Talk:Hussar

Until 18th century they were considered the elite of Polish armed forces. Because of the fame and prestige that surrounded the hussars, many of them were accepted into nobility."

This is some missunderstanding. Hussars were not common people who were granted nobility because of their good military services, instead THEY WERE the nobility. Only noble class in poland had the right (and could effort) to become a hussar or pancerni. So if you wanted to be hussar or pancerni, you had to be member of the noble class(szlachta) So there is a mistake in the description: Hussars werent granted nobility, because their already were noble. no common citizen who didn't belong to the szlachta could get hussar or pancerni (perhaps there were FEW exceptions) Could u correct that, my english being not god.

I wrote the original very rough draft for this entry, and I've thought of something that should have been included but wasn't. There are still "hussar" units in modern armies, or at least in the British army. They are typically light armor or mechanized infantry reconaissance units. I believe British hussar units took part in the Iraq invasion of 2003. Readers may come across the word "hussar" in this context, so including a paragraph or so on modern hussar units might be a good idea.

-James

The entry is quite good in its timeframe, but hussars were used earlier by the Polish-

10.IV.2004 Lithuanian Commonwealth - as early as XVI century. If there are no objections, I will soon update your entry with information from following sources: http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/comp/comp06.htm http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm http://www.jurekputter.freeserve.co.uk/polish/hussars.htm http://wiem.onet.pl/wiem/005b10.html

I think it's a mistake to put the Polish Husaria (a.k.a. "Winged Hussars") into Hussars topics as they have hardly anything common (they are cavalery of different types). I think that such an excellent military unit deserves it's own topic.

Yup, first of all the Polish "Winged Hussars" were kind of a heavy cavalry and not light cavalry as used elsewhere. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:00, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's a "mistake". Both formations are described in English with the same word. Miki

Actaully, I found it somehow missleading, that both definitions of hussars ("Winged Hussars" and "Light Hussars") are combined into one topic. Both formations have different origin, style of fight, and uniforms. Almost all the images show "winged hussars" and only photography of Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany shows a man in a uniform and cap, which is completely different from the uniform of "winged hussar". The light hussars have Hungarian origins, whereas winged hussars were typically Polish formations. Moreover, these two formations were exisiting in different periods of time. In my opinion, taking into account all these differences, it is reasonable to split the topic into two distinct definitions. The fact that both formations are called the same in english is not a good excuse for leaving the topic in its current form. I would suggest spliting current definition into two definiotions: hussar (light) and hussar (winged).emoui

Oh - in that case I think you're right (apart from adding yet another definition for "modern" hussar units). I would like to suggest one addition to the modification proposed: namely that "Hussar" would lead to a disambiguation pag. Any other solution would cause a large, unfruitful discussion on what is the "right" definition of the word. I confess I'm pretty new to the practice of the Wikipedian modus operandi, so I'd like to ask what should we do next. Does such a decission warant a vote procedure to be initiated?Miki

Polish hussaria was a light cavalry in XV-XVII

I believe one of the finest cavalery units in history (Polish husaria) deserves a separate article, otherwise it's very confusing and make people mistake hussars and husaria. What we have now is a strange article 'winged lancers' with very poor info and not even mentioning the name 'husaria' (strangely enough the Polish article about husaria links to English article about hussars).

The current version of the article states that:

"However, experiments carried out since the 1970s do not support any of the theories."

However, no reference is provided. Question - does someone has access to the source texts and is willing to provide more information on those experiments? The issue at hand, in my opinion, is whether they were reliably conducted. Not only there existed many possible wing configurations to be tested, but also some statements about the wings required a simulation of a sizeable hussar formation in order to be verified or refuted.Miki

At one of PP Wieczorkiewicz's lectures he mentioned that simply library query shows that the wings were in fact invented in 18th century, when the hussars were already obsolete and used them solely during state funerals and such. The legend was born much later... Halibutt 12:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

That would be a very, errr, bold statement, basically amounting to a conspiracy theory - there exists a mountain of evidence that wings, in some form or another, were used before the 18th century. For example, this page contains an image of a painting clearly depicting wings. Said painting was commissioned by Sobieski, who certainly lived in the 17th century. Perhaps Wieczorkiewicz was discussing only the stereotypical variant of the wings (twin, large, mounted on the backplate)? Miki

