Waterloo Polish Lancers charge

Napoleonic Wars- Charge of the Polish Lancers at Waterloo. (Scenes from the 1970 movie "Waterloo" directed by Serguéi Bondarchuk.)
More videos here www.regimiento...

[@damianb8322]

Napoleon considered the lances an obsolete weapon until he saw with his own eyes what use these weapons were made by Poles in the Battle of Hohenlinden 1800. e.g. Uhlan Pawlikowski alone took more than 50 german infantry prisoner, previously killing two of their officers and several privates. In front of the entire French army, he led his captives. He chased them on horseback like a flock of sheep, beating with the blunt back of the lance those prisoners who were moving out of the line. After the Battle of Wagram the Chevaux-légers were finally equipped with lances which other Western European armies began to copy. But in fact already in the Italian campaign, when the French army were frightened by Suvorov Cossacks, the cavalry of the Polish Legions was the only one who "chased Cossacks, like wolve is chasing a sheep". Poles were already using lances then. 0:04 Brits as "the noblest cavalry of Europe" Huh! Humbug! ;)

[@damianb8322]

@freneticness _ I do not think so.

[@carlito571]

The French lost an untold amount of horses,in the Napoleonic campaigns. The British on the other hand,few in comparison at the same time.Leaving the British with the luxury of being able to choose.The actual colour of the horse for different units.Scotch Grey's being one.

[@damianb8322]

@@carlito571 Murat's crazy chase in campaign of 1812 contributed to this...a little.

[@balazsnagy2797]

There were no Polish teams at Waterloo!

[@maciejbildziuk5720]

@@balazsnagy2797 Yes there were Majority of them joined to Foreign Legion... like in battle of Lipsk... still a ffew thousends in Waterloo.

[@stephenmanalac7892]

Imagine seeing that in real life

[@anaisdahle]

Yes it would be pretty amazing i would have thought ^^

In Colonel Chabert movie scene you have the glamour of the charge and the desolation after the battle kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXfPdIx6gtiBZq8

[@christophermichaelclarence6003]

That would be awesome if was against Black Lives Matter. That would teach them a lesson

[@raymondacbot4007]

@@christophermichaelclarence6003 impossible to imagine how these silly BLM folk are descended from great men like these

[@roybeers3547]

Nah - you are (possibly deliberately) missing the whole point: there would not have BEEN an invasion of Russia in 1812 but for the British blockade, which was in fact the deciding factor of the entire period (much as Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain turned out to have been the deciding factor of the war against Germany in WW2). There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the continental allies would ever have combined effectively (the Austrians even managed to lose a little-known battle in 1815) - so your basic premise is simply nonsense. Meanwhile Aspern-Essling was a "check", and emphatically not "a defeat" - one remedied in short order by the crushing victory at Wagram, as you will well know. It would never have entered Tsar Alexander's head to invade Western Europe has Holy Mother Russia not been attacked - his ambitions (never realised) lay in the East, where he wanted to retake Constantinople and relaunch Russia as the New Byzantiium. Had the 1st Empire been able to rely upon largely unfettered international trade it would have survived at least as long as Napoleon remained capable - we'v e no notion of what might have happened after that - and Prussia, the Confederation of the Rhine and Austria would never have been able to combine successfully against him. As it was, the allied effort - repeat - only succeeded because a)Of Britain's unswerving diplomatic efforts and b)Britain's hard cash. Glad to help clear these details up - not because I have any particular toot for Britain: on balance I'd have probably been a Bonapartist myself in that era, as while he may have been a dictator and warmonger Napoleon was certainly a progressive force, with a legacy which is personal defeat could not erase.

[@hardalarboard8876]

I miss films like waterloo, nothing as great will be made again without any cgi

[@michaelswann9227]

No cgi in 1970. They hired troops from the Soviet army and put them in Waterloo uniforms. That is why the battle scenes are so realistic.

[@hardalarboard8876]

You don’t seem to understand what I said

[@hardalarboard8876]

Nothing without cgi, as good as that will never be made again

[@aragmarverilian8238]

Without CGI and no hack writing...

