Transylvanian Haiduks for Thirty Years' War

[thestoats]

So I'm looking to wargame the campaigns under Bethlen Gábor in the 1620s, but I'm having trouble representing the haiduks that made up a significant portion of the Transylvanian army. I am looking into using the By Fire and Sword miniature range for this project, which I've heard scales well with Khurasan's TYW range and has sets that are pretty accurate even though it's meant to represent the Army of Transylvania three decades later. In the BFaS range, the Haiduks are mounted/dragoon-style handgunners.

Now, I don't doubt these are perfect for the Deluge but from what I've read in Ardelean's work on the Army of Transylvania, in the 1620s the Haiduks appear to be closer to traditional Hungarian-style cavalry. He does mention they used firearms alongside lances, but also cites Bethlen's 1620 regulations that set the standard haiduk equipment as a good horse, helmet, breastplate, hussar saddle, and either estoc or broadsword.

I understand that these regulations were ideal and probably not enforced strictly, but I'm curious how the Transylvanian Haiduks generally fought in Bethlen's campaigns. Did they fight like the dragoons/mounted arquebusiers represented in BFaS? If they didn't and were instead more melee focused, were they mostly armoured or unarmoured? Did they use lances or swords?

I guess the two main questions I'm asking are:
1) Were haiduks mostly impact cavalry or dragoon-style shooters?
2) If haiduks were impact cavalry, did they use lances or swords more often? To what degree were they armoured?

[Kadrinazi]

I must said that this description in Florin' book of haiduks as typical cavalry was very surprising and completely new for me. I found it odd that guys that in 16th century were infantry, then for fairly short period of time would be well-equipped cavalry and then within next 20 years again change into infantry/dragoon-style formation. For example of reconstruction of haiduks shown in Győző Somogyi's 'The Army of Transylvania 1559-1690' clearly shows them as shot infantry (except officer, but that's quite obvious why). Fact that in 1620 Bratislava was defended by 6000 haiduks and 1000 guard infantry could also indicate, that they could be employed in infantry role. If you decide to use haiduks as cavalry, I would probably suggest rather light cavalry-type, some sort of border riders eager to fight as skirmishers or dismount when needed but not really shock cavalry.

[thestoats]

Thanks Mr. Paradowski, I actually thought it was odd too and had seen Somogyi's reconstructions but considered maybe it was a transformative effort by Bethlen that may or may not have been successful. Luckily Ardelean has cited his sources for the order, and even more luckily I could find the first of the two sources (Monumenta Comitialia Regni Transylvaniae vol. VII) on Wayback Machine! After reading and translating that source, the order seems to be one that stipulates the equipment for both infantry and cavalry and doesn't seem to make reference to the haiduk component of the forces anywhere in the article. I believe the erroneous connection may have been made by János B. Szabó, whose article "The Army of the Principality of Transylvania in the Period of the Thirty Years War" was cited as the other source for the order. Thanks for steering me onto the right path!

[Kadrinazi]

Great find! That's why I love detailed footnotes in books, they are so useful when someone want to have their own dig into sources. That's why, even so many readers do not like them, I have plenty in my own books

[thestoats]

Agreed, I much prefer Helion over Osprey for this exact reason!

[Kadrinazi]

I guess it is always individual author's preference how many and what type of information want to add to footnotes but happy to confirm in Helion they never have problem when there are plenty of those