myArmoury.com - Horseman against footman discussion

• Info • Register • Log in
• Forum Index • Memberlist • Usergroups • Search • Spotlight Topics • Watched Topics

Forum Index » Off-topic Talk » Horseman against footman discussion

Posts: 3,641 Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia

Thu 11 Oct, 2012 2:15 pm

Gary Teuscher wrote:

I don't have any personal experience training horses either. But throughout history, the best way to make a European horse "better" for war was to introduce hot blood stock, usually arabic or a strain of arabic.

I think you have been reading too much Ann Hyland. Pretty much everything she writes has the subtext "Arabian horses wonderful compared to those nasty European ones." For more balanced research get a hold of Andrew Ayton or Phil Sidnell. They also have a much better grasp of medieval warfare in general.

Profile PM

Lafayette C Curtis

Posts: 2,698 Location: Indonesia

Thu 11 Oct, 2012 8:47 pm

Jaroslav Kravcak wrote:

Regarding example of draft horse, does it nessesarily have to be BRED for agility? What about it being TRAINED for agility, even if its a draft horse? I dont know much about training horses, less so about training horses for war, but is there really any provable fact supporting, that draft horse couldnt make as good or better warhorse for gendarme, than maybe one of medium size with more ideal body proportions? (Of course supposing there was enough time to train him properly)

As with humans, a genetic predisposition towards agility does help, and this factor tends to be rather more pronounced in horses since most societies find it more ethically acceptable to practice eugenics (for particular purposes) upon them than upon humans. Besides, full-blooded draft horses are just a little bit too even-tempered to tally with medieval accounts of warhorses being high-strung and rather aggressive, and on the other hand it's possible to achieve reasonably large size (15-16 hands, which matches the largest horse armour we have) with the kind of horses that would have been equivalent to later "heavy warmbloods" or hunter breeds--incidentally the kind of breeds favoured by later cuirassiers and other heavy cavalry. A great deal less hot blood than the smaller, more spirited "breeds" of lighter cavalry but more than enough to give them a lively predisposition.

To go back to your comparison with people, I wouldn't put it as a contest between a bodybuilder and a smaller man. A bodybuilder trains for muscle hypertrophy rather than for extremely high strength of stamina, so if we were to pit a bodybuilder (with little or no martial training) against a lighter UFC or MMA fighter I daresay the latter would move faster and punch harder. A better comparison would be between two MMA champions of different weight categories; both fast, both agile, and both hard-hitting, but in the absence of weapons the taller and heavier man usually has the advantage in power and reach. Now add weapons and the contest becomes much more equal. That's why we nasty humans invented weapons in the first place, right? And remember that in a cavalry fight on the battlefield, weapons mattered. The cuirassier's horse might have the genetic potential to be a strong and agile fighting horse but if it wasn't trained to live up to that full potential then it's easy to imagine why the hussar's horse--chosen and trained for agility--could dance around its flanks and give the hussar easy shots at the cuirassier's back (and his horse's hindquarters).

Quote:

But what about cataphracts? Were they really just clumsy monsters that would need to take breath after they charged for a little, being so hugely tired as not being able to chase routed enemy, like at Magnesia? Or being outclassed by clubwielding palestinians in situation, where they almost won? Im not that much into ancient warfare, but my view is, everyone exaggerates numbers and importance of unimportant occurences in history, the problem with these sources several thousand year old, in comare to late middle ages, rennaisance and further is, that besides written beletry any actual verification of numbers of men involved and casualties is much harder, most research relying on guesswork and written accounts in chronicles in this matter.
Could it be, that they were also as multipurpouse warriors as later gendarmes, though maybe less glorified and more condemned? I mostly see history written from roman perspective, while I dont know much about how partians themselves viewed these forces of their own, regarding their actual effectiveness.

There's a big problem here: the existence of cataphracts spanned a very long period of time between the Seleucid/Parthian era at least (say, 3rd century BC) to the last of the Byzantine cataphracts (which ceased to be a distinct force around AD 1000--later "cataphracts" are much more likely to have been "Frankish"-style Latinikoi). This is a period longer than that of medieval men-at-arms, with several significant gaps in between, so inevitably it will cover a variety of different troop types without the medieval chivalry's sense of cultural unity. It doesn't help that one of the most frequently-quoted sources about them (Heliodoros) is a freaking novel.

Quote:

My shot was it is from du Picq in his paragraph about skirmishers, but there is no such a thing, so maybe Im just making things up, or I misinterpreted his other remarks.

Can't find anything like it. The closest thing I found was the admonition that skirmishers and line infantry alike needed more practice in forming squares against cavalry.

Quote:

But he once again is someone greatly degrading cavalryman in single combat.

(snip)

He was military officer IIRC, but did he ever saw actual cavalrymen in action? Or are these just theorethical assumptions. There are many 19th century publications regarding military of the past available for free on the internet, but I dont like these too much, as they many times cite quotes, that are nowhere to find, most propably to make their point, many times exaggerating it too much, or plainly confabulating.

I'm afraid you've been cherry-picking the quotes. Du Picq makes it quite clear that he still saw cavalry as a highly useful (albeit--in his opinion--overrated) arm and many of his recommendations were taken seriously by the French army later on. If he had a pro-infantry bias, so what? This pride in his arm is so obvious that it's pretty easy to account for. It's also worth noting that Ardant du Picq died young, like his pro-cavalry counterpart Louis Nolan. If either man had survived I suspect he would have gone on to write rather more mature works with even better-developed ideas about the balance between the combined arms.

Profile PM

Posts: 704

Fri 12 Oct, 2012 9:59 am

Quote:

I think you have been reading too much Ann Hyland. Pretty much everything she writes has the subtext "Arabian horses wonderful compared to those nasty European ones." For more balanced research get a hold of Andrew Ayton or Phil Sidnell. They also have a much better grasp of medieval warfare in general

Sounds like they would be an interesting read. But I actually have not read Hyland - And of what I have read, some is based on the evolution of the warhorse, other information was merely regarding horse breeds, breeding and the history of horse breeding in general.