[@ericthompson3402]

This Dino de Lorentis masterpiece is my absolute favorite war film from my favorite time in the history of warfare. Napoleon was the most successful military commander of all time. Look it up. The French also had the snazziest uniforms and the most magnificent moustaches in this era--hands down. I think Dino hired like 17,000 Russian army extras for this movie--the battle itself takes up 45 minutes of movie. The only other comparable non cgi incredible battle has to be the final showdown in Cecil B DeMill's Spartacus.

[@Shiroya_Rumika]

In the anthem of Poland, the lyrics mentioned Napoleon

[@fishmuck297]

No, they don’t mention Napoleon, sorry…

[@solce809]

@@fishmuck297 “Dał nam przykład Bonaparte, jak zwyciężać mamy”

[@lukerygielski628]

​@@fishmuck297no it actually does. Google it.

[@niagarafallski3]

And in the anthem of Italy the lyrics mention Polish blood.

[@kamilosowski3889]

@@niagarafallski3 Rly? We mention Italy in our anthem as well. Even in a chorus. "Z ziemi włoskiej do Polski" which means "from Italian land to Poland".

[@WhiteAnims2]

When the Poles starts chasing you with a Lancer, better run!

[@No_Man_Is_An_Island]

Napoleon : "Release the Poles!" 0:55 British : "OH FUCK NONONO RUN DUDE HOLY FUCKIN SHIT RUN!"

[@TheGeneralGrievous19]

Battle of Albuera flashbacks intensify.

[@rantitikritis8265]

1 of those 2 men is maj gen ranked

[@robnewman6101]

Don't be Ridiculous.

[@cantyoms]

that is just how powerful the polish lancers are!

[@robnewman6101]

BOOOO!

[@DavidLister6000]

It must have been and equally awesome and terrifying thing to see

[@noelmajers6369]

Polish lancers played by Russians. Oh, the indignity !

[@Lechoslaw8546]

No indignity whatsoever. In 1812 more Poles served under tsar Alexander I than under Napoleon. During 1815 Vienna Congress Alexander did all possible to overcome British resistance in recovery of Kingdom of Poland, while Bonaparte chickened out and even feared the name Poland, only allowing for idiotic "Duchy of Warsaw".

[@jak00bspyr72]

@@Lechoslaw8546 Thats not true. Napoleon established only a "Dutchy of Warsaw" to not provoke the tsar too early. Russian Empire opposed any ideas of recreating the Polish state. Napoleon did not want the Tsar to break the peace talks, this is precisely why Poland was liberated in such a form and not any other. However Napoleon wanted to establish a strong Polish state so that he could keep in check Prussia, Russia and Austria. He named his invasion of Russia in 1812 "the second Polish war".

[@Lechoslaw8546]

@@jak00bspyr72 While at St Helena island Bonaparte regretted his hesitation with recreating Poland, policies of half-measures, calling it major blunder of his lifetime and this is a fact. Another fact is plan of tsar Paul Ist to witch alliance from British to French for which he got assasined by British agents, this plan also included reversing his policy toward Poland. Similar scenario repeated with his son Alexander Is, although this time switching alliance was not debated, but his favourite attitude toward Poland did. Do not forget his foreign policy was run by a Pole prince Adam Czartoryski.

[@simonplier9746]

what can i say man they want to be the finest

[@maciejbildziuk5720]

@@Lechoslaw8546 true.

[@PapekSuper1]

Ponadziewali nasi tych zadufanych w sobie Brytoli na lance jak prosiaki na ruszt.

[@HAL-zn6hd]

xd dobre

[@ahmedpasic4916]

Lipka Tatars also served in Polish cavalry during Napoleon times.

[@damianb8322]

Original quality 100% Uhlans ;)

[@BratWody]

They were here in a 1920 and '39 as well...

[@robnewman6101]

BOOOO!

[@GNRA1GreatNorthern1470]

And the 3rd Regiment of the lancers of the guard was made up of Lithuanians

[@kisiek300]

Kruszyniany willage in Poland and Bohoniki. Podlasie region is last stand of Polish tatars. Even King Charles III visit that land.

