Help me understand something "Hussar", "Dragoon",

>>49848134
>is that correct?

No, the french used hussars too at some point.

>>49848134
>is that correct?
No.

File: Gelber_Ulan.jpg (197KB, 395x661px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 395x661px

>>49848134
you forgot the Ulan

>>49848171
But I mean, would they have had a French term for their light cavalry, rather than the term Hussar? Like, how analogous would one nation's light horse be to another's? Like, was the Cuirassier just France's take on the basic template for Heavy Cavalry, etc.

>>49848134

>French for light cavalry

chevauchée?

>>49848229

By the age of the cuirassier, the French light cavalry was probably the Chasseur.

>>49848217
Would Grade of cavalry would these count as? Obviously not Light because of their cuirasses. Was Medium Cavalry an established concept? What would distinguish Medium Cavalry from Heavy if so?

>>49848134

Yes and no. They're all different types of people who are soldiers with some association with horses, but they're not even all cavalry; dragoons, at least by a strict definition, are people who fight on foot after riding into the battlefield. However, all of them drifted in some degree from their original definitions.

Cuirassiers are distinct from other forms of heavy cavalry insofar as they use guns as weapons (not always the primary weapon, mind you). Transplanting a 15th century demi-lance to a napoleonic battlefield wouldn't make him a cuirassier.

"Hussars" have a trickier etymology to follow and track. Hell, the first Polish Hussars tended to be heavy cavalry, not light cavalry; but the oldest mentions of the word tie them to Hungary, and before Jan Hus, so that etymology also has to be rejected; it probably does just mean some sort of generalized "Cavalry" in practice, which the other two terms you raised don't really apply for.

>>49848229

French light cavalry was the Chasseur.

>>49848289
So does this confirm what I was originally asking - that all these specific designations for Cavalry types like Chasseur, Cuirassier, Hussar, Ulan, Dragoon, were just different nations' terms for light, medium, and heavy cavalry?

>>49848241
It was Chasseur I think, it means Hunter

>>49848241
some specific kinds of cavalry from differend regons got popullar in whole europe like the light hussars of Hungary (the polnish ones were heavier and not as popular)

>>49848273
OP here, this is really helpful, thank you.

>>49848318
Yes

>>49848318
The French called their light cavalry Chasseurs à Cheval. It means "Hunters on Horse".
Because they also had Chasseurs à Pied, Alpins, etc.

>>49848266
lancer (yes not every single one of them was fighting with one but the Ulan is a classic lancer unit)

>>49848273
It's worth mentioning that they were light cavalry in their original appearance in the black army of Mathias Corvinus.

Simply put, both austrians (and other western nations) and poles adopted the hussars. They saw different developments in different countries/regions, becoming heavy elite cavalry in Poland but becoming even lighter (rejecting armor) in Hungary, Austria, Germany and France.

>>49848318
>>49848332

No, hussars in french are hussards and the french employed regiments of hussards for example during the napoleonic wars. They also had chasseurs a cheval and had regiments of chasseurs a cheval. They were both light infantry, but considered different.

>>49848134
Ask this in /hwg or on /his, also you have to understand you are talking about a broad period of history, but generally it goes
>uhluan
Lancers that kill enemy cavalry
>cuirassers
Wear just a cuirass and cloth, so medium, charge with a brace of pistols
>hussars
Generally light cav, but the polish hussars were mid to heavy cav that could rout whole armies if properly suppourted

>>49848490
>cuirassers
cuirasse is the frence name of a Boiled leather well... cuirass

later they used a plate cuirass
and some proppably fought without cuirass

>>49848543
but the few without cuirass were a kind of accident

File: download.jpg (8KB, 278x181px)

8KB, 278x181px

>>49848134
Cavalry names were based on all sorts of things - language, equipment, role, national origin and so on.

And then you get role drift and name inheritance - the senior cavalry unit in the army might be called dragoons, even if they're equipped like heavy cavalry, because they were originally formed as dragoons and prestige and tradition (very important in the military) keeps the name.

Which is how you end up with things like the Queen's Hussars (remembering that Hussars were historically light cavalry) using one of the heaviest battle tanks in the world and the Royal Dragoons (historically medium, but generally Britain's heaviest) in a recce role with scout vehicles

File: 1454667335209.jpg (171KB, 976x549px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 976x549px

>>49848686
implying he british army changed a single inch over the centuries

File: 1420327954848.jpg (15KB, 232x232px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 232x232px

>>49848787
So they're still Wellington's "scum of the earth"?

File: 1459786272852.png (18KB, 86x128px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 86x128px

>>49848839
yes the Royal Navy is King

File: 1459741822589.png (77KB, 426x408px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 426x408px

>>49848889
But if the British Navy also hasn't changed then it's still alcohol, sodomy and the whip.

File: 1271452514286.jpg (627KB, 4288x2848px)

627KB, 4288x2848px

>>49848889
>Royal Navy is King

u wot mate?

File: 1454630617762.jpg (246KB, 858x990px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 858x990px

>>49849012
you can't even pacify a shitty desert county

File: 1284913291679.jpg (815KB, 3272x2181px)

815KB, 3272x2181px

>>49849060
>Navy
>fighting in a desert

Anon, boats don't work in sand.

>>49849060
We can pacify them alright on a moment's notice.
It's just that those meddling UN won't let us.

File: queenie_consider.jpg (31KB, 460x460px)

31KB, 460x460px

>>49849093
>park by shore
>unload artillery on the mainland

>>49849093
so you fancy aircraft carriers carry just dildos?

File: 541079091.jpg (31KB, 404x510px)

31KB, 404x510px

>>49849095
as if you would care about the UN

File: Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg (2MB, 3000x1998px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1998px

>>49849126
>artillery

Hasn't been the Navy's thing since WWII. Hell, even before then.

>>49849145
Yeah. Do you realize how many female sailors there are on those things? And how many male sailors?

>>49849192
thats why i ask

>>49849227
Don't ask.
Don't tell.

>>49849259
he gets it

>>49848947

IT'S RUM, SODOMY AND THE LASH YOU GIT.

>>49849192
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV8jVGzop6o

>>49848134
Hussar - light cavalry armed with sabre
Lancer/Uhlan - light cavalry armed with lances
Dragoon - cavalry armed with sword and carbine, originally mounted infantry but by Napoleon had become primarily cavalry
Cuirassier - heavy cavalry with a breastplate
These denominations were all used by most European countries and they speak more to battlefield role than to place of origin.

The French, for instance, also had Carabiners, and Horse Grenadiers as heavy cav, Chasseurs-a-Cheval who were kind of a combination of Hussars and Dragoons (light cav with carbines).

Britain was really the odd one out, as they re-designated all their Heavy Cavalry regiments as "Dragoon Guards" in the mid 1700s as a cost-cutting measure. So British cavalry was Light-Dragoons, Dragoons, Dragoon Guards, Horse Guards with a few units of Hussars mixed in.

>>49850595
This
Everything else in this thread seems to be way off

>>49850637
>Everything else in this thread seems to be way off
its lit. a summery of former posts faggot

>>49850595
>Hussar - light cavalry armed with sabre

Winged Hussars, where the word comes from, started life as heavy cavalry utilizing lances, like most heavy cavalry.

Which is to say the words curassier, hussar, lancer would all have been one thing once upon a time and different words used for different units.

Your post takes a portrait of one period of time and it's usage of those terms without taking into account either the history of the term itself, or even that there was different terms in different times.

>>49850637

How do you figure? His post doesn't even really answer the OP's question.

File: image.jpg (3MB, 1920x1080px)

3MB, 1920x1080px

Someone plays Cossacks 3, sounds like.

File: 1456108176530.jpg (805KB, 2324x1416px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 2324x1416px

>>49848889
The Royal Navy hasn't been the same since the 1966 White Paper.