"As a young boy", my Father told me, that he "held a single feather out of a moving automobile window, and marveled at how it vibrated and 'buzzed', so imagine how a whole bunch of them in rows would sound given to the same set of circumstances...I can say, without a doubt, *my* wings >DO< in fact, make a buzzing sound in a high breeze. Witness's have both, seen and heard this, as well as horses (of other re-enactors) standing nearby, immediately showed signs of distress and concern, at the sound coming from the wings. The closest idea I can draw from, is a set of Venetian Blinds with a breeze blowing thru them, and they vibrate up & down quickly, as did my feathers, thereby creating that 'buzzing' sound. Rik Fox/http://photos.yahoo.com/wngdhussr

• Note* Actual corrected entire context:

"As a young boy", my Father told me, that he "held a single feather out of a moving automobile window, and marveled at how it vibrated and 'buzzed', like blowing on the edge of a leaf or piece of paper, only on a much grander scale, magnified, so imagine how a whole bunch of them in rows would sound given to the same set of circumstances...Despite what (Osprey author Richard) Brzezinski claims,I can say, without a doubt, *my* wings >DO< in fact, make a buzzing sound in a high breeze, while the (hussar) wings of others' may or do not or have not. Here, finally is the controversial audio/video proof: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Icykittenwebdesigns#p/u/19/Ghge27hriAU Witness's (of mine) have both, seen and heard this, as well as horses (of other re-enactors) standing nearby, immediately showed signs of distress and concern--backing up and snorting at the sound coming from the wings. The closest idea I can draw from, is a set of Venetian Blinds with a breeze blowing thru them, and they vibrate up & down quickly, as did my feathers, thereby creating that 'buzzing' or 'chortling' sound. All this heated debating about the issue of the wings making a noise during the charge…Yes, they do, in fact make a noise, but hearing it over the cacophony of war would be difficult. The Poles were mastering psychological warfare; Rather, as the charge commenced, depending on the types of feathers used, I believe and submit, the wings made a noise more akin to bunches of leaves rustling when the wind rages through them; add the rustling hiss, pop and flutter of the streaming silk lance pennants, spectacular armor and wild animal pelts flapping, all combined, created a disturbing psychological sight and sound of overawing and intimidating both, the enemy and their horses resulting in chaos and demoralization of the enemy lines."--Rik Fox-- Rik Fox/http://photos.yahoo.com/wngdhussr (actually this yahoo link is obsolete; updated references may be made/found here: http://www.husaria.us or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SuligowskisRegimentPolishWingedHussars/)

To end this discussion: IMHO should be "husaria" for the formation, and "husar" (with single "s") for a member of "husaria" unit to avoid mistakes like in this article (about hussars sent to America). Now about the wing. At least 4 of some 15, 17th cent. hussar's armors in the Polish Armed Forces Museum in Warsaw have mountings fixed for wings. Working on the subject I found that some (not every) hussars wore wings. I presume that only "comrades" (knights) were able to wear them instead of squires, who did not have right to use them. The basic husaria unit was known as a "poczet" (body) of 3 men - comrade and 2 squires, which fought the same way, with the same types of weapon, but without such rich decorations (in gold and precious stones) as did the comrades. Squires were nobles of lower rank or not nobles at all. The average "poczet" had also 2-3 henchmen, who served with spare weapons and horses, and stayed off the battlefield, but pretty close to see if they are needed. So, sorry Halibutt, the legend was born quite early, and wings of husaria buzzed throughout of XVII-cent. battlefields for sure. And please - do not kill the legends, they are so nice! Belissarius 05:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is simply untrue, at least for XVIII - XIX centuries. For instance, a Napoleonic War hero and poet, Denis Davidoff (Davidov) was a hussar officer and a Russian nobleman, with no Hungarian blood whatsoever. So was another famous hussar officer, the great Russian poet Lermontov. AFAIK, the first Hussars in Russian service were not the Hungarians, but the Serbs.

                      !!!CAUTION !!!