[@Monsterpala]

Wow this old school CGI is pretty nice :D

[@emporio_tv8302]

Those people are not cgi tho

[@krischilds6689]

Cause it isn’t CGI

[@ProfessorTrifoneGirasole]

it's not CGI

[@stylembonkers1094]

Great footage.

[@RaiderLeo69]

I wonder how many of those fine troopers survived this battle.

[@mickjenner6697]

The troops under Wellington ( British contingent ) dead , wounded or simply unaccounted for added up to 75% , and a wound at that era from musket ball would normally be a amputation and death soon after , sabre cuts or bayonet or lance could be helped but as with modern field surgery and help you have 1 hour to be seen and treated and chance of survival are good , outside the golden hour it's the same then as now , and not good Wellington lost 25% of the fieldable British army in just dead , When you hear horrors of the ww1 and say how bad were the generals , think about this battle What is strange though is the lack of physical evidence at the claimed sight of battle, as with all these Napoleonic battles

[@roberts1938]

The truth is that one lansjer could defend himself against several Scots Greys cavalrymen. The lance showed its effectiveness in Spain, where the Polish lancers were called "los infernos picadores". Everyone wanted a security detail made up of lancers. The lance entered the equipment of the British army and was an exact copy of the lance used by the Polish lancers.

[@BroadHobbyProjects]

Mainly due to the reach it gave them. As you are probably aware.

[@stephenmacleod6173]

Got to disagree. If the Greys had been in proper order and hadn't their lines extended and broken after the charge, the story may have been far different. The lance is effective, there is no doubt about that. However the sabre (both 1796 patterns) had proven quite effective over the course of the Peninsular War. In proper ranks, the Greys would have been able to mount a proper defense and get inside the range of the lance to bring the Heavy '96 to bear and unleash the full effect of the weapon.

[@roberts1938]

@@stephenmacleod6173 Only the first row was equipped with lances, the second with carabiners. Not everyone was equipped with this type of weapon. In the Battle of Waterloo, the Poles charged many times, on the dragoons of Wellington's Guard, on the English hussars, and on the squares of infantry. The data show that in one of the bloodiest battles in history, which undoubtedly was Waterloo, Polish lancers (around 225) suffered surprisingly low losses. They accounted for approximately 3 percent of the personal status. This was not due to the avoidance of combat by Polish cavalrymen.

[@stephenmacleod6173]

@@roberts1938 They were rather lucky, however with the exception of the overextended Scots Greys, they didn't cause much havoc or break many lines, whereas with the Scots Greys, they put a regiment into retreat which allowed a British Regiment to rally and then continued the charge through the French guns and slaughter their crews before coming into combat with the lancers

[@roberts1938]

@@stephenmacleod6173 What losses did they suffer? How much? Were they lucky or unlucky? Or was there a lack of experience? Correct me if I'm wrong about 416 went into battle, losses 102 killed + 97 wounded ....47%

[@TOMA1910]

It was the soldier's from 1 cavalry division led by Jacquinot who killed Ponsony. It was 2 brigade, 3 and 4 Regiment of Lancers and a little description: In a flash, the Frenchman killed the general and his major with 2 blows of his lance then charged the oncoming dragoons striking down 3 in less than a minute. The others abandoned the combat completely incapable of holding their own position"

[@cezary2643]

człowieku, przecież to polscy ułani. Ułani to polska formacja, tak jak polską formacją byli szwoleżerowie pod Samosierrą. Nie dorabiaj francuskiej teorii

[@tezunaga87]

@@cezary2643 ma Pan i jednocześnie nie ma, racji. Owszem ułani byli specjalnością polską ale samo słowo "ułan" pochodzi z języka tatarskiego i nie jest to przypadek, gdyż rola jaką mieli pełnić przypominała lekką jazdę tatarską. Była to uniwersalna formacja zdolna do walki w zwarciu, jednak mogąca pełnić równie dobrze inne funkcje, jak zwiad, pościg, rozpoznanie walką. W wojsku francuskim doceniono wartość polskiej jazdy i po doświadczeniach z tzw. pierwszej wojny polskiej, zaczęto szkolić formacje lansjerów. Szkoleniowcami byli Polacy, gdyż umiejętność walki bronią drzewcową zanikła w tym kraju. Szwoleżerowie natomiast byli formacją francuską i odziały polskie pod Samosierą wchodziły bezpośrednio pod rozkazy tegoż kraju. W czasie bitwy pod Waterloo Polacy stanowili tylko część w dywizji lekkiej jazdy gwardii i faktycznie brali udział w wycinaniu brytyjskich kawalerzystów.

