[Peter Bosman]

Typology of swords is something of a holy grale. I would like to give an example why not to be tóó preoccupied about it.

In a furusiyya manual written in 1348 a general sword description with explanation is given. One of the types is classified as 'before the age of the life of the profet'. Mohammed died in 632 and even if we take this in a broad sense we are still talking about cénturies old swords being around to be used.

Peter

[Peter Bosman]

Both in motorracing and horseriding weight is just about the most important single issue.

Seen from the ríding point the mounted warrier needs to use only the lightest equipment possible. It is confusing that the termimology 'heavy cavalry' upsets this concept by association.

The more I read and try to apply this the more I am convinced that the mental picture of the archetypical heavy knight is nót representative of even that warrior outside of a 'ritualised' context.
What I mean is that in 'discussions' about arms and armoury the functional arguments have a serious ritualistic
perspective.
As far as functionality is concerned lightness and speed are the key arguments for mounted warriors.

Peter

[Craig Peters]

[Peter Bosman]

Well, the first has nothing to do with the second, I just pressed the wrong buttons...

As for the second about lightness, that is both personal experience with horseriding as a general priciple ánd I am experiencing it about using arms from the saddle too.
Light and compact are the most easily handled and give the most room for horsemanship. It in particular 'struck' me when hobbying about with bamboo lances in comparison with heavier ash ones.
As for a source I have a VERY good quote about it in the furusiyya manual I was given a copy of. I will try to add the quote later.

There are twó angles to mounted warfare
1. the strategic need for a specific tactic
2. horsemanship itself
My remarks about lightness adress the latter and I fully understand that compromises may be needed to use cavalry to greater effect in specific situations. So although I realise that 'best' may ask for other measures I do feel however that the optimal use of the specific qualities of a mounted warrior is to be found in lightness.

The celt-iberians moving into nw-africa portray the basic 'problem' nicely. The imazighen light cavalry was a terrific problem and vitually untouchable but the heavier outfitted celt-iberians could not be stopped by them and so rode into the unfortified villages where they were no match for the inhabitants.
The imazighen warriors were by far the 'better' cavalry yet the celt-iberians won the batlle(s).

Personally I consider the imazighen-numidian cavalry to have been the ultimate horsemen and the mamluks the optimum mounted warriors.
It would have been very hard to near impossible for mamluk riders to stop heavily armed and armoured crusaders. One such a knight in the desert encountered by a single mamluk however would have been like a tortoise attacked by a leopard.

It is like riding bitless. This gives quite marked advantages, more so than disadvantages, but is does have its limits. When the limits apply, it simply is no option.
Same thing shooing the horses.
Optimal is not always best.
Thát is what I am trying to convey.

I guess the roman army evolved the best use of cavalry history has ever seen, making use of the strongs of their auxiliaries. They kept the numidian (imazighen) cavalry in their lightest form right untill the end too

Peter

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Honestly, I don't think we can make such broad generalizations. They may be valid for you as an individual horseman, but different people trained for different purposes in different traditions will certainly disagree--and their arguments will be every bit as valid as yours.

Not to mention that what is best for an individual horseman might not be the best choice for the whole unit. For example, Napoleonic armies were frequently ordered to change into full parade gear just before engaging in a great battle because the morale effect of their appearance--both in improving their own confidence and undermining the enemy's--totally outweigh the inconvenience that any individual rider might feel from the greater weight and encumbrance of the parade uniform. This was proved by accounts of enemies being terrorized by the magnificent parade-gear appearance of the Napoleonic cuirassiers, with one eyewitness even going so far as to mention the Frenchmen's impeccable white gloves!

We can also look at it from another angle. If we follow your line of reasoning, then the medieval men-at-arms shoudl have discarded the bulky crests on their helmets and the colorful caparisons on their horses--but the fact is that they didn't. The morale impact of their plumed, caparisoned appearance was (rightly) judged to be more important than their additional weight and bulk.

Of course, it still has nothing to do with your original post on the classification of swords, to which I see no reason to object.

[Peter Bosman]

Well Lafayette, you are not stating anything that disaccords with what I write.
The medieval knight very well knew the added weight was a hindrance and a handicap = contary to the essence of cavalry. Nevertheless the díd use it because it gave other advantages at thát time in theír situation.
Also knights gave up on most of the bulk/weight as soon as fashion, ritual, weapons, warfare evolved.