I'm not saying the Arab was only what was bred into European horses (I say this a bit tongue in cheek as the breed we now know as the arab was not truly a breed a thousand years ago - though were likely man similarities). There were other breeds as well, such as the Barb and the Akhal Teke to name a few.

Intrerestingly enough, ponies were often bred with European horses as well to amke warhorses. Ponies, such as the Fell Pony are rather fast, have very good carrying capacity for their size, many traits similar to hot bloods. And ponies are not small horses - there are miniature horses that are not ponies - ponies generally have shorter legs than a horse among other differences.

ETA: I would think selective breeding plays a role as well. I read the first few pages of one of the authors you recommended, Dan, he believes (and cites what he believes to be evidence of such) of selective horse breeding going back as far as 5000 years.

One of the reasons Spain was well renowned for it horses was it had one of the few horse breeding facilties that stems back to Roman times, I believe it was the only Western European Roman horse breeding facility to survive the fall of Rome. One area where the Near East and Steppe Horse people had the advantage IMO was a much longer history of selective breeding, the West not really beginning selective breeding again until the 9th or 10th centuries at least.

Which also makes an interesting question - were early crusader horses larger than their muslim opponents? I'd think perhaps not, if so not by much, and just as possible that the Eastern Horses were larger.

IIRC Norman horses were estimated to be in the 13-14 hands range in height in the 11th century.

The Akhal Teke, which has remained pretty pure from it's time as a warhorse favored by the Turkish people stands 14-15 hands. The current arab is 13-14 hands. Was the Arab of the 12th century bred larger as a warhorse, the current arab being bred more as a riding horse? It's tough to say.

The Norman horses may have been a bit stouter, though there carrying capacity would be the same or less.

Profile PM

Posts: 390

Sat 13 Oct, 2012 3:46 am

I have little idea how this relates to horse vs. foot.
We seem to have worked out that agility and spirit were the prime considerations for a horse to become a warhorse that involved extensive training. If these characteristics are combined with more muscles it will have an advantage as long as these muscles can be adequately fed - with lots of grain.
Whether or not there was much of a difference between Medieval war horses could depend on multiple breeding choices, like some breeders going for agility, others for spirit and others for muscular supremacy. Crossbreeding in this context is more about inserting a different balance into a locally available pool that would take much longer to breed from indigenous sources.Suitable fertile stallions are a very valuable item and you'd expect the Saracens to crossbreed their mount with suitable European imports as well. So the degree of satisfaction with the locally available breeds, like in Spain does not reflect some kind of supremacy, but satisfaction with animal characteristics and demand for specific use requirements, while in other places change took place because the new way was considered beneficial. Remnants of Roman breeding might have played a role in maintaining a well-bred balance, but this might be overstated because over the centuries it needed a different demand than preserving some Roman Empire tradition. The issue was that there were Early Medieval preservations of Roman structures within a changing context adapted to new needs. Especially the Muslims, who occupied Spain for a long time, were major preservers of many Roman things and had early on heavy cavalry there that needed mounts. They also did their fair share of major destruction of Roman legacy (2nd Carthage, 2nd Library of Alexandria).

Profile PM

Posts: 704

Mon 15 Oct, 2012 10:09 am

Quote:

We seem to have worked out that agility and spirit were the prime considerations for a horse to become a warhorse that involved extensive training. If these characteristics are combined with more muscles it will have an advantage as long as these muscles can be adequately fed - with lots of grain.

I think a few things that are important to realize - There was not the availability of draft horses that weighed in the 2000+ pound range. These are very modern breeds, bred for the draft with selective breeding over hundreds of years.

The average sized horse of the Hastings era Normans - it's estimated to be about 14 hands, which is taller than the average horse during Roman times, the Roman horses of late Roman England were estimated to be more in the 13 hands range.

The Horse itself has increased in size from antiquity through selective breeding. And one thing that I think is often overlooked - the warhorse may not have only been bred for agility, but could also have been one of the larger horses of that particular time. I've seen nothing in the fossil records that points to large draft breeds. A 14.5 hand 1200 pound horse may well have on the high end of the charts for size during Norman times - whether it be draft or a warhorse.

Secondly, grass and hay made up more of the diet of a horse than grain. The activity level of a warhorse would make it fat if it was fed predominantly grain. Actually, a draft horse that was worked extensively during the planting and harvest seasons would require more grain than a warhorse.

Quote:

Suitable fertile stallions are a very valuable item and you'd expect the Saracens to crossbreed their mount with suitable European imports as well.

Not saying that seeking european mounts for crossbreeding never occurred, but Cataphract mounts, horses capable of carrying a heavily armoured rider and metallic armour for the horse had been around for centuries in the near East and among some of the steppe peoples, particularly those in the area of the Balkans. It would seem they would have enough strength and size for mounts already.

My thought is for Near East and steppe peoples, the selective breeding issue would be more important than for the need of European mounts. I think a horse similar to an Akhal Teke or Arab, or even a combination of the two that has been selectively bred for hundreds of years will fill the needs better than crossbreeding these with a European horse, that did not have a history of being selectively bred for hundreds of years, that was likely no taller, if anything their only positive contribution was that they were a bit thicker.

Quote:

Remnants of Roman breeding might have played a role in maintaining a well-bred balance, but this might be overstated because over the centuries it needed a different demand than preserving some Roman Empire tradition.

Late Roman armies had the need for heavy cavalry mounts as well, just as later Western Europeans did. Roman also had fully armoured men on fully armoured horses, something the Europeans would not see again until the late Middle Ages.

Quote:

Especially the Muslims, who occupied Spain for a long time, were major preservers of many Roman things and had early on heavy cavalry there that needed mounts. They also did their fair share of major destruction of Roman legacy (2nd Carthage, 2nd Library of Alexandria).