THIS DEFINITION(INFORMATION) ABOUT HUSSAR IN ENGLISH ARTICLE IT 99% DISGUSTING LIE. HUSSAR WAS INVINCIBLE POLISH MILITARY FORMATION. I ADVICE YOU SUPPLEMENT EDUCATION ABOUT HUSSAR: HERE: http://www.husaria.jest.pl/ AND http://radoslaw_sikora.webpark.pl/WitrynaHtml/html/glowna.html

 AND  POLISH  ARTICLE ABOUT HUSSAR IN WIKIPEDIA.

GREETINGS

-

Probably a stupid question considering your writing technique, but where's the lie exactly? -- Necrothesp 01:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

IN THE MAIN ARTICLE ABOUT HUSSAR IN THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, ARE SOME NONSENSE AND NEGLIGIBLE INFORMATION, BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE THE FACTS ABOUT IT, THAT HUSSARS THERE, WAS A POLISH MILITARY FORMATION, BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS THERE, AND THERE IT IS, AND THERE IT WILL ALWAYS BE.

- Errr... whatever. //Halibutt 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

OH DEAR PERHAPS I WAS MISTAKEN I WILL THINK BEFORE I SPEAK NEXT TIME FORGIVE MY INSOLENCE

I suppose this person who likes to use all-caps is the one that that edited the article; at the start of the history page, etymology of the word is discussed, where hussar means "brigand" and then NO IT DOESN'T SEE DISCUSSION PAGE...is inserted. I'll go and remove it...can somebody block this person from editing articles in the future?Tsarevna 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tend to disagree with the comment that relates hussars to Serbia, firstly serbians speak as they pronounce, phoneticly or however that is called so "gussar" would not really exist in their language with two ss. Secondly gusar, which is probably the word the article writer means, is used throughout Sebia and Croatia and does not mean highwayman but a pirate. So if anyone wants to check out the facts on this artice good luck to you. Keep up with the good work. Greetings, I appologise for my bad speling, english is not my first language. Hussar comes from the Hungaryan word HUSZ meaning twenty. Between 14-th and 17-th century nobility, countys and towns in Hungaryan and Croatian kingdom were required to assemble certain number of light horseman on a certain number of peasant households thus creating "militia portalis" or portal militia the true basis of Hussars, in 16-th century that number stabilized at twenty. Word "gussar" does not exist. Croatian and Serbian word "gusar" means pirate and has apsolutly nothing with eany kind of land military force. Further more Serbian nobility after the fall of Serbia to Turks in the 14-th century was mostly intergrated into Turkish military and there was no major wave of reffuges to Croatia and Hungary untill the second half of 16-th century when hussars were allready in use for a long time. Serbian and Croatian soldiers on the Croatian military border were mostly infantry while hussars were mostlly cept by the nobility in the so called "civilian Croatia" which was not settled by Serbs (nobelman or otherwise).In short Serbs had apsolutely nothing with hussar fomations at all. First part of this article is completly inccorect and should be erased.

The word has its origin in Latin cursarius (eng. corsair, serb. gusar), not the word "húsz". After the fall of Serbia Serbian despots relocated to Hungary and with their men had an important role in the defence of the southern frontier (as hussars and as crew of the Danube flotilla). 84.2.210.3 11:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gusa by "Dusanov Zakonik" - The law of tsar Dusan the Mighty, is a term that defines pillaging. Gusars were group of highwaymen that pretty much in the style of Ukranian Cossacks, pillaged neigbouring ottoman rulled territories accros the Danube. This term fell to the synonym Hajduk, while Gusar stayed in the seashore region that was not under ottoman influence, defining pillaging on the seas, namely piratery.

      I think there has been a nother missundrstanding, the unit was never composed of twenty men,the origin of the name is: one hussar per twenty peasant households.

There are 2 types of formations:

1. pl:Husaria in use in XIV-XVIII century - winged hussars
2. pl:Huzarzy, mg:Huszár in use in XV-XIX century, most popular in napoleonic period.

Both are mixed in this article and it is incorrect, because they have nothing in common (only horses).--Hiuppo 08:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Large sections of text have been deleted from this article over the past twenty four hours without explanation or obvious reason. Most of the deleted material appears to have been factual information covering West European hussars in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, and modern regiments in countries such as Denmark, Netherlands, Peru, France and Sweden who have retained that title for historic reasons. Could the editor please justify these changes or, if there has simply been a mistake, revert to the previous text.

