Talk:Polish cavalry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Polish military history task force

To-do list for Polish cavalry:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Include the following periods and ideas evolution from foot "drużyna" to mounted chivalry 16th century introduction of firearms split onto heavy and light cavalry hussaria, lisowczycy, other formations of the PLC foreign influence (Tatar, Hungarian, Turkish) Sabre as a class of its own late 18th and 19th centuries Napoleonic period mounted partisans during the January Uprising World War I Polish formations Polish-Bolshevik War Evolution from cavalry to mounted infantry in the 1920's and 1930's motorisation Polish Defence War of 1939 "Cavalry" abroad during WWII Dissolution of cavalry after WWII Szwadron Jazdy Polskiej Consider creation or expansion of separate articles on: Cavalry traditions (żurawiejki, symbols, banners, colours...) Polish sabre and/or sabre in Poland (or expand the sabre article) ułani, hussaria, Myths about the Polish cavalry Any other ideas?

I Ask ....Why does all this read so much like the propagandized version of soviet bolshevik propoganda from the 50/60 sixties? This was not real history but a carfully orchestrated version of misinformation ie calling german propeganda officers as worthy while degrading the polish victims. What is the source of this mis -information David Irving ? why is this information so pro nazi and pro stalin communist ?

It's strange that the page is on Polish cavalry, then it is talking about Ułani, and then it does not talk at all about Ułani and instead describes hussaria!!!! What the hell?!

Indeed, but what do we do about it? Halibutt 13:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I could made article about Uhlan, with a little help. There is already article about hussaria, which someone could polish a bit. "Polish cavalry" could reference both and be more general article, but i'm affraid i'm "too thin in ears" to make it ;) Szopen 14:49, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

why do we have a picture of a hat as the main picture in the introduction? Shouldnt we have a picture of polish cavalry or at least something a bit more relevant? --Bonus Onus 22:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Cleanup, "disputed" tag, etc. 2 Assault weapons 3 World War II 4 enter's edits 5 Jader's Imagings ? 5.1 Dubious Claims

[edit] Cleanup, "disputed" tag, etc.

I added a cleanup notice to the top of the article, and a disputed notice to this section. I'm not sure if that's the right tag, but as the article stands, all it says is basically here's one side's propaganda, which isn't true but it doesn't say anything else (for example, what is true), so I hoped to bring some sort of relevant attention to it.

— J’raxis 16:23, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Fixed Halibutt 01:11, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks. — J’raxis 05:02, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

[edit] Assault weapons

I'm curious about the use of the term assault weapons in the first section. I had not previously seen this term used outside of a modern American political context. I wonder if the author is American, and perhaps could not think of a better term to use, or perhaps there is a Polish term that couldn't be translated any other way. Of course, it's entirely possible that this term has definitions that I was not aware of. Please advise. Gregmg 14:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

No idea. I guess the author meant something similar to offensive weapons or sophisticated weaponry (as opposed to cold steel)? As far as I know there were no assault rifles anywhere in the world before WWII... Halibutt 14:29, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion by assult weapons the author simply meant weapons used during a Charge (warfare)62.179.66.138

Definitely not. The whole point was, AFAICT, to tell the reader that the cavalry had not only the standard weaponry used by cavalry during a charge since time immemorial, but also other kinds of weaponry like rifles, MGs, artillery, AT carbines, AT guns and so on. What would be the point in informing the reader that the cavalry had... cavalry weapons? Halibutt 08:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The reference has since been removed, so I suppose it's a moot point. If anyone reinserts this reference, I'd like to discuss the use in this context so that I can expand the Assault weapon definition. Thanks. Gregmg 22:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World War II

• In contrast with its traditional role in armed conflicts of the past (even in the Polish-Bolshevik War), the cavalry was no longer seen as able to break through enemy lines. Instead, it was used as a mobile reserve of the Polish armies and was using mostly infantry tactics: the soldiers dismounted before the battle and fought as a standard (yet fast) infantry. Technically speaking, in 1939 Poland had 11 brigades of mounted infantry and no units of cavalry as such.

When I was in high school my history teacher related how the modern German Panzers rolled over the antiquated but heroic Polish Cavalry, evoking images of sabers vs howitzers. And I've seen a similar view in other surveys. But the truth is apparently more interesting. Because of the prevalence of this mistake it would be helpful to put some reference to the role of the cavalry in WWII in the introduction of this article, right up front. Would any other editors who are more expert be interested in adding the more accurate, and no less heroic, truth in a short sentence near the top? Cheers, -Willmcw 08:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

---

The section Cavalry charges and Nazi propaganda makes for very interesting reading:

• "...there were 16 confirmed cavalry charges during the 1939 war. Contrary to common belief, most of them were successful ... 29 men killed and 50 wounded (as compared with 800 German losses)... German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic... the Germans withdrew towards their positions...the Germans withdrew... the Poles broke through... After the Germans were beaten and started to retreat ...impose fear on the German infantry... ... the Germans welcomed the Polish uhlans with their hands up ... the Polish unit broke through and was the first to reach Warsaw ... the Germans withdrew... the Soviet forces withdrew in panic...the Germans sent an envoy with a white flag ... the Germans withdrew."

One expects to read next that

• "...the Polish Calvary reached the Rhine on September 27, the Wolga on September 28, with both Germans and Soviets surrendering immediately after. World War II ended on October 1, 1939 with total victory of Poland."