They indeed did destroy many things Roman. But they apparently understood the need of good mounts, and left the breeding farms intact.

I think what is important to note is that the lipizzaner which is very similar to the now non-existent baroque horses, which are believed to be the descendants of the famous middle ages Destrier are about 14-15 hands in height, and weigh roughly 1150 pounds. These measurements fall in line with found horse armour from the late middle ages.

Quote:

I have little idea how this relates to horse vs. foot.

It was in a response to earlier comments on this thread, something to the effect of why did not cavalry just use really heavy draft types to give them more of an advantage (I'm guessing they were thinking of the advantage of mass). THis does not work for a few reasons.

1) There were no huge draft types
2) Those horse that did draft work were likely no bigger than the larger warhorses - selective breeding for draft work had not yet evolved large draft types
3) Even if there were large draft types, they would be unsuitable as cavalry mounts.

ETA - You also seem to be overlooking the effects of selective breeding. Were it not for selective breeding, the horses of today and the middle ages would most likely be similar to Przewalski's horse, a 13 hand high and 660 or so pound animal.

Profile PM

Posts: 390

Wed 17 Oct, 2012 2:24 am

Gary Teuscher wrote:

Secondly, grass and hay made up more of the diet of a horse than grain. The activity level of a warhorse would make it fat if it was fed predominantly grain. Actually, a draft horse that was worked extensively during the planting and harvest seasons would require more grain than a warhorse.

Bodybuilding? I assume the warhorse to be well-trained and muscular for power and endurance. Kikulli in the 14th century BCE already provides ample material on that. http://imh.org/history-of-the-horse/legacy-of...-1345.html
For draft animals it's beneficial to go more into a pony configuration in order to increase the agricultural output efficiency. There might be not much sense in comparing the breeding of "tractors and helicopters", but both needed fuel. The draft animals lots of grain in regular patterns, the war animals a constant supply over the year and irregular demand peaks.

Quote:

Not saying that seeking european mounts for crossbreeding never occurred.

You miss a few issues. Current breeding of Arabian horses is concerned with purity of a stock defined as excellent. Medieval breeding of horses was for a specific use. If even your well-armoured cavalry gets bested time and again you do introduce as many enemy tricks as possible in order to improve. That doesn't stop with armour, but includes importing some of their stallions in order to create similar spirited offspring as the Arabian horse is not renown for aggression. Reading contemporary sources of the crusades they had a very open attitude towards European items and a level of personal interaction despite the hostilities that is hard to grasp in today's world.

Quote:

Late Roman armies had the need for heavy cavalry mounts as well, just as later Western Europeans did. Roman also had fully armoured men on fully armoured horses, something the Europeans would not see again until the late Middle Ages.

But the [Muslims] apparently understood the need of good mounts, and left the breeding farms intact.

I think what is important to note is that the lipizzaner which is very similar to the now non-existent baroque horses, which are believed to be the descendants of the famous middle ages Destrier are about 14-15 hands in height, and weigh roughly 1150 pounds. These measurements fall in line with found horse armour from the late middle ages.

From the fall of the Roman Empire until the Muslim conquest elapse a few centuries without specific significant demand of heavy cavalry according to Late Roman or Early Muslim standards in Spain and southern France. War horse in this context was a horse used by a different type of warrior who transformed the Roman "Military-industrial-Complex" remnants to satisfy their requirements. Out of this transformed breeding choices of the Early Middle Ages rises the later heavy cavalry mount. Roman remnants did play a role, but it's not helpful to repeat often stated myth that for some unknown time-freeze these horsebreeds survived several hundred years without the heavy cavalry demand they are claimed to have been tailored for. It will also help to check how much of Roman cavalry was actually heavy or light and how dominant the medium type was that did continue through the ages.

Quote:

It was in a response to earlier comments on this thread, something to the effect of why did not cavalry just use really heavy draft types to give them more of an advantage (I'm guessing they were thinking of the advantage of mass). THis does not work for a few reasons.

1) There were no huge draft types
2) Those horse that did draft work were likely no bigger than the larger warhorses - selective breeding for draft work had not yet evolved large draft types
3) Even if there were large draft types, they would be unsuitable as cavalry mounts.

ETA - You also seem to be overlooking the effects of selective breeding. Were it not for selective breeding, the horses of today and the middle ages would most likely be similar to Przewalski's horse, a 13 hand high and 660 or so pound animal.

Modern draft animals are a high performance breed that was accelerated in development due to increasing numbers of animals. The problem of a draft animal has other more cost effective solutions. You seem to miss the point that there's a difference between more and less muscular war horses. I have no idea why you are mentally fixed on equating muscles with draft horses. The differing hand measurements between war horses are not so much related to weight increase, as total rider and equipment weight had less fluctuation, but to leg length increase with corresponding different movement and biomechanic characteristics. Shorter legs were more of an advantage for civilian use as a work animal and long legs have been favoured for the cavalry, especially heavy cavalry.

Profile PM

Posts: 704

Wed 17 Oct, 2012 8:21 am

Quote:

Bodybuilding? I assume the warhorse to be well-trained and muscular for power and endurance. Kikulli in the 14th century BCE already provides ample material on that. http://imh.org/history-of-the-horse/legacy-of...-1345.html

Very interesting link. Although what it does is reinforce what I have already said. The horse in 48 days of training received a few handfuls of grain one day, a pail of grain another day, and an unspecified mixture for 11 days of grain and grass.

This indicates a relatively low percentage of sustenance coming from grain, the majority grass and some hay. The later regimen for an already conditioned horse indicates no more grain than for one first conditioning, actually it indicates less.

So my statement earlier that grass and hay make of more of the diet for a warhorse than grain is confirmed by this link.

But I must say it is interesting, I have never seen as detailed of a diet for a warhorse.

Quote:

For draft animals it's beneficial to go more into a pony configuration in order to increase the agricultural output efficiency. There might be not much sense in comparing the breeding of "tractors and helicopters", but both needed fuel. The draft animals lots of grain in regular patterns, the war animals a constant supply over the year and irregular demand peaks.

