Talk:Hussar

message: !!!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)
thread_title:  ENGLISH ARTICLE ABOUT HUSSAR IT'S A HORRID LIE 

message: There are 2 types of formations: 
#pl:Husaria in use in XIV-XVIII century - winged hussars
#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)
thread_title:  Huzar, Husarz 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hungarian style Hussars and Polish Husaria again

message: 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)
thread_title:  As you say, the origin of Hussars is the same! 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Polish Hussars]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hussars or Praetorians? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pelisse and sabre 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  origin of the quote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restored version 

message: 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)
thread_title: Promiment Hussars

message: 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)
thread_title: King Matthias Corvinus' first use of the term "Husarones", 1481AD

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regimiento Húsares chile 

message: See . Opera hat (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: Already done (see "Hussar image" section).Buistr (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hussar uniforms; [[busby]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: B-class review

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anachronistic Pavia Hussars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Early Hungarian hussars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seems Serbian history doesn't have much to do with Hussars 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source needed for ... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Someone, Please, Remove The Racist Vandalism Pretending That "Eastern European" Warriors Were Of All Of Europe Instead Of "Eastern Europe" 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "An hussar" in the lead is clearly wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please follow this discussion on the Hussar talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "An hussar" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Croatin hussars