The problem is the notation and the difference between Hungarian style Hussars of XIX century and Polish Husaria od XVI-XVII centuries. The difference is simple - the Hussars were light cavalry of the XIX cent. wearing high shacos (round conical, top flattened hat without a visor) and a dolman, armed with sabres and pistols, no pikes. The husarians of XVI-XVII ct. in Poland were some sort of light-heave cavalry which used light horses of Polish-Oriental origin, and the armour of mixed light and heavy cavalry. Husarians used heavy helmets and breastplates, but it weighted less than 20 kg. They also used pikes (callled "kopia") long at least 4,5 meters (some of them were 5,5 meters). Other Husarians armour consisted of sabre, pair of pistols (sometimes reflective bow), and a long sword known as a "koncerz", used as a pike (lenght 1.6 m). Husarians method of fight was completely different of tactics of Western cavqalry of the XVII cent. They were atacking in the fierce galloping mode, going to smash - in one blow - enemy infanrty or cavalry unit. Belissarius 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article is incorrect. HUSSAR AND HUZAR are two very diffrent typs of polish cavalary. Husaria was a famous ( it was invincible for 123 years, and it fought in many wars, with much more numerous enemies ) winged POLISH cavalary. Other countries didn't have any husarian units ( ok, ok Russia have hussaria but it was fataly trained and there are no informations about batles of russian husaria . Huzaria was a Hungarian cavalary ( it was not similar to Husaria.

--- Allow me to repeat myself. There exist no words in English allowing to differentiate between Hungarian-style light cavalry and Commonwealth heavy cavalry versions of the hussar formation. Especially, to the best of my knowledge (and according to my Oxford-PWN dictionaries), there are no such English words as "husar", "huzar", or "husaria" (not to mention that "husar" is not even a word in Polish). I'm not sure, but I think Wikipedia has some rules against introducing neologisms. Currently, the article still needs some sort of restructuring. As it is the case that it essentially describes two very distinct formations, I would again propose to split the page into two others, and create a disambiguation page in place of the main entry. What do others think about this? Miki 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am convinced that both formation have the same etymology, but each of them belongs to another times and another style of fighting. Thats why I am talking about diversification and use of "neologism" simply because English dictionary had no knowledge about forces like "husaria" before. We have right to create such neologisms when we encounter such difficulties. Belissarius 06:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was principally directing my comment at your successor. Sorry for the confusion, and curse my ignorance of Wiki formating ;). I have no problem with using foreign-language terms in double quotes, just like you do, and just like it should be done. Miki 18:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree entirely with the proposal to restructure the present text into two separate articles. These are two entirely different types of cavalry, each with its own proud traditions and history. The present merged article is creating unnecessary confusion and friction.Buistr 21:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

As you say, etymologically, the roots of the word Hussar, whether Polish Hussars or otherwise are the same as both types of hussars came from Hungary and are simply from different times; what everyone else calls hussars having been adopted from Hungary around 200 years later (18th C) than the hussars that the Poles adopted from them under the joint Polish Hungarian Kingdom ruled by Stephen Bathory in 16th Century.

The problem exhibited in this discussion is that practically all Polish people, whether highly educated or of basic education are extremely emotionally attached to the concept of the Polish Winged Hussaria. This is much in the same way that, to an albeit lesser degree, British people were attached to the concept of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and Richard the Lionheart (Coeur de Lion) and the Crusaders; I say "were" because this of course was before "political correctness" raised its self deprecating head in so called multi-cultural British education. This emotional attachment is exacerbated because the Poles are somewhat less than happy that they appear to have been all but written out of European History and, as a result of decades of domination by the Soviet Bloc, are now even lumped together in the media under the general and almost derogatorily used term of "Eastern Europe" rather than being accorded their rightful historical and cultural place in "Central Europe". A region, that being the dominant force for more than hundred years, they had governed from their vast united states of the "Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth"; a territory that stretched from the Baltic Ocean almost to the Black Sea.