Biggest reason a draft animal needs grain and hay - Horses are grazers, it is how they existed naturally and how they process food. To subsist on grass even in good quality pasture, horses may graze 17+ hours per day, a minimum of 11-15 hours even in good pasture. When you both add to their work load so that they require more calories, and reduce time allowed for grazing, the only recourse is to feed them a more concentrated ration, i.e. grain.

Quote:

You miss a few issues. Current breeding of Arabian horses is concerned with purity of a stock defined as excellent. Medieval breeding of horses was for a specific use.

I fully agree. The Arabian horse of today was not even truly a "breed" as it is now back in the middle ages, though it is likely very similar to horses of the Middle East based on Archaeological evidence.

Quote:

That doesn't stop with armour, but includes importing some of their stallions in order to create similar spirited offspring as the Arabian horse is not renown for aggression.

I think what you are looking at is training, not a specific of the breed in regards to aggression. arabian horses can be difficult because they seem to be rather strong willed or "spirited" compared to other breeds, but are considered intelligent for horses as well. Apparently the Hot Blooded types were more "spirited" than their cold blooded cousins - which would make Western European horses of the earlier middle ages less spirited.

I' m not 100% sure how true all this is - but for centuries, the Andalusian horse of Spain was prized by Western Europeans as a Warhorse (William the Conqueror's favorite warhorse was an Andalusian). Knowing the Western Europeans penchant for melee combat, it would have to be spirited or aggressive as well - it was not prized as a warhorse merely because of good speed and agility. And the Andalusian is a warm blood - with Barb and Arab blood flowing in it's veins along with native blood.

My guess is that as Western European Horse Breeding became capable of putting out better warhorses (much of this due to imported hot bloods mixing with native or local blood), a well bred German or French Horse became similar in quality to an Andalusian.

Quote:

Roman remnants did play a role, but it's not helpful to repeat often stated myth that for some unknown time-freeze these horsebreeds survived several hundred years without the heavy cavalry demand they are claimed to have been tailored for. It will also help to check how much of Roman cavalry was actually heavy or light and how dominant the medium type was that did continue through the ages.

As opposed to using wargame terminology, I suggest we look at the needs of the cavalryman and what type of mount he would need. Roman Cavalry such as the Alae needed a horse to carry a man in mail armour. Sounds similar to later "knightly" needs. The knights for the most part had more complete mail, but this is not much of a difference in weight.
The clibanarii needed a horse to carry a completely armoured man, and armour for the horse, more than what most middle ages mounts carried. And these heavy types were a good 40% of the composition, and were shock melee units as were knights.

Visigoths and Muslims, as well as Spanish Christians had their heavy cavalry as well. Maybe not the preponderance of their cavalry was armoured, but this had more to do with the cost of metal armour than any lack of ability of horse to carry the weight.

And again, these "medium cavalry" as you seem to suggest they were were the favored mounts of western European nobility who could afford them. If they were a "medium type" horse compared to other available "heavy horse", this would doubtfully be the case.

Quote:

You seem to miss the point that there's a difference between more and less muscular war horses. I have no idea why you are mentally fixed on equating muscles with draft horses.

I am merely looking at the mass of the various horse types, at least ideal mass.

If you are really looking for what the European warhorse was, I suggest looking at the Lipizzaner. These horses are in the 14-15 hand height range, and about 1150 pounds. Slightly Heavier than an arab and a hair taller, a muscular athletic horse that is also a "performance horse", though not a dead out sprinter like a quarterhorse. These are of course not from an continuous blood line from the destrier, but are thought by many to be the most similar to a middle ages warhorse. Their size is similar to late middle ages horse armour as well.

The Andalusian is similar, a little taller but no heavier. Though these seem to be a hand taller on average than found horse armour from the middle ages. Perhaps selective breeding has made the current breed taller than horse of it's bloodline from the middle ages.

Profile PM

Posts: 390

Wed 17 Oct, 2012 2:01 pm

Thanks for clarifying these points. Roman cavalry composition is another issue to discuss, but they did have a large component of armoured men on unarmoured horses who fought with javelins, not unlike later Spanish jinetes with their use of metal bodyarmour seemingly not repeated in all sources. Be that as it may, the heavy European cavalry did include large numbers of non-knightly combatants and a wide margin of differing weights to carry. Each bell-shaped population characteristics of a warhorse breeds thus has mounts for quite a variety of weight classes.
I see you too fixed on the Roman horse tradition, Scandinavia was another country renown as an exporter of war horses in the Middle Ages (Finnhorse, North Swedish horse and Fjord horse are all hardy universal horse types = riding and light draft animals with pony variants). These horses are usually not ranked outstanding in modern reports as the most important characteristics from these regional breeds were being hardy and non-specialized. Being hardy provided the endurance of capabilities during a campaign under suboptimal supply conditions. Non-specialization allowed for non-separated civilian and military horse breeding complexes at lowered production costs for military mounts and higher resupply capability numbers. They are rather "jeeps than helicopters" so to say.

Profile PM

Jaroslav Kravcak

Posts: 123 Location: Slovakia

Wed 17 Oct, 2012 2:22 pm

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:

I'm afraid you've been cherry-picking the quotes. Du Picq makes it quite clear that he still saw cavalry as a highly useful (albeit--in his opinion--overrated) arm and many of his recommendations were taken seriously by the French army later on. If he had a pro-infantry bias, so what? This pride in his arm is so obvious that it's pretty easy to account for. It's also worth noting that Ardant du Picq died young, like his pro-cavalry counterpart Louis Nolan. If either man had survived I suspect he would have gone on to write rather more mature works with even better-developed ideas about the balance between the combined arms.