Please rename this very POV section to Cavalry charges and Polish propaganda. Thanks in advance. --Matthead 00:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi The above does seem a little strange, seems as if someone equates German and Nazi as the same thing and has made changes oh well

had to clean up a lotta insinuating remarks and very bad english for a page written so well to almost convolute history.

why did Deltabeignet redit back the poorly written and unreseached page except to satisfy his own version of history ? his version sound very bais to me

[edit] enter's edits

there is no need to describe anti-tank weapons in the article to try to prove they never charged tanks. the tank guns were inneffective at combat ranges (avg. 2000 yards, not 300-600 yards as the guns were useful for). Because the weapons existed didnt mean that they were necessarily used. The Polish cavalry also had swords and lances, so they must of used those as well, since they were weapons, and they had them. But wait, according to you, the cavalry never used their lances or swords. Your reasoning obviously has holes in it. please explain your rationale. and explain why information on tank guns should be included in an article on cavalry, and especially in the section you put it.

--Jadger 19:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, neither swords nor lances. The cavalry indeed had sabres, but the lances were withdrawn from service in 1936. They were still held in the tabors, but throughout my life I only read one account of a soldier actually using the lance - and it was before the war, during a demonstration.

As to charges - these are explained in a separate section. Apart from the 16 mentioned charges in which both sabres and cavalry carbines were used, the cavalry was nothing more than a mounted infantry. They left the horses to koniowodni (a number of ordinary soldiers taking care of the horses) and entered combat as a standard infantry, without sabres or lances or whatnot. If such reasoning has holes in it then please quote some exact places. {{fact}} tags are good for that. //Halibutt 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jader's Imagings ?

What you are basing you statements on? Ahhh but it seems very obvious. Your imaginings are not fact and are far from true. I notice you reedited a lot of quotations to dress down historical fact without any basis. Your treatment of history is to use the propaganda of the Stalinist era in an edited manner to reflect a rather pro Nazi stand with a dash of David Irving historical reality.

Why don't you stick to fact?! No lance charge was ever done by Polish Calvary against tanks, except in Nazi propaganda as approved by Gobles.

Likewise 40 years of Soviet misinformation, that you base your history on is incorrect and misleading. It insults the name of any allied soldiers and the good people who were involved. Soviet misinformation sources were made to propagate the kind of stuff and you’ve taken the bait and are using total fabrication.

Why do you quote a poet ignorant of the actual facts seemingly just to belittle the Polish? This all rings of David Irving "from a site near Toronto" speaking on the internet as in the early 90's?

31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of your Slander user:Enter (that is who added the above anonymous post). stop calling me a Bolshevik or a Stalinist, I am not either of them, I am dedicatedly anti-communist, voting conservative in the Federal Election only a few months ago.

• the lance attack part was not added by myself if you care to look at the history, but someone else. provide a reputable source that states opposite of what is stated in the article and I will be glad to remove it myself.
• I did not add the quote from the poet, it was added by user:Radomil I believe. why do you blame me for everything you dont agree with? I am not the only editor, many of these edits you hate for not displaying your POV come from Polish editors.

that poem does not belittle the Polish, instead it portrays them as courageous and great men (however ill-fated), much like the poem Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

As for Polish cavalry not attacking tanks, I assume you are refering to my use of the memoirs of Hans von Luck? well he led the reconnaisance section of one of the Panzer divisions, and he clearly talks about it in his memoirs if you care to read it.

--Jadger 22:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Claims

Before changing anything, I'd like to know the source of the following claim: "Borowa Góra - September 2 - 1st squadron of the 19th Volhynian Uhlans Regiment encountered a squadron of German cavalry in the village of Borowa. A charge was ordered, but the Germans withdrew." No cavalry unit operated around Borowa Gora. Or at least I could not find anything in the following positions:

• Wyrzycki, 1992 Wyrzycki, S. (1992). 2 Pułk Piechoty Legionów. Ajaks, Warsaw Pruszkow.
• Zalewski, 2000 Zalewski, W. (2000). Piotrków 1939. Bellona Dom Wydawniczy, Warsaw.
• Zarzycki, 1999 Zarzycki, P. (1999). 2 Pułk Artylerii Lekkiej Legionów. Ajaks, Warsaw Pruszkow.

I'd like to add that I was born 10 miles south of Borowa Hill and never (altough I research the subject for almost one year) have encountered any tales of Polish Cavalry doing anything in the region.

best,

jinxs

First of all, there are two hills and two villages named Borowa Góra in Poland. In addition, there are some 10 villages named Borowa, many of them in the modern Łódź Voivodship, in the area where the fights in 1939 took place. Now then, the cavalry charge is explicitly mentioned here and here. You might want to check with Andrzej Skiba (1971) Boje 19 Pułku Ułanów Wołyńskich w kampanii wrześniowej.

It seems also possible that the author of that page has mistaken the fights of the Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade in the area with the fights of the 2nd Legions Infantry Division in the area of Borowa Góra proper. And the unit did also have an organic cavalry unit, however the battle of Borowa Góra took place on September 5, not on September 2. However, it's but my assumption as I don't have the source at hand. //Halibutt 17:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. Perhaps we should specify that the battle in question was fought in the area of Mokra. Furthermore, we should change the ref to Borowa Gora Battle to Battle of the Borowskie Hills.

The area next to Belchatow where 2 LID fought with 1/4 Panz. D. is usually described as Borowskie Hills (there were 3 hills before the battle, later on they were merged into one).

This view is further supported by the book by the commander of 2 LID Czyżewski Ludwik in his book "From Borowskie Hills to Zakroczym" (if I recall correctly, the Polish title was something like "Od God Borowskich do Zakroczymia", but my memory aint like it used to be.

I'll introduce the change, plus prepare the article on Borowskie Hills Battle, Already have plenty of materials, just have to organize it.

best,

jinxs