If the Winged Hussars were so great, why did no one try

>>1362322
Imitate them at what?

>>1362352
He surely means try to make identical units

I think it's pretty cringy desu.

>>1362322
guns.

>>1362355
Indeed that's what I meant.

I have read that only Russia briefly tried to form similar units in 1650s but very quickly gave up on the idea.

>>1362322
Winged Hussars emerged on the border between Western and Eastern combat and were adapted to that environment.

In Western Europe the lance was increasingly discarded from 1550 onward and virtually entirely disappeared during the 30 years war. Why you ask? Because pistol armed cuirassiers fucked them up while wearing equipment half or even third the cost of a proper lancer.

File: 1396804189823.jpg (3MB, 1779x2480px)

3MB, 1779x2480px

Swedish pappenheimer was "borrowed" from their szyszak.

>>1362366
Moscow(Grand Duchy) try to imitate them(gussars) but they failed as they lack technology(very long empty inside lances), horses(specific breed, very costly) and lacked cadre of highly motivated and trained men.
Hussaria was a elite formation, crop of the crop. It was direct product of middle noble class and when it start disappearing husaria start disappearing too.

>>1362322
This picture gave me cancer
>short lance
>retarded wings
Someone who made this had no idea about winged hussars

Answering your question. Russians tried to copy them but they failed. Winged hussars were the wealthiest nobels of the commonwealth. Their armour, weapons and horses were too expensive for any country to afford it, they've paid for themselves. Also, they had high morale andn were well trained.

the winged hussars themselves is an imitation to the ottoman one

>>1362322
Some couldn't afford them, while for others geography made them non viable.

>>1362400
So beautiful

>>1362395
Two questions:
1. What made lancers viable in the East then? What was so different compared to the West?
2. Didn't the French have lancers until well into the Napoleonic period?

>>1364856
Under Napoleon, the lancers were polish. The rest of the french cavalry was made of dragoons (Infantrymen who were dismounting their horses to fire), cuirassiers (Heavy cavalry using swords) and "hussars" (Light cavalry using sabres).

However, the germans did have lancers units up until WW1, called the "uhlans".

>>1362400
haha "pappenheimer", forbandede svenskere altså

>>1364856
>1. What made lancers viable in the East then? What was so different compared to the West?
Lesser reliance on fortifications, higher reliance on mobility.
>2. Didn't the French have lancers until well into the Napoleonic period?
Yeah, Uhlans - mostly basing them of Polish... well... Uhlans.

>>1364891
Napoleon had a lot more non-polish lancer regiments than he had polish regiments buddy.

Also dragoons fought mostly on horseback. The mounted infantry dragoon was a thing from the 1600-1700 time period. Most Napoleonic armies had lancers, of the major powers, only the Brits didn't

>>1364992
>Lesser reliance on fortifications, higher reliance on mobility.

Hurr, there were lots of fortifications on the East. Also, there were mobile fortifications - war wagons were extensively deployed well into 18th centuries. Actually, war wagons defended by gunnners were the reason how sedentary peoples conquered the Pontic steppe.