Sure he does regards usefullness of cavalry, yet I dont think he could express himself more clearly about his opinion on actual physical fighting capabilies of a horseman. He states it several times, once again in his paragraph on ancient warfare (Some rather regard formation to formation fight, admittedly):

In a fight against the Hernici, he cites the Roman horsemen, who had not been able to do anything on horseback to break up the enemy, asking the consul for permission to dismount and fight on foot. This is true not only of Roman cavalrymen, for later on we shall see the best riders, the Gauls, the Germans, the Parthanians even, dismounting in order really to fight.

There never was an encounter between cavalry and infantry. The cavalry harassed with its arrows, with the lance perhaps, while passing rapidly, but it never attacked.

Close conflict on horseback did not exist. And to be sure, if the horse by adding so much to the mobility of man gave him the means of menacing and charging with swiftness, it permitted him to escape with like rapidity when his menace did not shake the enemy. Man by using the horse, pursuant to his natural inclination and sane reasoning, could do as much damage as possible while risking the least possible. To riders without stirrups or saddle, for whom the throwing of the javelin was a difficult matter (Xenophon), combat was but a succession of reciprocal harassings, demonstrations, menaces, skirmishes with arrows. Each cavalry sought an opportunity to surprise, to intimidate, to avail itself of disorder, and to pursue either the cavalry or the infantry. Then "vae victis;" the sword worked.

Man always has had the greatest fear of being trampled upon by horses. That fear has certainly routed a hundred thousand times more men than the real encounter. This was always more or less avoided by the horse, and no one was knocked down. When two ancient cavalry forces wanted really to fight, were forced to it, they fought on foot (Note the Tecinus, Cannae, examples of Livy). I find but little real fighting on horseback in all antiquity like that of Alexander the Great at the passage of the Granicus. Was even that fighting? His cavalry which traversed a river with steep banks defended by the enemy, lost eighty-five men; the Persian cavalry one thousand; and both were equally well armed!

The fighting of the Middle Ages revived the ancient battles except in science. Cavalrymen attacked each other perhaps more than the ancient cavalry did, for the reason that they were invulnerable: it was not sufficient to throw them down; it was necessary to kill when once they were on the ground. They knew, however, that their fighting on horseback was not important so far as results were concerned, for when they wished really to battle, they fought on foot. (Note the combat of the Thirty, Bayard, etc.)

I dont think he could have said it more explicitly. Originally this threat was aimed at individual fighting capabilities of an individual cavalryman, not his advantage in psychological terms, or morale impact of a body of cavalry. It is said straghtforward in these quotes, that unless cavalryman dismounted, he was worth nothing in a fight at close quarters, how else can they be interpreted? There are too many things that sound quite alien to me, like middle ages or rennaisance cavalry dismounting for serious fighting, that to the best of my knowledge are mere confabulations.

Gary Teuscher wrote:

It was in a response to earlier comments on this thread, something to the effect of why did not cavalry just use really heavy draft types to give them more of an advantage (I'm guessing they were thinking of the advantage of mass). THis does not work for a few reasons.

1) There were no huge draft types
2) Those horse that did draft work were likely no bigger than the larger warhorses - selective breeding for draft work had not yet evolved large draft types
3) Even if there were large draft types, they would be unsuitable as cavalry mounts.

ETA - You also seem to be overlooking the effects of selective breeding. Were it not for selective breeding, the horses of today and the middle ages would most likely be similar to Przewalski's horse, a 13 hand high and 660 or so pound animal.

My question was rather aimed at theorethical and practical reconsideration of limits of draft horses in light of statements of superiority of light cavalry on lighter horses in melee, considering napoleonic cavalry. It seems this was a common observation by this time, because of different roles these men and horses were trained to fulfill. I wanted to ask if this was inherent as well, so that draft horse, no matter how well trained would almost never be able to match smaller horse in combat, also assuming both riders are accomplished horsemen and swordmen.

There was no question about why knights, or any cavalry havent preferred draft horses, at least not from my side (Im aware huge draft horses of today werent in existence by this time), my aim was purely to ask, if proper training wasnt much more important, than physical traits like size, or all the selective breeding. What can these traits, or particular horse breed say about horse personality, ability to learn and perform tasks they are told to?

Draft horses would be unsuitable as cavalry mounts: Why?

Kurt Scholz wrote:

Modern draft animals are a high performance breed that was accelerated in development due to increasing numbers of animals. The problem of a draft animal has other more cost effective solutions. You seem to miss the point that there's a difference between more and less muscular war horses. I have no idea why you are mentally fixed on equating muscles with draft horses. The differing hand measurements between war horses are not so much related to weight increase, as total rider and equipment weight had less fluctuation, but to leg length increase with corresponding different movement and biomechanic characteristics. Shorter legs were more of an advantage for civilian use as a work animal and long legs have been favoured for the cavalry, especially heavy cavalry.

Might I ask, how would you sum up the benefits of longer legged horses in their use as cavalry mounts, especially heavy cavalry?

I havent found nothing specific, its just my thoughts, but wouldnt shorter legged horse be better off with armoured man and amour for himself on his back in terms of stability? (it seems, like he would be top heavy, so bigger base and lower height seems like a good idea in theory) Also wouldnt shorter legs be less prone to injuries from weapons in a fight and be generally better, if horse was required to push either other horses, or men? Does length of legs have any bearing upon how a horse can jump and maneuver and could it be quantified somehow to what degree? And would it even matter with load of armour and man on top, wouldnt he be too restricted to jump through too big obstacles for example anyway?

Profile PM E-mail

Posts: 390

Thu 18 Oct, 2012 2:52 am

http://www.hydra-gym.com/research/RSH_Biomechanicsofrunning.pdf
This article highlights biomechanics of running. length of the legs always increases the theoretical maximum speed any animal can reach. Whether it achieves that depends on many more factors.
Your concept is funny. A long legged horse gets top-heavy and falls down more often. Giraffes must have a pretty cool summersault technique by now.
There's a tendency reported through the ages of cavalry trying to get higher mounts. A higher mount gives a higher platform elevation.
The difference between cavalry and infantry is speed for making decisions about whether or not to engage. The speed difference issue pertains within cavalry forces irrespective of the load an animal carries or pulls. The developed biomechanic ability of a good war horse for speed can outclass that of a less loaded horse used in war. Horse biomechanics dictate the speed and the speed differences dictate the operational use of cavalry forces.

