Pozostajemy przy Wyprawie na Węgry Bernarda Aldany… tym razem ukazując jak łatwo tłumacz może wpaść w pułapkę własnej niewiedzy i stworzyć określenie którego nie ma w oryginalnym tekście. Rzecz dotyczy zgrupowania wojsk na Węgrzech wiosną 1551 roku. Najpierw tekst tłumaczenia Feliksa Różańskiego:
Siły królewskie (…) dochodziły do 1200 Hiszpanów, 3000 Niemców, żołnierzy starych i dobrze uzbrojonych, 400 saperów*, 6000 węgierskiej kawaleryi bardzo dobrej, 2000 węgierskich strzelców i 14 dział.
Przy owych saperach mamy przypis tłumacza:
Oryg. hereruelos czego dobrze nie rozumiem i tłumaczę na Saperów.
I tu właśnie tłumacz zupełnie się przeliczył. Pod nazwą herreulos/hereruelos ukrywa się bowiem lekka jazda hiszpańska [patrz ilustracja powyżej], z reguły nie nosząca uzbrojenia ochronnego, wyposażona w broń białą i pistolet lub arkebuz. Skąd więc pojawili się w tłumaczeniu saperzy? Może po prostu byli pierwszą formacją która wpadła Różańskiemu do głowy, jako że piechota, kawaleria i artyleria była już w tekście wymieniona?
Translation can be hard to understand.
OdpowiedzUsuńHe obviously didn't know meaning of word and he just made up translation, completely changing formation mentioned in original :)
OdpowiedzUsuńTak się zastanawiam, czy herreruelo to aby napewno typowa lekka jazda.
OdpowiedzUsuńWydaje mi się, że określenie "lekka kawaleria" mogło być w tym czasie stosowane wymiennie jako lekka jazda, lub jako kawaleria bez uzbrojenia ochronnego.
Jeżeli by tak było, to herreruelo pasują mi raczej jako kawaleria bez pancerza ochronnego walcząca na sposób niemieckiej jazdy tj. karakol itp.
Pzdr
Pablo
Ten typ jazdy walczył przede wszystkim w szyku rozproszonym, w armii hiszpańskiej spotykamy obok nich także arkebuzerów, którzy walczyli zarówno w szyku luźnym jak i zwartym (posługując się wtedy właśnie karakolem). Biorąc pod uwagę specyfikę teatru działań i użycie słowa hereruelos oznaczało to raczej typową lekką jazdę, idealną do walki przeciw nieregularnej jeździe tureckiej czy węgierskiej.
OdpowiedzUsuńCzolem Kadrinazi,
OdpowiedzUsuńthank you once again for Aldana:)
I am too puzzled by these bloody enigmatic horsemen. Could you recommend any relevant literature on the subject in terms of their tactics and/or armament(or perhaps do another blog entry? ;) )
This Spanish blogger (basing his observations on period sources) argues that our "hereruelos" were in fact German (Schwartz)reiters! see:
http://ejercitodeflandes.blogspot.com/2008/11/uso-de-la-voz-herreruelo-y-i.html
As for facing "nieregularna jadza turecka czy węgierska" I would think that adequate harness is a good idea - especially since Ottoman-Hungarian border horse (unlike typical skirmishers) charged "lance at rest" at full gallop with those nasty hussar "kopias" :)
I'm not so sure now about hereruelos being typical Spanish light cavalry and looking like the chap above - many a reiter sported quite a complete harness.
Any more thoughts?
Cheers from Slovakia,
Samuel
P.S: hope this entry isn't too ancient
Hi Samuel
OdpowiedzUsuńNo entry is to ancient to comment and discuss, so not to worry about :)
Interesting link You posted there but I guess that author of that blog build whole thesis just on two sources and was quite quick to jumping to conclusions. Most probably under name 'hereruelos' we could find different units, recruited in different corners of Europe, same way as Polish word 'rajtar' could describe both cuirassiers and arkebusiers. I used great websited about Spanish army as my reference:
http://usuarios.multimania.es/ao1617/tercios.html
So I guess it really depends where unit was send to fight - i.e against Turks or Dutch. Check how different units were raised during Long War against Turks:
http://kadrinazi.blogspot.com/2010/08/czarni-jezdzcy-i-spoka.html
Many specialist writing about 'arkebusiers' at the end of 16th and beginning of 17th century discussed if it's better to employ them just as light cavalry just for skirmishing (so no armour, except helmet, would be needed) or rather as line cavalry (so with armour) that can both skirmsh and fight in ranks. In such view even Croat and Polish light horse emloyed in Catholic armies were 'arkebusiers' even though they were in fact 'pure' light cavalry. So our enigmatic unit mentioned by Aldana could be either just light cavalry (without armour) to fight against skirmishing Turks or armoured arkebusiers similiar to those employed later on during Long War. Sadly Spanish army is not my field of study, so I cannot be much of the help here.
Thanks Michal for your insight and the links.
OdpowiedzUsuńThe various names for cavalry units and their classification is indeed fuzzy in this period. It is my understanding that the "proper" division between line and light/skirmishing horsemen didnt really came until 18/19th century. Obviously some horsemen were (due to the nature of their equipment and horses) more suitable for specific tasks than others but the borderline has always been a blurry one.
As for hereruelos the gentleman from the "Tercios de Flandes" (i have scanned the blog a bit more) has 2 more entries on the subject and presents further primary sources linking this unit to German cavalry. He argues that that it wasn't a native "spanish horse" but something that became "domesticated" much later in the XVI c. and came under the name of Corazons ( i.e. cuirassers). In fact a number of Spanish military writers scorned the unit (mendoza? cant remember precisely). By contrast the blog on tercios you refer to seems to put mounted arquebusiers and hereruelos into the same category...
It may still be possible that the hereruelos from Aldana's adventure were armoured pistoliers of Germanic stock. If we consider the fact that a number of allied troops were German and some of the cavalry Aldana had at hand were heavies ("hombres de armas") it may not come as such a surprise.
Cheers and best wishes,
Samuel
P.S: Nice article on the Long War btw - there has indeed been quite a considerable number of western horse serving in the theatre..
I happen to have an article by J.Kelenik "Military Revolution in Hungary" that (among other things) outlines the various branches of "western cavalrymen" serving in the Hungarian wars - I can forward it to you via emial is you desire
I'm wondering if Aldana really needed any heavy cavalry there. Both enemy and theatre of operations would rather favour light cavalry, without armour but will pistols and/or arkebuses.
OdpowiedzUsuńOf course I would be more than happy if You could be kind enough to send me article :)
Done :)
OdpowiedzUsuńOf course some sort of light cavalry would be essential in the "Turkish theatre".
But here is another thought:
Pre-Mohacs Hungarians always raised a number of armoured knights in the southern counties (in addition to hussars) for the defence against Turks. A number of heavy cavalry was present at the battle of breadfield (1479) - that was basically a hungarian interruption of a great turkish raid conducted by big border beys. One ottoman chronicler likened the knights to a "scoundrel of fiery character" and "complained" about the resistance of their armour.
One could argue that even if "heavy cavalry" wasn’t an essential component they would still come handy in a pitch and be a valuable asset.
Cheers,
Samuel
Of course heavy cavalry would be in hand and, as we can see from Long War, cuirassiers were employed by Imperial Army. Problem is that during operations of Aldana seems that he was rather in need of reliable light cavalry for smirmishing, foraging, etc as he couldn't always rely on his Hungarian allies. Of course that just theory, that's all :)
OdpowiedzUsuń