06-13-2013, 10:41 PM
Polish cavalry was different from Bulgarian cavalry. At least I think so - I don't know too much about Bulgarian cavalry, but IIRC it was more similar to Russian cavalry (and in such case different from Polish).
It also depends of which period are we talking about, but Polish Medieval armies can be described as "eastern-style" only when it comes to the Early Medieval period. Later you would not be able to distinguish between for example German or French and Polish knights, if not the coats of arms they were wearing.
The same applies to Hungarians - in the High and Late Middle Ages you would not be able to distinguish one hundred Hungarian knights from one hundred German knights, if not the coats of arms.
But it was not always like this, because Hungarians (or rather Magyars) were originally steppe people.
Early Medieval Magyar army was a typical army of nomadic horsemen from the steppes (the Polish army was never like this, because Slavic people were never nomads - even though already early Slavs used significant numbers of cavalry, for example according to Constantine Porphyrogennetos among the Slavic tribe of Chrobats proportion of mounted warriors to foot warriors was like 6 to 10 and Procopius of Caesarea mentions cavalry units in Byzantine service, consisting of Huns and Slavs, already in years 536 - 537).
Of course there were also major differences between various Slavic armies from various periods.
For example the Polabians and Pomeranians of the 11th - 12th centuries were described as very good horsemen, but only light horsemen - they had no heavy cavalry, because they only used small breeds of horses ("ponies", we could say) which were unsuitable for heavy cavalry. They also lived in forested and hilly areas, so smaller horses were more useful there, as well as "hit and run" tactics rather than charges.
They were also using some Serbian, Italian, German and other "western" mercenaries. But this was the case already before 1204 too. BTW - I think that cataphracts were no longer used after 1204, am I right?
It also depends of which period are we talking about, but Polish Medieval armies can be described as "eastern-style" only when it comes to the Early Medieval period. Later you would not be able to distinguish between for example German or French and Polish knights, if not the coats of arms they were wearing.
The same applies to Hungarians - in the High and Late Middle Ages you would not be able to distinguish one hundred Hungarian knights from one hundred German knights, if not the coats of arms.
But it was not always like this, because Hungarians (or rather Magyars) were originally steppe people.
Early Medieval Magyar army was a typical army of nomadic horsemen from the steppes (the Polish army was never like this, because Slavic people were never nomads - even though already early Slavs used significant numbers of cavalry, for example according to Constantine Porphyrogennetos among the Slavic tribe of Chrobats proportion of mounted warriors to foot warriors was like 6 to 10 and Procopius of Caesarea mentions cavalry units in Byzantine service, consisting of Huns and Slavs, already in years 536 - 537).
Of course there were also major differences between various Slavic armies from various periods.
For example the Polabians and Pomeranians of the 11th - 12th centuries were described as very good horsemen, but only light horsemen - they had no heavy cavalry, because they only used small breeds of horses ("ponies", we could say) which were unsuitable for heavy cavalry. They also lived in forested and hilly areas, so smaller horses were more useful there, as well as "hit and run" tactics rather than charges.
Quote:Truly Byzantine Troops died out in the 13th century; after 1204 they were copying bulgarian and turkish and italian soldiers.
They were also using some Serbian, Italian, German and other "western" mercenaries. But this was the case already before 1204 too. BTW - I think that cataphracts were no longer used after 1204, am I right?