You might study the biography of the famous cavalry general Hans Joachim von Zieten. Frederick the Great noted his capability as a cavalry commander because von Zieten considered it better to dismount in order to achieve an operational objective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Joachim_von_Zieten

Profile PM

Posts: 704

Thu 18 Oct, 2012 11:54 am

Quote:

Roman Cavalry such as the Alae needed a horse to carry a man in mail armour. Sounds similar to later "knightly" needs. The knights for the most part had more complete mail, but this is not much of a difference in weight.
The clibanarii needed a horse to carry a completely armoured man, and armour for the horse, more than what most middle ages mounts carried. And these heavy types were a good 40% of the composition, and were shock melee units as were knights.

Just thought I'd clarify - the Clibanarii themselves did not make up 40% of the mounted force - the combination of Clibanarri and Alae made up roughly 40% of the Legionarry cavalry. The Clibanarri themselves were maybe in the 15% of the toal range.

Of course, In the Middle ages you still see non-metallic armour wearing horsemen up until the 13th century or so of Western Cavarly. By "Western Cavalry" I mean the French and English Predominantly, and on the fringes of this lighter armoured cavalry were even more common, such as in Wales, Spain, even Central Europe and certainly when you get into the Polish and Slavic kingdoms or the Balkans. And even by the 13th century, you have lighter armed mounted troops, I'll refer to them as seargants making up a portion of the cavarly. These constituted a weight similar to the Roman Alae of earlier times.

Quote:

This article highlights biomechanics of running. length of the legs always increases the theoretical maximum speed any animal can reach. Whether it achieves that depends on many more factors.

Kurt, I'd say while indeed physics states longer legs should result in a faster speed, you have raiders from the area of present day Scotland mounted on the Fell pony which raided current day England for centuries during the middle ages, and they were noted for their speed. Also, another method of breeding warhorses was to introduce pony blood into their veins, this apparently produced a faster and more agile mix. I forgot where I read this, but one method of breeding in Engalnd was to mix the local forest horse with ponies similar to the Fell Pony.

Profile PM

Posts: 390

Fri 19 Oct, 2012 2:20 am

Thanks for clarifying the Roman cavalry composition issue, I didn't want to start another debate on that.

Gary Teuscher wrote:

Kurt, I'd say while indeed physics states longer legs should result in a faster speed, you have raiders from the area of present day Scotland mounted on the Fell pony which raided current day England for centuries during the middle ages, and they were noted for their speed. Also, another method of breeding warhorses was to introduce pony blood into their veins, this apparently produced a faster and more agile mix. I forgot where I read this, but one method of breeding in Engalnd was to mix the local forest horse with ponies similar to the Fell Pony.

Longer legs increase the theoretical maximum speed achieveable in sprints. It says nothing about the actual upper speed limits an animal does reach in practice.
Ponies are hardy enduring animals with a strong muscular build. I see two reasons for crossbreeding with them:
-capability endurance of the muscles under warfare conditions with strained supply lines
-muscles to make actual use of the theoretical capability inherent in the longer legs

The Scottish ponies are an interesting question, there are other reports about fast mounted units on very small horses.
I guess that one answer will be speed on the march which will be high due to the endurance, the other is that this animal can handle additional weight much better, making ponies outstanding draft animals - similar to humans with dwarfism. Their outstanding speed advantage might be in between sprint and endurance by making longer distance sprints with better speed endurance over difficult terrain than the competition.

Profile PM

Jaroslav Kravcak

Posts: 123 Location: Slovakia

Fri 19 Oct, 2012 9:08 am

Kurt Scholz wrote:

http://www.hydra-gym.com/research/RSH_Biomechanicsofrunning.pdf
This article highlights biomechanics of running. length of the legs always increases the theoretical maximum speed any animal can reach. Whether it achieves that depends on many more factors.
Your concept is funny. A long legged horse gets top-heavy and falls down more often. Giraffes must have a pretty cool summersault technique by now.
There's a tendency reported through the ages of cavalry trying to get higher mounts. A higher mount gives a higher platform elevation.
The difference between cavalry and infantry is speed for making decisions about whether or not to engage. The speed difference issue pertains within cavalry forces irrespective of the load an animal carries or pulls. The developed biomechanic ability of a good war horse for speed can outclass that of a less loaded horse used in war. Horse biomechanics dictate the speed and the speed differences dictate the operational use of cavalry forces.

You might study the biography of the famous cavalry general Hans Joachim von Zieten. Frederick the Great noted his capability as a cavalry commander because von Zieten considered it better to dismount in order to achieve an operational objective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Joachim_von_Zieten

So long legs equal more speed. How does this translates into better melee capability, where maneuvering seems more important? Also speaking about elevated position of a horseman against someone on foot, what were practical advantages of it? I cant picture it too clearly because of lack of experience, but would it give actual reach advantage?

I also havent said long legs equal fall more often, my idea was that of an ability to change directions and speed more rapidly with load on his back. What exactly would be racing horse good for in actual man to man combat? (ommiting advantage it gives to cavalry in mobility on larger scale) Charging forward at full speed doesnt seem like the best idea, against someone, who knows what to do.

So all in all, main attribute of a warhorse from a mechanistic point of view, that, lets say, late middle ages, or rennaisance gendarme would value at most was the speed? Id like to narrow the focus on rennaisance armoured heavy cavalry, like gendarmes, or maybe cataphracts and clibanarii of ancient world, regarging qualities sought after in a warhorse.