[@cezary2643]

@@tezunaga87 co do słów tatarskich i tureckich mam pełna świadomość zapożyczeń :), bohater, bahmat itd itp To przecież pogranicze Wielkiej Rzeczpospolitej. Natomiast uwagi o ułanach cenne - dziękuję

[@marekswidzinski5743]

TOMA1910 . Napoleon Bonaparte, when he decided to form the cavalry of the Polish Lansjers, specified everything how they were to be uniformed and armed. He refused to let the cavalrymen have lances. The Polish command convinced him to see for himself how and for what the Poles were using lances. When he saw this, he gave his consent at once to the lance. Lance in the Polish Army is not only an excellent weapon, it is also a tradition after the copies of Winged Hussars long even 6. 2 mtr.

[@thekingshussar1808]

Too many lancers of the Imperial Guard- and in fact, none of the Guard Cavalry charged at the Union Brigade but rather Lancers of the Line (former Dragoon regiments) in Waterloo. Great film though! 👍

[@brucewayne3602]

They were/are truly terrifying !!!

[@frencholdguard1813]

stop that useless noise! 0:33

[@jaads7910]

Brilliant

[@pookpig3991]

Imagine you are British cavalry and Polish Lancers is charging your flank

[@grahamyoung2128]

That’s when the Scots Grey’s stole the 45th’s Imperial Eagle! What a blow to Napoleon! Sergeant Charles Ewart from Kilmarnock Scotland!

[@ironhand9096]

Won! Thieves steel.

[@tgs9034]

polish lancers rushing in blearing winged hussars from sabaton

[@szablotukpolski5201]

Nice wideo :) more in ... szablotłuk polski

[@sauronmordor7494]

;)

[@remoremo2019]

Ty jesteś wszędzie :D

[@POLMAZURKA]

FIGHT FOR EUROPEAN/ POLISH SOCIAL BALLROOM DANCES: POLONAISE AND MAZURKA ESSAYS, VIDEOS AND INSTRUCTIONS: GO TO THE INTERNET AND SEARCH FOR: ACADEMIA.EDU………..RAYMOND CWIEKA TO VIEW THE VIDEOS PASTE THE VIDEO - WORD - ESSAY TO A WORD DOCUMENT AND THEN CLICK & PRESS THE CTRL KEY ON THE VIDEO. ORIGINALLY THERE WERE SOME 49 BOOKS AND ESSAYS OF MINE.

[@SuperCiacho0]

Hehe kuźwa xD Jest sikalafą

[@neilmoulden5323]

In the battle it was line lancers not Guard lancers that caught the Grey's.

Yeap, but seems they couldn't be hired for the movie!

[@anaisdahle]

Actually they are the 2er Régiment des chevaux-légers Polonais de la Garde Impériale, If i am not mistaken. ^^

[@Sinistercabbage]

@@anaisdahle 1st. The 2nd were Dutch, the so called Red Lancers

[@stevegrabber]

I believe I read that the horses of the British Calvary were winded and could not gallop. Many of the troopers were not moving when the Lancers made contact.

[@ericcooper1709]

@@stevegrabber The British cavalry had overrun the guns and the horses were broken (winded) so couldn't reply.

[@johndudley9118]

Road rage back then !

[@Oranjisch]

imagine your a French bugler for the lancers and your horse steps in a ditch when your playing and you get your teeth knocked out by your bugle *ouch!*

[@MaurizioAbuDhabi]

It's beautiful but historically inaccurate. No Lancers of the Guard counter charged the Greys, but Lancers of the Line (formerly Dragoons of the Line regiments). But of course...from Director perspective...First Regiment of the Lancers of the Guard (Polish) were simply amazing....

