Cuirassiers and Hussars

[Mithadan]

In my quest to rid myself of ignorance about late medieval/early modern warfare, I have a question I hope somebody can answer:

What is the difference between a cuirassier and a hussar (if any)?

If there is a difference, and if indeed the cuirassier precedes the hussar in time, why is there a difference? I.e., what is the material cause (technological, tactical, whatever) of the demise of the cuirassier and the rise of the hussar?

The question arises, of course, because I'm trying to sort out where and how I should introduce cuirassiers and hussars into my personal mod.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

 

[BeBro]

Cuirassiers are heavy cavalry with "body armor" (the so-called cuirass, therefore the name)

Hussars are lighter cavalry (AFAIK)

And IIRC they were in service both at the same time (maybe not introduced at the same time, but that is another question).

 

[Steph]

Here is a text by Illustrious, part of the civilopedia of Steph's mod

^
^The weapons and tactics of footsoldiers were evolving rapidly, and the development of the mounted soldier was similarly not standing still. Fully-armoured knights, charging as an undisciplined mass of individuals, could make little or no impact against steady pikemen, and the longbow and early gunpowder weapons had shown that they were by no means invulnerable themselves. The twin problems of defense and attack plagued cavalry experts for several centuries.
^
Since no armour will stop a musket-ball, cavalrymen progressively shed their armour, retaining only what was needed to defend against cold steel. By the 17th century, a helmet and cuirass (a combined breastplate and backplate) were the only metal armour routinely worn, and even the helmet often gave way to a metal skull-cap worn beneath a hat. All other protection was in the form of leather - knee-high boots, a sturdy buff coat and gauntlets. This reduction in weight gave increased mobility.
^
The problem of how to attack infantry spawned numerous experiments. In the 16th century the technique of the "caracole" was practiced - cavalry would ride up to the enemy, fire wheel-lock pistols at them at close range, and ride away. The fact that the infantry's weapons had greater range and accuracy than the cavalry's pistols is enough to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of this technique. By the time of the Thirty Years' War, Sweden's King Gustavus Adolphus sought to solve the problem. Banning the caracole, he drilled his cuirassiers in shock tactics - charging at a steady and disciplined pace, they would attack in successive ranks, the first rank firing pistols before engaging with the sword. The technique demanded discipline, determination and good timing, so that any gaps in the infantry line opened by gunfire could be exploited.
^
A parallel development lay in the recognition that no one horseman can carry out all tasks equally well - a division of duties called for a division of cavalry types. While the cuirassiers (also known in Germany as Reiters, in France as Gendarmes, and well-known in England as Cromwell's "Ironsides") were ideal for mass assaults on infantry, smaller men on lighter horses had an essential role in scouting and skirmishing. One type that proved especially successful was the dragoon: armed with a carbine or "dragon", a shorter version of the infantry's musket, dragoons were trained to dismount and fire from cover or to shoot from the saddle, and their original role was to provide highly mobile musketry. They also carried a sword, however, and over time this became their weapon of choice. Less heavily equipped than the cuirassiers, dragoons gradually evolved into light cavalry, adept at scouting, screening the army, and pursuing a routed enemy.
^
By the time of the 18th century, cavalry development had more or less standardised with a division between heavy cavalry used en masse for shock attacks and light cavalry used for scouting. Both were by now primarily sword-armed, although the light cavalry also made use of firearms. For the heavy cavalry, drill and discipline were all-important. For the light horsemen, initiative and flexibility were the key, which led to the success of irregular light cavalry such as the hussars and cossacks. Yet in both cases judgement was essential - on a gunpowder battlefield, a man on horseback is uniquely vulnerable, and success in cavalry tactics depended on the "coup d'oeil" (the ability to assess the tactical situation and only commit the troops at the perfect moment to attack). Infantry was still the queen of the battlefield, but cavalry - if properly used in the right circumstances - could often prove decisive.

 

[Pol_Cop]

BeBro, our friend Mithadan asked about difference between cuirassiers, and Polish Hussar, I suppose So : Cuirassiers as Steph described) were in use almost to mid-XIXth century. Polish heavily armored hussars appeared about year 1500, and were disbanded at 1776 by rescript ogf Polish parlament due to becoming obsolete in modern warfare. History of Polish hussars begins from Hungarians and Serbs who fought in Polish army against Turks, called in Polish chronicles as "cohors Racorum". It was kind of light cavalry, as well-known Hungarian hussars. But in the middle of XVIth century they became heavy cavalry, armored with full brest armor, armed with spear, sword (or kind of light battleaxe) and pistols. From beginning of XVIIth century they got theys famous wings, distingiush them from any other cavalry. What it was good for? Well, there are two ways:
1) Wings maked noise to fear enemy's horses, 2) When fought with tartars, hussar couldn't be catched with lasso, because of wings. Due to high costs of armor and horse, only wealthiest noblemen can enlist to these elite troops. This heavy cavalry was used to take decisive blows to break enemy's defence, extremely on clear ground - like modern tanks Here is early XVIth century hussar - no wings yet

 

[Pol_Cop]

And here is full armored horseman, as preserved in Wawel Royal Castle, Cracow.

 

[Mithadan]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

So another question arises, then: what's the difference between a dragoon and a hussar?

Say I'm planning on having Cuirassiers, Hussars, Dragoons and Civil-War era "Cavalry" in my personal mod, what would distinguish Hussars from Dragoons, if they both end up using swords, and are both light cavalry (although Pol_Cop says Polish hussars were heavy cavalry)? Is it just a difference of regional semantics, with the Eastern Europeans having "hussars" and the Western Europeans having "dragoons"?

 

[Pol_Cop]

Dragoons were kind of "mounted infantry'. They ALWAYS marched mounted, but can fight as cavalry, as well as infantry. Horses were more for transportation, than for fight. Hussars were strictly cavalry troops - they marched and fought only with their horses, NEVER without them. Dragoons were armed with carbine, two pistols and sword, hussars - only with sword.

 

[Steph]

French Napoleonic army is quite representative, becaus eit had a very diverse cavalry.
It was divided in:
- Heavy cavalry : Cuirassier and carabinier. They wore a cuirass and helmet, and were used mainly as shock cavalry.
- Medium cavalry : Dragoon, a kind of mounted infantry that knows how to fight on foot or on horse. They used sword and carbin, and at the end of the war were used more and more as shock cavalry. Lancers were also medium cavalry.
- Light cavalry : hussar and chevaux legers. The were seldom used as shock, but rahter to harass the ennemy, outflank and pursuit.

In other countries, some of these kind of unit didn't existed. The English had no Cuirrassier, but heavy dragoon, and their hussar were light dragoon : only later did real hussar regiment appeared.
In Eastern country, lancers were mainly Ulhan.

Dragoons were used by all armies, they were the most common kind of cavalry. Hussars were used mainly by France, Prussia and Austria. Cuirassiers were used by France mainly, but also by Prussia, Austria and Russia.

 

[Pol_Cop]

Left - Polish dragoon circa 1676, right - French hussar

 

[Pol_Cop]

Many interesting things about Poish army and warfare prior to 1699 yiu can find here - site is in English : http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/index.htm

 

[Mithadan]

Hey guys, thanks for all the help!

Here's what I'm doing (feel free to comment):

Cuirassiers -- available with "Shock Tactics" around 1625 (Gustav II Adolf, 30 Year's War, etc.) -- Heavy Cavalry

Hussars -- available with "Irregulars" around 1675 (seemed like as good a time as any), same with Cossacks -- Light Cavalry

Dragoons -- available with "The Carbine" around 1725 (Frederick the Great, in time for the 7 Year's War, etc.) -- Medium Cavalry

Cavalryman -- available with "The Revolver" around 1825, obsoleces all three earlier cavalry types, but available only to the Americans (post-Napoleonic cavalry declined big time due to financial and agricultural scarcity, and by the time the Prussians got cavalry training up and running again in 1848, long-range artillery and small arms made cavalry pretty obsolete -- as they found out in the wars leading up to WWI. But there was lots of Cowboys and Indians action going on in the New World...).

One insecurity: how heavy should Cossack cavalry be? They're lighter than Heavy Polish Hussars, but I don't know how they'd compare to Light Generic Hussars. (I'm comforable with Cossacks giving Russia a golden age, though, seeing how the Cossack communities were pretty much the instrument of Russian expansion into the Caucasus, the Steppes and Siberia...)

The Biggest Drawback: I have no Eastern European civ for which to give a Heavy Hussar unit to, like what you've been telling me about, Pol_Cop. (Does your name mean you are a Polish policeman? I've got some Polish blood, by the way, I'm a Kowalsky.) The Hussars in my mod will be light cavalry used by a variety of European nations. But I think eventually I'll have to start adding civilizations, especially when I play on a European map, and one of the first will be a Slavic civ (which unfortunately will have to include the Magyars, who are not Slavic, but hey, the Hussars were Hungarians fighting for the Poles anyway), and maybe then I can introduce the Winged Hussars!

Thanks again for all the input, and please tell me if the conclusions I've drawn are crappy!

P.S. We don't have a dragoon graphic where he dismounts for the attack, do we? That would be pretty cool...