And thank you for the tip on reading. :)

Profile PM E-mail

Posts: 390

Fri 19 Oct, 2012 2:04 pm

Jaroslav Kravcak wrote:

Kurt Scholz wrote:

http://www.hydra-gym.com/research/RSH_Biomechanicsofrunning.pdf
This article highlights biomechanics of running. length of the legs always increases the theoretical maximum speed any animal can reach. Whether it achieves that depends on many more factors.
Your concept is funny. A long legged horse gets top-heavy and falls down more often. Giraffes must have a pretty cool summersault technique by now.
There's a tendency reported through the ages of cavalry trying to get higher mounts. A higher mount gives a higher platform elevation.
The difference between cavalry and infantry is speed for making decisions about whether or not to engage. The speed difference issue pertains within cavalry forces irrespective of the load an animal carries or pulls. The developed biomechanic ability of a good war horse for speed can outclass that of a less loaded horse used in war. Horse biomechanics dictate the speed and the speed differences dictate the operational use of cavalry forces.

You might study the biography of the famous cavalry general Hans Joachim von Zieten. Frederick the Great noted his capability as a cavalry commander because von Zieten considered it better to dismount in order to achieve an operational objective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Joachim_von_Zieten

So long legs equal more speed. How does this translates into better melee capability, where maneuvering seems more important? Also speaking about elevated position of a horseman against someone on foot, what were practical advantages of it? I cant picture it too clearly because of lack of experience, but would it give actual reach advantage?

I also havent said long legs equal fall more often, my idea was that of an ability to change directions and speed more rapidly with load on his back. What exactly would be racing horse good for in actual man to man combat? (ommiting advantage it gives to cavalry in mobility on larger scale) Charging forward at full speed doesnt seem like the best idea, against someone, who knows what to do.

So all in all, main attribute of a warhorse from a mechanistic point of view, that, lets say, late middle ages, or rennaisance gendarme would value at most was the speed? Id like to narrow the focus on rennaisance armoured heavy cavalry, like gendarmes, or maybe cataphracts and clibanarii of ancient world, regarging qualities sought after in a warhorse.

And thank you for the tip on reading. :)

You find the answer in the post above your own. In a nutshell:
Longer legs translate into a higher theoretical maximum speed. It implies zero statements about other characteristics. Goats for example have usually shorter legs than horses and a lower theoretical maximum speed. Practically, this gives average horses a speed advantage over average goats. If you have horses with differing leg length, a lot depends on muscles and range over which speed must be endured. That's why dromedary don't outsprint horses.
Other than the speed aspect, among many others, elevation of the platform also plays a role in combat as being hacked down upon is quite uncomfortable.

Profile PM

Lafayette C Curtis

Posts: 2,698 Location: Indonesia

Fri 19 Oct, 2012 8:58 pm

Jaroslav Kravcak wrote:

Sure he does regards usefullness of cavalry, yet I dont think he could express himself more clearly about his opinion on actual physical fighting capabilies of a horseman. He states it several times, once again in his paragraph on ancient warfare (Some rather regard formation to formation fight, admittedly):

(snip)

I dont think he could have said it more explicitly. Originally this threat was aimed at individual fighting capabilities of an individual cavalryman, not his advantage in psychological terms, or morale impact of a body of cavalry. It is said straghtforward in these quotes, that unless cavalryman dismounted, he was worth nothing in a fight at close quarters, how else can they be interpreted? There are too many things that sound quite alien to me, like middle ages or rennaisance cavalry dismounting for serious fighting, that to the best of my knowledge are mere confabulations.

Of course Du Picq was cherry-picking his examples too. Remember that he was looking for instances that support his idea of how cavalry should optimally behave in a mid- to late-19th century setting, and in this period dismounting was the principal recourse of cavalry in combat. To put it in a different way, most cavalry in Du Picq's day were becoming dragoons in all but name, and he was looking for historical examples that may provide guidance on the best way to handle cavalry in this manner (i.e. a combination between mounted travel and mostly-dismounted action).

And medieval cavalry did dismount quite often, mind you. In fact, I personally think that universal dsimountability was the hallmark of medieval Western European cavalry compared to later mounted troops from the same general area. Bernard Bachrach's article ( http://www.reitlehre.de/Caballus%20et%20Cabal...arfare.htm ) has a list of many battles (and by no means all!) where medieval men-at-arms "dismounted for serious fighting."

Now, this does mark Du Picq as a biased source if we read his historical examples at face value. But I don't think that's how they're meant to be taken; look at them from the viewpoint of a late 19th-century officer trying to find guidance for cavalry operations in an era when the role and organisation of cavalry was changing rapidly in a direction that only becomes obvious in hindsight. You have to look at the number of experiments invented and conducted in that era to believe how desperately contemporary military officers were looking for a new cavalry paradigm that would allow the time-honoured arm to survive in an era of new (and unprecedentedly deadly) weaponry and organisational reforms.

Profile PM

Benjamin H. Abbott

Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico

Sat 20 Oct, 2012 12:08 pm

Dismounting to fight was certainly the English style in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. English archery likewise convinced the French to intimate them. However, numerous aristocrats and others on the Continent still preferred to battle from the saddle, and the late-fifteenth and mid-sixteenth centuries saw much effective use of the cavalry charge in battle. Even where horsemen failed overall, they yet accomplished incredible feats. At Novara, for example, Robert II de La Marck and friends rode into the heart of the melee between opposing pike blocks to pull Robert III de La Marck from amongst the dead. Going farther East, the famous Polish Hussars continued to charge with lances and win throughout the seventeenth century. It's wildly inaccurate to say warriors consistently dismounted for serious fighting.