Napoleon used massed cavalry p.e. Masses of light cavalry yet he did not bother with horsemanship nor swordmanship. A mass of cavalry was his answer to the firepower of infantry.

This off course ALL is a generalisation. I make the comment to keep the perspective. It's the same thing, the perspective, that led Caprilli to devellop his riding style. If you read his motivations, he captions the lightness and speed quite correctly too.
The account of an excersize the visiting russion cavalry officer in the boek of which Dario gave the e-link is illustrative. That is cavalry in its essence.

Peter

[Craig Peters]

[Peter Bosman]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Assuming that there is such a thing as "the" optimum configuration of equipment for a mounted warrior--which is something I disagree with. A horseman meant to be a long-range raider would have a different "optimum" from one tasked to be a battlefield skirmisher--if there is any such "optimum" at all--and neither would define their "optimal" gear by the same parameters as a mounted warrior tasked with being the primary shock force of the army. Not to mention that the same horseman might take up different roles at different times, such as a 15th-century man-at-arms who would have worn full harness on a battlefield but a great deal less than that on a chevauchee.

So I do disagree with your assessment that the lightest possible configuration is "best" for the horseman. In my opinion at least, the various configurations of equipment adopted by different kinds of cavalry throughout history do not represent a deviation from any norm, only attempts to arrive at the best configuration to fulfill their particular roles.

[Jared Smith]

I have been watching this thread for a while and am wondering what is being asserted to be different in terms of equipment for heavy cavalry versus light cavalry.

I'd like to defend the original theme of the post (as best as I can interpret it) in stating that not all mounted units were utilized for heavy cavalry tactics even in popular eras such as 1200 to 1400. Some such as the Black Prince during the hundred years war actually cavalary pretty surgically (feint retreat, specific geographical situations, etc.).

I suspect the "heavy" part of "heavy cavalry" was primarily in the specially bred horses (draft crosses.) These were slower than available coursers and fast hunters at the era of 1200 through 1400, but still agile. Modern examples such as Thoroughshires make impressive eventing horses. There was a compromise between speed versus momentum. The basic tactic for keeping a shock charge together involved trotting slowly (15 mph) and accelerating as the line approached the opposing group. This does not favor maximum speed, but agility would still have been prized by a knowledgeable horseman.

The actual armour characterized as real combat (not parade or joust) seems to be roughly similar to most other armour (maybe higher percentage of 3/4 coverage versus 1/2, few extra pieces...) This assumes that some of the surviving harnesses constructed specifically for kings or princes, which appear to be very heavy, are exceptions. It seems like we are arguing about 45 lbs weight for one application versus 60 lbs for another.

[Rod Walker]

[Jared Smith]

[Rod Walker]

Agreed.

I think it is part of our 'modern' way of thinking that we want to classify everything into little tiny boxes. I have found that the more research I do the more I realise that we can't do this as it pertains to historical reality.

We may want to call a sallet a sallet, a longsword a longsword or pigeonhole cavalry into light or heavy but the truth is that whilst we may want to have it all neat and tidy and suit our prejuduces or point of view, there are no hard and fast rules and our ancestors would have called them completely different things,,,,,, or the same,,,,,,,, sometimes in the same manuscript.

Sallet could refer to a lot of different helms, some of which look nothing like what we would recognise as a sallet.

Even though Peter says light cavalry is the be all and end all, it's not, in some cases it may be. Just as in some instances heavy cavalry (whatever that may actually be) is the be all and end all, and in some cases it is not.

What is the be all and end all is whatever works in the given situation.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Peter Bosman]

[Chad Arnow]

Hey folks,
Let's keep from getting grouchy with each other. Thanks!

[Rod Walker]

[Peter Bosman]

[Jared Smith]

I do not have a copy and have not read it, but believe Duarte was a jouster as well as a combat knight. The handbook title is translated something like Jousting and Knightly Combat. It may not be appropriate for judging equipment intended for campaign warfare.

I have not been able to locate really good sources and museum specimens on lances of war versus lances of peace (joust lances), but some of the authors (respected and numerous in a large stack I have been reading over the last year) characterize them as very different beasts. The one that is so heavy it has to be carried upright and allowed to fall down as you approach the target was one description of a joust lance (an english manuscript if I remember it right...there is an internet scan of a diagram from the manuscript illustrating the tactic of letting a lance too heavy to hold horizontally fall as the jousters close.) I think judging this type of implement as representative of "typical" of that used for war is much like claiming everyone rode horses that made Clydesdales look diminuitive.

[Peter Bosman]