[@8301TheJMan]

I've always been totally fine with minor inaccuracies in this film due to not only to how phenomenal the battle is filmed/portrayed, (the sheer spectacle of it), and how brilliant the acting performances are - but also due to the fact that the vast majority of the most important aspects of the battle and everything leading up to it are extremely historically accurate. IMO when you do a historical fiction film, especially one depicting a war/battle, I'm willing to overlook minor changes just so long as the broad strokes are historically accurate. I especially like how they accurately portrayed how Wellington was actually beaten and would have been cut to pieces if the Prussians hadn't shown up to bail his ass out. Granted, he did request Blucher to meet up with him and positioned his forces so as to allow Blucher, if/when he were to show up he'd be able to sneak right up along one of Napoleon's flanks, which certainly was pretty genius. That said, his strategy still relied on a lot of things to break just perfectly, things that were completely out of his hands, and if they hadn't his army would have been decimated. Because after all, even if Blucher showed up when he did, they still most likely would have lost if Grouchy had merely marched to the sound of the guns in the near distance rather than loafing slowly behind the Prussian army. Those important aspects of this battle are usually completely omitted from the modern popular understanding/representation of how Napoleon lost the battle. This film pokes a large hole in the side of the popular narrative fed to people that the battle was won due pretty much entirely to Wellington's unrivalled strategic brilliance. Of course the battle that truly ended Napoleon's massive Empire was the great battle of Leipzig. While Wellington was running in Spain beating up on Marshall's Victor and Soult who were in charge of a small rear-guard force when compared to the Grande Armee that Napoleon took as he focused in central Europe and then into Russia. Instead it was up to Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Sweden to go up against literally hundreds of thousands of French soldiers and their allies, culminating with the clash in eastern Germany. But of course, seeing as how us Americans view and interpret European history very much through a British lens, making it a very biased perspective, we're instead taught that the Napoleonic Wars ended due to the great defeat at Waterloo. Even though in reality it was the combination of the Russian campaign, and the battles of Dresden and Leipzig that were the real nails in Napoleon's coffin. But since the only British who were at those battles was a small unit of Rocketeers, those battles, (one that was literally the largest land battle in Europe up until WWI), are immensely downplayed in terms of their importance/significance. Sadly this is even the case when it comes to college level education here in the US. I took a course about 1700's and 1800's European military history Sr year which focused heavily on the Napoleonic Wars, and yet i kid you not - in the syllabus, neither Leipzig nor Dresden were even fucking mentioned. Instead the class only went over the battle of Austerlitz, Wellington in Spain, Napoleons Russian campaign and his trek back into central Europe, and then they just skipped to his first abdication and finally concluded with the battle at Waterloo along with his final exile.

[@roybeers3547]

@@8301TheJMan I totally agree, and particularly about Waterloo being a Prussian rather than a British victory; and about the comparative irrelevance of the 1815 campaign, which with the benefit of hindsight was never going to make any difference - the Allies were going to keep going until Napoleon was well and truly gone. On the broader context, though, Britain did play the decisive role in defeating the 1st Empire: 1)By stitching together European coalitions and paying for vast amounts of war materiel. 2)By her command of the sea, which in turn meant command of trade . It was the failure of Napoleon's Continental System (courtesy of the Royal Navy) which inspired Napoleon's invasion of Russia, from which he could not recover. Spain was certainly a sideshow, but one which leeched significant resources that would have been better employed fighting the Austrians or Russians. Meanwhile, as you will have learned from your course, Louis XIV was an even bigger megalomaniac and dictator than Napoleon, and unlike Napoleon had no progressive agenda: it was thanks very largely to John Churchhill, first Duke of Marlborough, that the global ambitions of the "Sun King" lay in ruins at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession - it was Marlborough's diplomacy that formed the European resistance to Louis, and Marlborough's brilliance as a general that won the key battles - notably Blenheim, which saved the Austrian empire and prevented Louis achieving outright victory by the back door.