Profile PM

Jaroslav Kravcak

Posts: 123 Location: Slovakia

Thu 25 Apr, 2013 3:40 pm

Sorry to revive this, I just didnt want to start a new topic for it. :)

Maybe many already know about it, though Id like to point anyone interested to the book named Deadly equines:

http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Equines-Shocking...1590480031

It documents few episodes of horses not just behaving agressively but in explicitly predator like manner, even consuming meat and killing other creatures because of it and not as some weird anomaly, but rather as one possibility in horse behaviour. There are also some internet discussions with people giving their own insights, for example one owners story of offering him steak mixed with grass on behalf of reading this information which he supposedly ate without much hesitation. (Dubious anectode of course, interesting nevertheless)

Its really interesting, at least to me, that horses clearly arent only docile creatures running away from anything and I speaculate, that just as in humans agressive and brutal behaviour aimed against other living creatures can be triggered by traumatic event for example, so can be true for horses and just like a peacefull man can be trained to harm and kill other in nessesity, so could be a horse in theory, even deliberately aiming to kill, rather than just show dominance with no primary intention of harm. (like some horses biting people, that give pressure without release)

I came across this book and informations, while I was trying to find any clear and straightforward reference of war horses being deliberately trained to injure and kill enemies and these methods of training being explicitly explained, of which I found none, though more than just a few people mention, that it did hapenned and there are few examples of horses acting like weapon in these terms in documented history. (Well I only know for sure about Marbonts mare, that supposedly bit off russian officers face) It was to my annoyance in reading literally tens of books from various authors, that mindlessly bash (and generally never forget to point out) that cavalry never charged infantry because no horse even would even approach, no matter how trained, infantry formation, because it looked like a wall. (Which to me imlies there some strange mechanism, that allows horses to understand and be desensitized to any scary object on the battlefield, like sounds of guns, but somehow being exclusively resistent to understand, that this kind of wall can be pushed around and be desensitized to this reasonably well, if one indeed does have an intention of driving himself and his horse deep into the mass of enemy. To add, it only imlies, that basing ability of infantry to resist cavalry charge on single simple premise like this is nonsence, not that infantry wasnt in reality able to easily holt its own against cavalry in most cases to prevent further discussion of this. :lol: ) Its allways verbed in absolutely the same fashion, so I suppose, there is universal source of this quote and was never actually rigorously tested. (A sort of medical vitamin C causes kidney stones of history studies)

So while I wasnt able to find any clear evidence, Im quite convinced, that, in theory at least, horses could act as potent and dangerous weapons in themselves, with capabilies of how far they can go in their training maybe as big as that of a man.

I also wasnt able to find any particular treatise about how to train horse properly for combat in general, either as a weapon in itself, or how exactly was warhorse trained, if he was to become the equivalent of top class riding horse, maybe similar in his nimbleness to the ones used in rejoneo today, specifically before 16th century including and in western europe.

Profile PM E-mail

Lafayette C Curtis

Posts: 2,698 Location: Indonesia

Fri 24 May, 2013 10:22 am

I may be starting to sound like a broken record here, but the most important thing to remember is that the Middle Ages spanned several centuries and a huge amount of ground, even if we limit our discussion to a strictly European perspective. I have no problem believing that some medieval or Renaissance European horse-trainers wanted their horses to be ferocious beasts willing to kick and bite their riders' foes, but I don't think that view would have been universal throughout the entire temporal and geographic expanse of medieval and Renaissance Europe--and neither would the opposite notion that emphasised control and finesse to keep the horse out of harm's way as far as realistically possible. There's also the complicating factor of how expendable the horse was in the rider's and trainer's opinions; military horses always had a fairly high rate of attrition from disease and/or injury during normal wartime camp and march activities, and using the horse as a weapon would certainly expose the beast to further dangers that increase this attrition rate. This risk of losing a trained horse to death or serious injury in combat must be balanced against the potential advantage of having the horse present and additional threat to the enemy, and I'm quite sure the numerous riders, horse-trainers, and tacticians of the age held widely varying opinions on where this balance should lie.

Profile PM

Jaroslav Kravcak

Posts: 123 Location: Slovakia

Wed 12 Jun, 2013 4:26 pm

It was rather meant as curiosity. :)

My feeling is, that both level of training and quality of mount was at the bottom of how bad it could be with any state funded cavalry, where there generally is one horse per rider and this horse is required to do anything and is bought as cheaply as possible. Approach to training also seems quite rudimentary to me in 18/19th century, obsessed with standardization, things like cut vs thrust discussion, rather than some elabourate horsemanship or swordsmanship of individual soldiers. Same for horses, no great mention of how to train them to survive head to head in confrontation.

It all seems to point to the philosophy of training as many cavalrymen as possible in shortest time with smallest amount of resources spent. Id say this nessesity dictated, that cavalry was handled as psychological weapon only, with little effors to train rejoneadors and master swordman out of every trooper, rather teaching him how to behave in formation and hit things at speed and mount to at least be responsive to basic cues on average.

On the other side, there is, to be specific, lets say medieval man at arms of 15th/16th century, nobleman with several horses and much time to train riding and weapon handling, reosurces to maintain several warhorses of astronomical price. He, coudl be said identifies himself with his role of cavalryman, fighting and expecting to fight opposition at close quarters. His warhorse isnt expected to do any surplus work, just not fail him in fight. There are also claims of horses being trained as weapons themselves, though I wasnt able to find any exact quote of how and if at all they were trained to kick, bite etc. on command. But it seems fairly possible in theory. There is also to little to say about how were these people trained as horsemen, I know of or could find reference to maybe tens, or even hundreds of fencing manuals and their interperetations, sometimes with claims of how people still thing, that medieval sword combat was only mindless bashing. So my view is, that same could be said about their horsemanship and ability to fight from the saddle as individuals.

Or ti sum it up, Id say there are too many extrepolations from more recent and better documented ways of how to handle, treat and train cavalry and how it fight, that are taken for granted and too little is known and to be said about what kind of horseman would for example a knight from 15th/16th century be and what his horse would be like. There is so much written about how heavy, or how big a horse would be, but I dont know of any original document, that would show horses in training, or actual fight from people working with them and training them, or at least using them. (Chronicle depictions excluded)

Profile PM E-mail

Posts: 8 Location: Chelyabinsk Russia

Wed 12 Jun, 2013 10:16 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTA9-lYs41A - cavalry against footmen in 20th century )

Profile PM E-mail

Page 5 of 6

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum