3 replaced http://history.stackexchange.com/ with https://history.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Apparently, the decisive blow at the 1683 Battle of Vienna was struck by Jan Sobieski, with only 3,000 "hussars" (cavalry). This seems a bit hard to believe, given that the Turkish army had about 100,000, while hussars were the second worst form of cavalry, above only Cossacks. http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1156/effectiveness-of-cossack-cavalry/1158?noredirect=1#comment16373_1158Was Cossack cavalry ineffective relative to other troops?

But dragoons were supposedly twice as good as hussars, and cuirassers twice as good again as dragoons. So could Sobieski's "hussars" actually been better troops in one of the two other categories.

It's easier for me to imagine that the "equivalent" of 6,000 or even 12,000 hussars struck such a decisive blow. Could Sobieski's 3,000 cavalry been elite troops armed with pistols AND blade weapons, meaning that they were actually worth more than their stated number? If not, what would have enabled a relatively small number of troops to strike such a decisive blow?

Apparently, the decisive blow at the 1683 Battle of Vienna was struck by Jan Sobieski, with only 3,000 "hussars" (cavalry). This seems a bit hard to believe, given that the Turkish army had about 100,000, while hussars were the second worst form of cavalry, above only Cossacks. http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1156/effectiveness-of-cossack-cavalry/1158?noredirect=1#comment16373_1158

But dragoons were supposedly twice as good as hussars, and cuirassers twice as good again as dragoons. So could Sobieski's "hussars" actually been better troops in one of the two other categories.

It's easier for me to imagine that the "equivalent" of 6,000 or even 12,000 hussars struck such a decisive blow. Could Sobieski's 3,000 cavalry been elite troops armed with pistols AND blade weapons, meaning that they were actually worth more than their stated number? If not, what would have enabled a relatively small number of troops to strike such a decisive blow?

Apparently, the decisive blow at the 1683 Battle of Vienna was struck by Jan Sobieski, with only 3,000 "hussars" (cavalry). This seems a bit hard to believe, given that the Turkish army had about 100,000, while hussars were the second worst form of cavalry, above only Cossacks. Was Cossack cavalry ineffective relative to other troops?

But dragoons were supposedly twice as good as hussars, and cuirassers twice as good again as dragoons. So could Sobieski's "hussars" actually been better troops in one of the two other categories.

It's easier for me to imagine that the "equivalent" of 6,000 or even 12,000 hussars struck such a decisive blow. Could Sobieski's 3,000 cavalry been elite troops armed with pistols AND blade weapons, meaning that they were actually worth more than their stated number? If not, what would have enabled a relatively small number of troops to strike such a decisive blow?

2 added 49 characters in body
source | link

Apparently, the decisive blow at the 1683 Battle of ViennaBattle of Vienna was struck by Jan Sobieski, with only 3,000 "hussars" (cavalry). This seems a bit hard to believe, given that the Turkish army had about 100,000, while hussars were the second worst form of cavalry, above only Cossacks. http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1156/effectiveness-of-cossack-cavalry/1158?noredirect=1#comment16373_1158

But dragoons were supposedly twice as good as hussars, and cuirassers twice as good again as dragoons. So could Sobieski's "hussars" actually been better troops in one of the two other categories.

It's easier for me to imagine that the "equivalent" of 6,000 or even 12,000 hussars struck such a decisive blow. Could Sobieski's 3,000 cavalry been elite troops armed with pistols AND blade weapons, meaning that they were actually worth more than their stated number? If not, what would have enabled a relatively small number of troops to strike such a decisive blow?

Apparently, the decisive blow at the 1683 Battle of Vienna was struck by Jan Sobieski, with only 3,000 "hussars" (cavalry). This seems a bit hard to believe, given that the Turkish army had about 100,000, while hussars were the second worst form of cavalry, above only Cossacks. http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1156/effectiveness-of-cossack-cavalry/1158?noredirect=1#comment16373_1158

But dragoons were supposedly twice as good as hussars, and cuirassers twice as good again as dragoons. So could Sobieski's "hussars" actually been better troops in one of the two other categories.

It's easier for me to imagine that the "equivalent" of 6,000 or even 12,000 hussars struck such a decisive blow. Could Sobieski's 3,000 cavalry been elite troops armed with pistols AND blade weapons, meaning that they were actually worth more than their stated number? If not, what would have enabled a relatively small number of troops to strike such a decisive blow?

Apparently, the decisive blow at the 1683 Battle of Vienna was struck by Jan Sobieski, with only 3,000 "hussars" (cavalry). This seems a bit hard to believe, given that the Turkish army had about 100,000, while hussars were the second worst form of cavalry, above only Cossacks. http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1156/effectiveness-of-cossack-cavalry/1158?noredirect=1#comment16373_1158

But dragoons were supposedly twice as good as hussars, and cuirassers twice as good again as dragoons. So could Sobieski's "hussars" actually been better troops in one of the two other categories.

It's easier for me to imagine that the "equivalent" of 6,000 or even 12,000 hussars struck such a decisive blow. Could Sobieski's 3,000 cavalry been elite troops armed with pistols AND blade weapons, meaning that they were actually worth more than their stated number? If not, what would have enabled a relatively small number of troops to strike such a decisive blow?

    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackHistory/status/316955872364466176
1
source | link

Were the "hussars" that Jan Sobieski used at the battle of Vienna actually elite troops?

Apparently, the decisive blow at the 1683 Battle of Vienna was struck by Jan Sobieski, with only 3,000 "hussars" (cavalry). This seems a bit hard to believe, given that the Turkish army had about 100,000, while hussars were the second worst form of cavalry, above only Cossacks. http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1156/effectiveness-of-cossack-cavalry/1158?noredirect=1#comment16373_1158

But dragoons were supposedly twice as good as hussars, and cuirassers twice as good again as dragoons. So could Sobieski's "hussars" actually been better troops in one of the two other categories.

It's easier for me to imagine that the "equivalent" of 6,000 or even 12,000 hussars struck such a decisive blow. Could Sobieski's 3,000 cavalry been elite troops armed with pistols AND blade weapons, meaning that they were actually worth more than their stated number? If not, what would have enabled a relatively small number of troops to strike such a decisive blow?