The Winged Hussaria were not only the protectors of this early democratic union but are to Poles effectively the last Crusaders; their use in the decisive battle at Vienna in 1683 put paid to the Islamic Ottoman Turks long term strategy to colonize the whole of Europe for "Allah". It was not for nothing that the King Jan Sobieski of Poland, the Commander in Chief of the Polish, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Austrian and German Christian forces at Vienna, reprised and altered the famous words Veni, Vidi, Vici (I Came, I Saw, I Conquered!) of Julius Ceaser, when he said "Veni, Vedi et Deus Vicit" (I Came, I Saw and God Conquered!). Unfortunately this war against the Islamic Turks weakened Poland and without the Turks to occupy them, Russia became the dominant force to the east of the region, Prussia to the west and Austria-Hungary to the south. Poland was split between them and apart from its proud culture and language, and the short-lived creation of the "Duchy of Warsaw" under Napoleon, Poland was wiped from the map and as a political power ceased to be. That is until after WWI until 1939 and again after WWII. Polish people are thus more than a little 'touchy' at the failure of other Europeans and particularly Anglo-Saxons (on both sides of the Atlantic!) who know little of European History to accord them some recognition for having saved Christendom and European Culture for the benefit of today's generations.

Mike Cudzich-Madry

With all due respect to the Polish people, the Hungarians had more than a little hand in "saving Christendom and European Culture". After all, it is their country that was split between Hungarian, Ottoman, and Austrian occupation, and arguably where most of the "action" was. So, while I would say the Poles certainly played a large part in it, to present it as if it was single handed is more than a little disingenuous, if not out and out wrong. Also, regarding Hussars, Hungarians are also more than a little touchy on the subject as well. The Hussar is a very large part of their national identity. Saberswordsmen1 (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

For starters, may I suggest making this a proper subarticle describing the famous Polish hussars of the PLCommonwealth?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could editor 200.60.1115.121 please explain why he/she keeps describing the Peruvian Hussars of Junin as "Praetorian horse-guards"? The Praetorians were the Imperial Guard of ancient Rome and the term only appears in a modern English context as a derogatory phrase equating to "bully boys" or "thugs". This hardly seems fair to a distinguished regiment like the Hussars of Junin. If the title is one actually used in present day Peru then please say so.210.246.8.163 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

A couple of slight inaccuracies/ambiguities in the "Napoleonic Hussar" section.

The pelisse wasn't a cape or cloak it was a fur-trimmed jacket (it had sleeves and buttons), it was sometimes worn slung over the left shoulder like a cape. In cold weather it could of course be worn directly over the dolman (as the British hussars did at the frosty early morning fight at Sahagun in 1809 - some also wore a separate cloak over all).

Napoleonic French hussars did use brass-hilted sabres, those of Britain and Prussia, for example, used steel-hilted sabres. There needs to be some differentiation in the section between "Napoleonic-period hussars" and "Napoleonic French hussars" as the two are obviously not identical.

Urselius (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article currently reads, "The word hussar derives from the Hungarian huszár", but does not say what huszár means (or meant). Can someone clarify? Robert K S (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It probably means nothing in hungarian because the word is Greco-latin. Byzantine authors of 11th c. mention the "chosarii", i.e. cavalry units. It comes from the Gr. word chosia (χωσιά) which means intrusion and also ambush. There is a good study on the etymology with lots of references (but in Dutch language) here:

Huzaar

--Euzen (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Euzen please don't make OR deductions. Robert the word means light horseman--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Occult nonsense. The 'greco-latin' language never existed. The word is purest Slavic and meant Gusar which meant Goose (Gos / Gus)+Man or the one who is wearing feathers of a goose (bird). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.115.154 (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Husz means twenty in hungarian - as far i know the troops when they appeared 1st were a form of tax, a landowner needed to supply 1 light cavalier for the royal army, for every twenty household of peasants on his property. This was under the rule of Matthias Corvinus.

