cold steel weapons?? and because husaria were mostly fired upon from the front?

If they had needed it, for any reason, they'd had made it workable. Wooden stick is not a protection against a sabre. Polish combat sabre was capable of cutting through a brass door handle, Tartars' sabres were not as good, but good enough for inch of wood. Tartars were not as proficient fencers as an average Polish gentryman, still perfectly able to slash vertically if they wanted to, or to stab, if they desired. I myself can do that, if attacking from the back. You can, Monia can. The idea of wings as protection against cuts from the back is ridiculous.

But of course, I can`t, how did you come up with such a horrible idea :).

:) I apologise profoundly.... Please blame the fervour of dispute and, well, come to think of it, my abominable inclination to follow this thing whenever and wherever it lures me. I have to work on it. I will. So help me... erm... anybody, please? Help?

now if gumishu says the same, you two have won... but this is not fair, two against one!

oh yeah monia, you said it best.

i admit i was looking at the anti-semetic angle and found that point, from a closed thread, thanks.

and also there is no doubt that catholicism has aided in a strong poland.

The Forum is full of threads and posts about the noble participation of Polish soldiers in the Battle of Britain etc. Of not for Polish pilots and their extraordinary deeds, Britain would have fallen etc etc.

However, there is also a dark side to it. Poles had a reputation of primitive rapists, according to some British women. :):):):):)

Well,considering she killed him and didnt face any charges I rather imagine the tales were true to an extent. Sad fact of life,many men were and still are a bunch of knuckle dragging thugs that think women are their right if they overpower them.

One of my ancestors was involved in apprehending an American officer who had raped then murdered a young Scottish girl,put hundreds of thousands of men in uniform,arm them,train them to kill,add a little black out and a general non PC era such as the 1940s and this is what happened.

Why the smiles? Is this something you approve of?

Excuse me, but I don`t discuss things at length with unregistered users. Waste of time.

Register first, then I will answer you.

In another thread I read this:


Excuse me, MyMom, that I am using your post. :):):) I hope you don`t mind. After all, I am immortalising you, in a way, as Sokrates said.

Isn`t it a great historical myth that Poles love freedom?

What about in the past?

Polish peasants were enslaved by their szlachta masters. Serfdom in Poland lasted from 1520 to 1864, one of the longest in Europe.

With weak towns and their underpriviliged residents , it seems that only the gentry and aristocrats were really free. About 10% of the Polish population in the past.

freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~atpc/heritage/history/h-life/peasant.html


britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535485/serfdom

Peasants in Poland were like slaves, completely dependent on their masters and troubled with incredible poverty.

No wonder that when serfdom was abolished in Russian partition zone by the Russian tsar`s decree in 1864, Polish peasants erected many gratitude memorials in their villages:

This one used to have a small statue of the Russian tsar instead of the cross.

As far I know peasants weren't consider as a nation in the times you are writing about. It was the nobility. Present day Poland base on the nobility heritage mostly which vital part is "złota wolność szlachecka" - the golden freedom(proof of it is no needed I think) So MyMom is right:)

When you are talking about serfdom, please do not forget that Poland after 1795 didn't exist. Abolishing of serfdom on Polish land was part of the fight between Austria, Prussia, Russia and polish nobility(rzeź galicyjska). Partial abolishing of serfdom in Poland: Ustawa o sprzedaży królewszczyzn( 1792),Constitution of May 3, 1791, uniwersał Połaniecki(7.05.1794) and Kołłątaj act of 1794

Yup, I knew it would be " our fault " somehow.......................... ;)

polish peasants were so gratefull tu russian tzars after 1864 that almost 60 years later in 1920 they revolted by masse against polish Lords ("pan") rising communistic revolution thus helping Red Army to overthrown polish Lords rule in Poland, and spread revolution all over the Europe... I recommend an sf novel "Xavras Wyzryn" by Jacek Dukaj, there is more about Poles being grateful to Russian, but he is better writer than me.

Of course, someone not familiar with Polish history might think it is true. :):):):):)

You are ironic. Good, but you should have inserted laughter smileys into it.

No. Quite the opposite. Polish peasants in 1920 defended Poland gallantly.

Each doorstep will be our fortress. See a soldier, worker and peasant fighting the Bolshevik invasion with a female`s help.

It was a result of great work of Polish educators and priests who, from 1863, taught Polish peasants to be patriots of Poland. The education went well and peasants have never betrayed Poland anymore.

Another myth ?

Good! :):):):)

Would you be so kind and develop it? :):):)

No, I don't like this thread.