Steven Broomfield Posted 4 October , 2012 Share Posted 4 October , 2012 Not strictly Greeat War, but it can happily contain GW chat about Hussar Regiments, the Forum of the Hussars is getting started (slowly), so I thought a bit of publicity might be helpful. http://forum.hussars.org/index.php If you're interested, log in and join in - pass the word all you Light Cavalry-holics. (Mods, feel free to shift this if you feel it should be elsewhere). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 4 October , 2012 Share Posted 4 October , 2012 Steven, Will join up when I get a minute - rushing up to Yorkshire to see the father-in-law who is not well. Nice idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Trim Posted 6 October , 2012 Share Posted 6 October , 2012 One thing that has always bothered me is how do you pronounce Hussar. Is it Huss ar as I suspect most fellow Scots would say it or is it Hoo sar or even You sar as I have heard. Tricky one to answer with the written word! Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 6 October , 2012 Share Posted 6 October , 2012 H'zar, I think - stress on second syllable. But it comes from usz, the Hungarian word for 20, so there probably isn't a definitive English pronunciation. The original hussars were raised on the basis of a levy of one man in 20. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 6 October , 2012 Author Share Posted 6 October , 2012 I would concur with Mr C - stress on the second syllable and an un-pronounced U. Personally, I normally drop the H, too, and go for a sort of glottal stop followed by Zar. Bizarre, possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithjk Posted 6 October , 2012 Share Posted 6 October , 2012 Steve, I have an interesting newspaper snippet from 1916 relating to the 17th Hussars in the Crimean War. I tried to message you, but your box appears to be full. If you message me with your email address, I'll scan the item and mail it to you Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 6 October , 2012 Share Posted 6 October , 2012 ... relating to the 17th Hussars in the Crimean War. Check it first, Keith - there has never been a 17th Hussars in the British Army! 17th Lancers, yes. 11th, 13th (and other) Hussars yes, and all three were in the Crimea. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithjk Posted 6 October , 2012 Share Posted 6 October , 2012 Already checked, and corrected. Thanks Ron Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 6 October , 2012 Author Share Posted 6 October , 2012 Oh, go on then: Hussars: 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th, 20th. (After 1922, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13/18, 14/20, 15/19; followed by Queen's Own Hussars (were 3rd and 7th), Queen's Royal Irish Hussars (ex 4 and 8) and Royal Hussars (10 & 11) Now: Queen's Royal Hussars (formerly 3, 4, 7 & 8), King's Royal Hussars (formerly 10, 11, 14 & 20) and The Light Dragoons (13, 15, 18 & 19) Lancers: 5th, 9th, 12th, 16th, 17th, 21st (1922: 9th, 12th, 16th/5th and 17th/21st) Now 9th/12th and Queen's Royal Lancers (ex-5th, 16th, 17th and 21st). Remember, though, that all Hussar and Lancer regiments had been Light Dragoons. The first to become Hussars (the 10th) did so in about 1809 and the last not until 1861. The Lancers came in after the Napoleonic Wars and the last to convert (the 21st) did not do so until the 1860's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithjk Posted 6 October , 2012 Share Posted 6 October , 2012 Sorry Steve, could you run that past me again lol Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 6 October , 2012 Author Share Posted 6 October , 2012 Stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H.Douglas Posted 7 October , 2012 Share Posted 7 October , 2012 Well this sounded most interesting...but didn't register as I was unsure in anwsering the question....'With whom did you serve?:' So..is this forum just for ex/service personnel or do I put in the 19th (grandads regiment)?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithjk Posted 7 October , 2012 Share Posted 7 October , 2012 Anyone with an interest in WW! is welcome Nellie, even civvies ! Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 7 October , 2012 Author Share Posted 7 October , 2012 I put my old mob - London Scotish. Not an 'orse in sight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H.Douglas Posted 7 October , 2012 Share Posted 7 October , 2012 Glad its not a closed shop so....I just put 19th Hussars ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithjk Posted 7 October , 2012 Share Posted 7 October , 2012 My wife is a civvy Nellie - and I love her to bits Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 7 October , 2012 Share Posted 7 October , 2012 Pardon me for putting this query in but it seemed a good way to catch Light Dragoonists. Alan Mallinson (ex Cavalry Brigadier), in his novel On His Majesty`s Service, suggests that, in the mid 19th century, Light Dragoons regiments were accustomed to appointing adjutants from promoted Sergeant Majors. This apparently produced an adjutant with great experience of the nuts and bolts of running a regiment. I have always assumed that the adjutant post of later years (particularly WW1) was usually occupied by a young, promising career officer of about captain rank but not by a ranker officer. Was the appointment of rankers a cavalry thing, a mid Victorian thing or neither? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 7 October , 2012 Share Posted 7 October , 2012 It's possible that this practice related specifically to the four regiments (18th to 21st) re-formed in about 1860, mainly through the absorption of the HEICo's European cavalry regiments into the British Army. An experienced and "savvy" senior NCO/WO might be better able to help run such a unit, in a transitional period, than a bright and able young officer but with less practical experience, especially of service in India. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaforth78 Posted 28 October , 2012 Share Posted 28 October , 2012 In the most recent round of amalgamations I see that two hussar regiments have returned to their origins: 13th/18th Royal Hussars (Queen Mary's Own) and the 15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars Like as if the present day British Army needed another Dragoon Regiment! Sad really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggers Posted 29 October , 2012 Share Posted 29 October , 2012 Can the influence of this Forum's or the Hussars' forum members do anything about the alleged 'Bombardier' character in the adverts who ends his beery leery message with a final 'H'sar' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 29 October , 2012 Share Posted 29 October , 2012 Remember, though, that all Hussar and Lancer regiments had been Light Dragoons. The first to become Hussars (the 10th) did so in about 1809 and the last not until 1861. The Lancers came in after the Napoleonic Wars and the last to convert (the 21st) did not do so until the 1860's. During the course of my research into the 21st Lancers I came across the following: "In 1897 the 21st Lancers were the most recently formed of all the cavalry units and were descended from the 21st Dragoons, which unit had been disbanded twice, then raised as Hussars and, in 1897, converted into Lancers." It would seem thus that the 21st Lancers was infact a brand new unit in 1897(if only in name) and also that they had existed, albeit for only a short period, as the 21st Hussars? Another Hussar regiment to add to your list? Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 29 October , 2012 Author Share Posted 29 October , 2012 They did indeed. They were one of the three regiments (the others being the 19th and 20th Hussars) transferred from the old European regiments when the Crown took over the Comapny's armies (in 1862). At the end of the 19th century, regiments were twinned for various purposes, and there was an odd number of Hussar (3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st) and an odd number of Lancer regiments (5th, 9th, 12th, 16th and 17th), so it made sense to convert one to Lancers to make pairing easier, and the 21st were that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 29 October , 2012 Author Share Posted 29 October , 2012 In the most recent round of amalgamations I see that two hussar regiments have returned to their origins: 13th/18th Royal Hussars (Queen Mary's Own) and the 15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars Like as if the present day British Army needed another Dragoon Regiment! Sad really. Trouble is that with a Queen's Royal Hussars and a King's Royal Hussars, options for a name were a bit limited. I believe some eyebrows were raised in the army at the time, but they're Hussars in all but name really, and to go back to the title by which the regiments were known until quite late in the day (the13th were still Light Dragoons at Balaklava, for example) made sense. Good regiment, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 29 October , 2012 Share Posted 29 October , 2012 They did indeed. They were one of the three regiments (the others being the 19th and 20th Hussars) transferred from the old European regiments when the Crown took over the Comapny's armies (in 1862). At the end of the 19th century, regiments were twinned for various purposes, and there was an odd number of Hussar (3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st) and an odd number of Lancer regiments (5th, 9th, 12th, 16th and 17th), so it made sense to convert one to Lancers to make pairing easier, and the 21st were that one. Devilishly clever thinking eh? I thought that there must have been some underlying reason for the change. Many thanks for clearing this up for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now