I have removed the quote below because it was not attributed to a source. If anyone knows its origin, please rep[lace and reference (including page number)

"The hussar concept began in Serbia, near the end of the 14th century. In the 16th century, painted wings or winged claws began to appear on cavalry shields. Wings were originally attached to the saddle and later to the back. In 1645, Col. Szczodrowski was said to have used ostrich wings. In 1500, the Polish Treasury books make reference to hussars. Early on, they were foreign mercenaries, and were called Racowie from 'Rascia' a word meaning 'of Serbia'. They came from the Serbian state of Ras." Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I was reading 'Three Byzantine Military Treatises' George T. Dennis Dunbarton Oaks, 1985 and ran into an early hussar reference Campaign Organization and Tactics, Anon. ca 1000 AD Chap 21 "Those who want to take walled cities by storm and thus bring the enemy completely to their knees should conduct frequent raids against their country, employing raiders and trapezitai, called hussars (in Greek xws(sigma)ap(rho)iwv - approximatly "chusariuv")by the westerners, and other groups of horse and foot for this purpose. By this constant damage and by unceasingly making captives of the enemy and their allies, and by not allowing them the freedom of working their own land, but by putting pressure on them in every way, they become easy to overcome. " -please update, or I can. Rick Orli BTW, Trapeze means 'table'... uh, guessing here....so trapezitai are foragers for the table?)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.25.200 (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t392013-4/] you will find here a picture of book where that statemant is written — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.132.120 (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Polish Winged Hussar 1576-1775‎ - OSPREY Richard Brzezinski, Velimir Vukšić - History - 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.132.120 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The last coupla good faith edits got out of hand so I've reverted to the version as of 12:12, 28 October 2008. If there's anything that was added since then that you'd like to put back, please do so - or paste it here so other editors can help out. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article should include information on the two most prominent hussars, one a millitary-political figure, Marshall Ney as well as the "everything figure", Winston Churchill. Ney started off in a Hussar Regiment (Colonel General of Hussars) and WSC participated (and was nearly killed at Ombudsman)... In fact I will add this section. I will even try to add a picture of WSC in his Hussar uniform. V. Joe (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is a Hungarian language book about the Hungarian Hussar which could be used as a further reference after the sentence: "...but were reorganized into larger, trained formations during the reign of king Matthias I Corvinus of Hungary." The book is this one: Endre Ajtay, Laszlo Peczely: A Magyar Huszár (The Hungarian Hussar), Ree Laszlo Kiadása (Ree Laszlo Publishing), Budapest, 1935. On page 48 Endre Ajtay writes:(English translation)

15th century sources - understandably - prefer to speak about the Hungarians, Czechs and Rac who served in Matthias' armies. Initially, they were, indeed divided along nationality lines, later on though references to nationalities were only used in regards to certain parts of army units, let us say, the fighting tactics of these army units, the reason being that over time the three branches thoroughly intermingled. King Matthias himself in a much quoted 1481AD letter to Gabriel of Verona makes no mention of these nationalities, instead he writes that his armies are divided into three branches: 1.Armored cavalry, 2.Hussars (who are not an accompaniment or supplement to the heavy cavalry but a self-standing fighting force, 3.Foot soldiers (disciplines being: light and heavy arms, shields, crossbows, muskets). In this famous letter is where we first come across hussars as soldiers: "Equites levis armaturae, quos husarones apellamus"(light cavalry whom we call Hussars).

Conn5 (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Existe en el ejercito de chile el regimiento de caballeria blindada nº3 husares, localizado en angol, chile y el cual posee una rica historia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.111.159.186 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

See File talk:Churchhill 03.jpg. Opera hat (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are depictions of the serb cavalry, in the work of Pavle Jovanovic called "Serb Migrations"

- This is a detail from the picture, one can see the cavalry in the background

 https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/40771/HIL_ENICH_VID_2_34.jpg

- This is the whole picture in the first version

 http://forum.srpskinacionalisti.com/download/file.php?id=21144&mode=view

There is a good Wiki page on the fur military head-dress the busby, also worn by many hussar units. Maybe a link pointing to that page could be worked into this article.