[@8301TheJMan]

@@roybeers3547 Of course Britain was an extremely important piece to the European puzzle, but as France's and other European nation's populations began to outpace Englands', it had to rely much more on it's navy and colonial forces rather than it's land army. Which is why the British following the wars early on in the 18th century up through the Seven Years war and war in the Americas, realized it had to be much more strategic in when, where, and who it would meet on the battle field. It also did crush the French navy and basically end Napoleon's colonial efforts in North Africa. It just annoys me how Anglo-centric our interpretation of European history is, and how everything is framed in a certain way to either take credit or importance away from one nation and/or give more of it to England. I mean, at Waterloo for instance, not only was it the Prussians who deserve more credit for the victory than the Brits imo, but a large chunk of Wellington's army were German soldiers, many of whom were once allies of the French just a few years earlier. It was a German victory foremost, and yet nobody knows the name Blucher. That's all i was saying

[@roybeers3547]

@@8301TheJMan Unfortunately that Anglocentricity is itself a historical phenomenon: the battle that Wellington nearly lost in a campaign which was briefly a major sensation was almost an irrelevance to the broader scene, and the "infamous army" commanded by Wellington (who wanted his Portuguese veterans, but couldn't get them because of politics) was a ragbag of Dutch-Belgians, Nassauers, etc, of which the quality elements were the King's German Legion - in the actual British regiments a high proportion of osldiers were Irish; and of course there were the famous Scottish regiments ...all of which continues to irk when people now, as then, described Britain as "England", a place which in the political sense ceased to exist in 1707. Curiously Britain did, though, play the dominant role in defeating Napoleon, primarily by her command of the oceans and therefore of trade, and with hard cash - for example the Prussian army of 1813 was largely uniformed and equipped by Britain. She also assembled the various European coalitions, swallowing disappointment after disappointment until Napoleon did their job for them by invading Russia. Every country has its own chauvinist take on major historical events, and the Napoleonic Wars were no different: "History is a lie which the victors agree upon", as Napoleon said. Meanwhile "nobody knows the name Blucher" isn't quite right - famous in Germany, of course, it was also the name of a Nazi ship blown to bits and sunk by the valiant Norwegians in 1940.

[@8301TheJMan]

@@roybeers3547 The British certainly played a major role, im not saying they didn't, it's just not nearly as much of one that is commonly believed to have been when it comes to the popular narrative revolving around the Napoleonic Wars. And im sorry man, they most certainly DID NOT play the most vital/important role in defeating Napoleon. Even with Napoleon being choked off due to British Naval superiority, if Austria, Prussia, and Russia didn't stand up and defeat his Grande Arme'e when they needed to, the blockade itself would never have by itself lead to Napoleon being dethroned and collapse the French empire. Where as conversely, the combined European powers eventually would have succeeded without the aid of the British naval blockade, it simply would have taken longer.

[@angel-rq4fz]

Maybe Napoleon should preserve Lancers to counter Prussians ; NEY did a Big Mistake to order cavalry charge without Infantry support ! Those cavalry men could have been very effective against BLUKHER .

[@martnathanmiltary]

Fun fact: the polish lancers are on the french side and that bugle is the calvary charge and the scots grays get killed by the polish lancers

[@ericthompson3402]

Ah! Poor Ponsomby!

[@GNRA1GreatNorthern1470]

While its a beautiful scene, historically, only one squadron of the polish lancers were left by 1814, the ones that accompanied the emperor to Elba. The rest would have been regular lancers of the line and a few dutch red lancers

[@aurelmatthews4164]

Pretty sure he was talking about the British cavalry charge in this scene

[@miracleyang3048]

The 3rd and 4th Lancers were troops made from former 8th and 9th Dragoons, They definitely weren't Polish, the Poles were with the guard and the cavalry corps.

[@ilsagutrune2372]

They are dressed as Polish lancers, but the actual lancer charge against the British Heavy brigades were two French regiments

[@trollege9618]

French lancers and French cuirassiers

[@zodiak865]

kto ich mógł zatrzymać ? chyba tylko Szkoci ....

[@Ludwik_Dron]

Don't piss off lancers from Poland

[@artyom1264]

Polish lancers are amazing

[@ExercitusMarisMan]

They Are Not Polish Lancers, They're Indonesian Lancers

[@MouseInVan]

mg cav vs rsg cav?

[@mugshot749]

Polish lancers were called Uhlans

[@alphalunamare]

Never knew they were Polish ... where were their Wings!

[@Przemko357]

The wings of the Polish hussars were in the 17th century.

[@alphalunamare]

@@Przemko357 :-) British Humour ... I was being respectful.

[@jarkogonzo7432]

Polish lancers - in the Battle of Waterloo, the squadron of Lieutenant Paweł Jerzmanowski was the only one to fight.

[@brucewayne3602]

Thankyou !!!

[@pawhunter340]

Were Lancer counter cavalry?

[@Jake-qc3mj]

Lancer cavalry had the advantage over other forms of cavalry when it came to the strength of their charge, lances were much longer than swords, however were much more cumbersome in prolonged combat, lancers were shock cavalry and were used mostly against infantry. Lancers could beat sword cavalry in the initial charge, but would struggle in close combat, thats why most lancers would carry swords and sabers as secondary weapons so they could compete with other cavalry in close combat.

[@Mario-vr1fq]

pojadyli chłopaki po futrzanych czapach

[@peterka0774]

Actually, they are Polish - Dutch lancers. Before the battle the Polish squadron (about 200 men) was incorporated into the 2nd Dutch Lancers.

[@hartono89687]

like playing chess with real human

Yes, they used human lives like wooden pieces

[@thesnoopmeistersnoops5167]

Soooo why and when did lances fall out of fashion, only to make a comeback at this time (yes I’m sure some nations always used them anyway but everyone seemed to use them again after Napoleon era)

[@thesnoopmeistersnoops5167]

@D Anemon but why were they not used as much after medieval? Gunpowder? Pikes?Armour just got too strong? I’m guessing a mix of many things. I mean armour was still used by some cavalry well into 16th century, just not lances.

[@krzysztofkujawski2307]

Lances never fall out of fashion, they were used in every place where people were learned how to ride a horse and operate them from the very early age. Lances are great weapon against mounted enemy or infantry. The only problem is, the lance is quite difficult weapon to maneuver when You riding a horse, and boys from Polish nobility were practicing fighting with them because there was tradition to gathering once a year and every youth had to show their skills in warfare. And because You wasn't loosing Your noble status if You didn't had a land (not like in western countries), the 10% of the society were nobles - so You had a huge manpower that was practising how to kill people from horse with lance since they hit 6yo.

[@robnewman6101]

Down with the Emperor.

[@leonelstulberg7712]

Lo hicieron medio gordito a napoleon en la peli no? Jajaja

[@SweeTeasGarbageDump]

“Release the polish citizens” -Napoleon

[@PaulP580]

ułani naprzód

[@PolandDailyLive]

marsz, marsz, lance do boju!

[@Koghut]

@@PolandDailyLive lance do boju szable w dłoń Anglika goń goń goń :)

[@Lucas-q2l5e]

Who is the Officer at the side of Napoleon from 0:00?

[@rychakoo]

I think it ney or idk

[@dogedaytimedoge1854]

@@rychakooI noticed that the marshals wear the white fluffy thing around their bicornes while the generals wear black so it’s not ney

[@HKG11Prototype]

@@dogedaytimedoge1854 ney did have the black bicorne feathers im pretty sure

[@dogedaytimedoge1854]

@@HKG11Prototype no Ney does have the white feathers on his bicorne like search up a random scene or something and you can see the white feathers

[@HKG11Prototype]

@@dogedaytimedoge1854 yeah i just realised, he has the black feathers in "the escape from russia" painting though

[@mouloudadjroud716]

انت رأيت نابليونيك في واترلو لكن لم ترى نابليوتناك في جزيرة هيلينا...

[@davidschwerte3028]

👀

[@HP-dx5ln]

🇬🇧

[@marty575]

.

[@SantusFaustusI]

They fought by wrong side.

[@SantusFaustusI]

In fact France is our deadly enemy. Same like Britain.

[@RocketSpacexxs]

Can you stop useless noise?

[@1989gibbi]

Strange? Those polish Lancers look French

[@jjay3494]

Afaik french lancers had helmets. And they wore green. Polish lancers of Napoleon's grand army were similar to Dutch ones.

[@1989gibbi]

@@jjay3494 actually no. The dragoons wore green. Lancers wore light blue

[@jjay3494]

@@1989gibbi I'm glad you looked up how the french lancers looked then.

[@1989gibbi]

I didn't have to look up anything. I'm a historical reenactor. And I use the example of the French army created by Napoleon to explain to people how the US army developed and evolved in the years leading up to and during the civil war. I have this stuff well studied and plenty of books on the subject. Furthermore Lancers were considered light cavalry and you do not armor light cavalry under any circumstances. In other words no helmets. I can guarantee that anyone who truly believes that those are polish Lancers are basing their theory off of the flag. The flag is called a pennon and it does not serve identification purposes. It's only true use is spooking horses and distracting opponents. A horse that is not trained to deal with them will not like a fluttering piece of cloth coming at their heads. And when you are attempting to block a lance a colorful piece of cloth behind the blade can be very distracting. Red and white were in general use amongst Lancers. Some Nations used double-sided pennons and some Nations used solid colors. For example the native Californian cavalry used solid red

[@jjay3494]

@@1989gibbi well you can't guarantee that.. I mostly looked at the cap which is very rogatywka-like. So far you have not convinced me. Give me an example of a french lancer regiment who dressed like them. They strongly remind me of the Vistula legion regiments.

[@buggybill2003]

I hate this film as it was Jaquinots 2nd and 3rd line lancers that decimated the heavy division, not the Poles

[@АдельбертфонЭлердах]

А где видео как польские уланы брали Берлин в 1945?

[@rhererherhe9330]

Berlina nie zdobyli ale moskwe tak

[@solce809]

Thousands of Poles fought in the battle of Berlin, do you not know history?

[@marekwisniewski3962]

The Polish flag is white and red, but the opposite is true in this video.

[@balazsnagy2797]

There were no Polish teams at Waterloo!

[@witkas7849]

@@balazsnagy2797 W bitwie pod Waterloo walczył liczący 225 osób polski oddział złożony z tych żołnierzy, którzy wcześniej służyli w 1 Pułku Szwoleżerów-Lansjerów Gwardii Cesarskiej i w 3 Pułku Eklererów Gwardii Cesarskiej. Zostały one wcielone do dywizji generała Édouarda de Colberta. Polacy jako jedyni mogli zachować swoje mundury koloru granatowego z karmazynowymi wyłogami, podczas gdy inne szwadrony używały mundurów czerwonych z wyłogami granatowymi. Dowódcą polskiego szwadronu był pułkownik Paweł Jerzmanowski, który wcześniej towarzyszył Napoleonowi podczas jego zesłania na Elbie.

[@trollege9618]

@@balazsnagy2797 they were.

[@swetoniuszkorda5737]

But is true. They were red and white.

[@grahambrook5014]

There were NO Polish Lancers or indeed Polish soldiers of any kind at Waterloo...these Lancers were French.

[@2adamast]

@Emil Wrześniak There is no polish regiment at Waterloo, just a squadron. (at best 1% of the French cavalry)

[@witkas7849]

W bitwie pod Waterloo walczył liczący 225 osób polski oddział złożony z tych żołnierzy, którzy wcześniej służyli w 1 Pułku Szwoleżerów-Lansjerów Gwardii Cesarskiej i w 3 Pułku Eklererów Gwardii Cesarskiej. Zostały one wcielone do dywizji generała Édouarda de Colberta. Polacy jako jedyni mogli zachować swoje mundury koloru granatowego z karmazynowymi wyłogami, podczas gdy inne szwadrony używały mundurów czerwonych z wyłogami granatowymi. Dowódcą polskiego szwadronu był pułkownik Paweł Jerzmanowski, który wcześniej towarzyszył Napoleonowi podczas jego zesłania na Elbie.

[@swetoniuszkorda5737]

??? Bullshit, I suppose.

[@grahambrook5014]

YES...Bullshit.@@swetoniuszkorda5737

[@varia6688]

Many units were dressed equipped like Polish lancers in similar fashion. I think it is French cavalry doing the charge at Warerloo yes

[@donjorge8329]

Seit die Polen keine Flügel mehr haben, sind sie nur noch halb so cool.

[@timeb9300]

Stupid not to wear medieval armor

[@nathandei1674]

That’s outdated…