Eravian (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Already done (see "Hussar image" section).Buistr (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. Also, the lead is insufficient and needs to be expanded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

That cavalry regiment was called so in 1859-1931. It was raised in 1684 as a DRAGOON regiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes it was but this article makes two (passing) references to the regiment during its hussar period only. If the article was devoted to the full history of the regiment then of course reference should be made to its establishment as a dragoon unit. As it is I fail to see what the problem is. Buistr (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Currently: "The Governor of Hungary, John Hunyadi, created mounted units inspired by his enemy the Ottoman Turks. His son, Matthias Corvinus, later king of Hungary, is unanimously accepted as the creator of these troops"

This doesn't scan. I know nothing about hussars, other than what I've seen here, so I can't fix it. Also, whilst there is support in the notes for MC's role, there's no support (in this article) for JH's role. Bromley86 (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

All the other Wikipedia pages in Polish,Hungarian,Russian,Croatian,Austrian,Lithuanian,Czeck...etc agree that the origins and entomology of Hussar is from Hungary. Why is it that in the English Wiki entry it is stated that the origin is from Serbia? Where did this information come from? Can we fix this so people don't misunderstand history?

I always thought Wikipedia in English is something special. But this is so funny and stupid that I will not believe anything any more. Njuzmen (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

"The founder of the first Russian hussar regiment was Ádám Mányoki, a Hungarian officer." I cannot find any reference to this person in the web. Neither in English, nor in Hungarian.

Zoltan Manyoki

All the Text is proserbian. The first thing is that Hungary lived with Croatia in union. And on Croatian borders were Croats and ortodox Vlahs. No body mention Serbs in any contest. The other is that the word can't come from Serbian... etc.. All "Sources" have no link or page. Who don't know Serbian wish to change the history with lies can believe it. Only them. Njuzmen (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Here's the online version of the dictionary source. You can see the etymology is given as Latin in origin, by way of Serbo-Croatian. Ibadibam (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

All this stuff about Britain, Germany, etc, acting like soldiers explicit to a different part of the world were theirs, and putting them BEFORE the peoples whom had hussars, and were the origin of hussars. As a Pole, I am offended by this racist attempt to steal our history, which is precisely what it is, a racist attempt to steal our history from us. --184.101.248.0 (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The thing at the bottom of the page from someone else linking to stormfront as a source PROVES that racists vandalized this page to steal my people's history. Stormfront is a NAZI forums board that actively does such plots. --184.101.248.0 (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hussar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415135710/http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou12.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou12.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

"An hussar" in the lead is clearly wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please follow this discussion on the Hussar talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You should have opened discussion instead of undoing my revert. WP:BRD is the rule, even for you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I fixed it again. I realize some people may say "an hussar", but "a hussar" is much more common, especially in American English. C.f. the "an historic" debate.^[1][2] W.andrea (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You have misread your citations which lack the detail required in this debate. They both confirm 'an' comes before a vowel sound irrespective of spelling - good. What they fail to address is that English words differ in pronunciation when spoken in isolation and when spoken as part of a longer phrase. Meaning, the same person is likely to pronounce differently the word 'historic' when s/he says 1/ "A historic." (sounds the h), and 2/ 'We went to see an historic war movie.' (does not sound the h). The citations you give are assuming that current pronunciation of 'A historic.' is with the stress more commonly on the first vowel, whereas in past times the stress was on the second vowel. This is just as dependent on regional accents (hence reference to US English). Even if your references are correct, and in modern times 'A historic.' is more common, due to a stress change, it does not deal with the pronunciation used when the word is spoken in a sentence. My reading of 'hussar' in this article is how I say the word as I am reading it, which is usually with the h silent because the stress is on the second vowel. I think only a very few native English speakers anywhere would pronounce the h in hussar or historic if they said the words as part of extended speaking. The article title could be written 'A hussar', and 'an hussar' could be used in the body of the article inside a sentence (meaning different both a and an are possible). This would depend entirely of the given situation and is because the word's pronunciation changes, something not dealt with by your citations. I realise this post might sound like a lecture, but it is just my opinion, based on experience. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I haven't misread the citations. They both clearly say that "a historic" is more common because most people pronounce the "h" now, not because the emphasis has changed. (In fact I've never heard the emphasis on the first syllable.) I realize pronunciation may differ with accents and context, but in my (Canadian) experience, I've only rarely heard the initial "h" dropped in words with the emphasis on the second syllable, which is the exact opposite of yours. I've also checked Google Books Ngram, which confirms what I'm saying, though it's such an uncommon word that I'd imagine the stats could be skewed. W.andrea (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The info given is not completely per sources, it is written poorly and contains sentences which are not needed. Just wanted to point that out, for the moment. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply