| Author |
Message |
Jared Smith
|
 Posted: Mon 04 Dec, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Some clarification of "trampling" may be in order.
I have seen a lot of mixed breeds of horses in training for calf penning (some 20 in training this past holiday weekend for rodeo team penning in fact.) It goes against the natural instincts of all horses I have seen to actually pass over a potentially dangerous live opponent. That said, a good majority of horses can be trained to push and shoulder something to the side, actually herding it if it can stand up against the force.
Training a horse to paw at something with its hoves would be a different category of skill altogather. I have not seen anyone attempt to deliberately train that into a horse.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
  |
 |
|
Peter Bosman
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Gordon Frye"] | Peter Bosman wrote: |
There may be all sorts of reasons why circumstances dictate a different use and that may very well be more effective under those circumstances ....
Peter |
Peter;
I would have to disagree with you there, .../quote]
No you do not I think 
It is like Harley Davidsons. Great fun for cruising. Sort of two wheeled cabriolets. Great in their concept. Yet the essence of a motorcycle is power harnessed in lightness, the agility of the thing. A 400 cc. Husaberg enduro would be an extreme example of the essence yet STINK at cruising 
It has nothing to do with BETTER. Simpy effectiveness and efficiency.
For jousting I would choose Sancha, our older mare and if I would have that choice would go for the Noriker of a friend of mine.
Depending on where you want to do battle and thus how you need to fight I would choose to ride my mare, stallion or the noriker.
The most optimal performance however would be me riding my stalion in a type of harassing guerilla action.
Am I making the point about effectiveness and efficiency?
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Bosman
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | | It goes against the natural instincts of all horses I have seen to actually pass over a potentially dangerous live opponent. |
No it does not. Both my stallion and our molly mule make effective use of trampling with the front feet as an agressive action. Both will HUNT quite large feral dogs that they feel trespass over their land.
The WHOLE point is that for a mounted rider this is PRIMAIRILY unwanted as it slows you down and might very well make you a foot-soldier... Now if push comes to shove the equasion (pun intended) changes.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Bosman wrote: | | Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
But did he actually advise riding into and knocking down the enemy?
|
The way I read it he advises AGAINST knoking down the enemy. He advises to ride THROUGH the melee and maintaining momentum at all cost, CUTTING down the enemy. |
That's precisely my point. Dom Duarte knew what he was talking about, and I believe he wouldn't have advised riding the horse into a direct collision course with the enemy.
But then, was his treatise on individual horsemaship and horseback fighting--or on massed cavalry tactics? The two are far from identical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: | | Peter Bosman wrote: |
ONE thing however is sure. Cavalry in itself is the most efficient when light and fast.
There may be all sorts of reasons why circumstances dictate a different use and that may very well be more effective under those circumstances BUT the sum is always less.
Peter |
Peter;
I would have to disagree with you there, as it depends completely upon the tactical, indeed strategic situation of the day and age. For anything after the adoption of rifled Infantry firearms, you are absolutely correct, as basically true Dragoons, which can fight either mounted or dismounted, such as almost all Cavalry was from the mid-19th Century until the end of Horse Cavalry in the mid-20th.
For dealing with lightly armoured, poorly disciplined opponents, yes, Light Horse is a wonderful tool and can be used to strike hard and fast while the enemy is expecting them elsewhere. For engaging in "chevauchee's" lightly armed horsemen can outrun their pursuers and get away with their plundered goods far easier than could heavier horse that could stand and fight.
On the other hand, in the case of dealing with well-armed and well-disciplined Infantry (be they Greeks, Romans, Spaniards or Russians) , Light Horse is virtually useless. It was the Persian Cataphracts that gave the Romans the most trouble, and it was the French Gendarmerie that gave both Swiss and Spaniard their worst time during the 16th Century as well. Likewise the Heavy Horse of Napoleon, his Cuirassiers and Carabineers, were the smashing power of his Grande Armee, not his Hussars and Chasseurs á Cheval. For screens, Light Horse is absolutely necessary (as many a general who ingnored this found out to his discomfort) but for shock, which is after all the primary reason for Horse anyway, it's the Heavies, the "gens d'combat" who decide the day, not the Lights.
Allons!
Gordon |
Gordon, I would have put it in a different way. I prefer to divide troops by role rather than by equipment, so this is how I would have classified cavalry and their uses:
Light cavalry would have played a largely strategic role, being mostly used for scouting, screening, and raiding. When deployed in battle, then they would have been used either as a skirmishing force to weaken the enemy by slow attrition or held back to be sent later in the pursuit.
Heavy cavalry had one major purpose for their existence: battle. Regardless of whether they fought with hand-to-hand weapons (like knights and men-at-arms or later cuirassiers) or in massed missile formations (like the shower-shooting Mamluk and Sassanid cavalry), they were meant to engage the enemy in battle and inflict a decisive defeat upon them.
Still, I would agree with you that light cavalry is not always the best option. If I had been a historical commander I would have wanted both, although if I had been forced to take only one I would have taken light cavalry because at least it didn't need a pitched battle to be effective.
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
Gordon, I would have put it in a different way. I prefer to divide troops by role rather than by equipment, so this is how I would have classified cavalry and their uses:
Light cavalry would have played a largely strategic role, being mostly used for scouting, screening, and raiding. When deployed in battle, then they would have been used either as a skirmishing force to weaken the enemy by slow attrition or held back to be sent later in the pursuit.
Heavy cavalry had one major purpose for their existence: battle. Regardless of whether they fought with hand-to-hand weapons (like knights and men-at-arms or later cuirassiers) or in massed missile formations (like the shower-shooting Mamluk and Sassanid cavalry), they were meant to engage the enemy in battle and inflict a decisive defeat upon them.
Still, I would agree with you that light cavalry is not always the best option. If I had been a historical commander I would have wanted both, although if I had been forced to take only one I would have taken light cavalry because at least it didn't need a pitched battle to be effective. |
Lafayette;
Well put. Both were necessary for the maintenence of a proper military force in the field. But I would say that equipment defines role, and vice-versa.
Most commanders of the past felt that Light Cavalrymen were not much better than organized bands of brigands, which in fact they pretty much were, whether Numidians or Texas Rangers, or anything in between... Heavy Cavalry, i.e Shock Cavalry, was (usually) their only real offensive weapon at hand, and needed to be reserved for The Big Battle, if that were to come to pass. But both were absolutely necessary to any Medaeval/Renaissance/Early Modern army. Without Light Horse, you have no eyes and ears, without Heavy Horse, you have no striking power.
Allons!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
  |
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 11:27 am Post subject: Myth busted? |
|
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: | Kel;
I finally got a chance to go through my Markham book again, and discovered a few interesting things. First, the proper title is "Cavalarice, or The English Horseman", and it wasn't printed in 1623, just sold then. The original printing date was 1607, which is pretty cool. Secondly, I didn't find any reference to using a "Straw Man" to knock down. However, I did find this:
"...(W)hen you come to the riding place, you shall there have an image made like a man, and armed at all peeces, from heade to foote: To this image you shall trott and first making your horse smell thereto, you shall then trott about it, as ever as you pace or trott about it, you shall strike upon it with your sworde, making the armour sounde and ring in the horses eares, your self ever cherishing and encouraging your horse in all his excesses."
I'll keep digging into this though, you've gotten my interest up!
Allons!
Gordon |
Thanks for trying. I appreciate your efforts to respond here and elsewhere that I've asked this. I've spent dozens of hours on this lately, with no conclusion. My bookshelves have been ransacked as your's must have been. Nothing! 
I must conclude this is a "re-enactor myth" picked up over the years as it relates to medieval training practice. I won't help perpetuate it any longer.
with gratitude,
Kel
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Dec, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Bosman wrote: | | Jared Smith wrote: | | It goes against the natural instincts of all horses I have seen to actually pass over a potentially dangerous live opponent. |
No it does not. Both my stallion and our molly mule make effective use of trampling with the front feet as an agressive action. Both will HUNT quite large feral dogs that they feel trespass over their land.
The WHOLE point is that for a mounted rider this is PRIMAIRILY unwanted as it slows you down and might very well make you a foot-soldier... Now if push comes to shove the equasion (pun intended) changes.
Peter |
I am not arguing about what some horses including yours may do. There is a difference between "passing over" a still live and dangerous opponent, versus attacking by kicking and pawing with hooves. I do not make claims about "all horses" either, ... just the many I have seen and watched. So far, one actually intentionally running over (exposing its belly) a live and dangerous opponent is an event I have not witnessed. Some "mean horses" will definately attack with front feet, and a large majority of them can be trained to shoulder and shove large opponents such as calves.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joep Klijs
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Dec, 2006 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
The common misconception is that the warhorse would see an enemy as potentially dangerous.
This is a fine example of the kind of breed as produced in the region of Brabant since before the early Middle Ages. Note the size of the horse in relation to the car and the other objects (persons) around it. It is not uncommon to see them become attached to their masters more like a dog would and they will not hesitate to attack any threat they encounter.
The Habsburg cavalry was in need of a lighter breed and unsuccessful attempts were undertaken to crossbreed this race with lighter horses. Talking about the warhorse in general is like comparing zebras to mules.
(Personally, I would not hesitate one second to ride one of these directly into an enemy formation)
Here is a link with more pics if the attachment fails to load:
http://www.werkgroep-bos-t-ename.org/Jeanne.html
 Attachment: 37.87 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Bosman
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Dec, 2006 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joep Klijs wrote: | (Personally, I would not hesitate one second to ride one of these directly into an enemy formation)
|
Personally I would ride circles around you on Arabella and launch some pilum My infantry would then have a nice meal out of it 
The discussion is getting confused as tactical decisions WILL be important and clouds the issue of what is the most efficient use of a specific weapon.
With 20-20 hindsight it is in fact quite surprising that so few warlords thought of NOT using the same weapons in the same way as the enemy.
The heavy horse such as the belgian breed was NEVER EVER used as a warhorse and was bred to propel mechanised agricultural machinery before those became selfpowered.
Now, I am NOT saying that relatively heavy horse were not used 
It has however become quite clear that the horse used in heavy cavalry was not at all that large nor THAT heavy and that armour was in fact surpisingly LIGHTweight!
Mind you, a haflinger type horse is still a lot more sturdy than an arab...
As late as in napoleonic times it was quite a challenge to find horses over 150 hands and the horses depicted by Durer to the ones used by King Gustav were 14 to 14½ hands only!!! Translated to modern day breeds the fjord- and haflinger type is typical of the average knightly heavy cavalry horse.
Have a look at the horse the Merovingers and Karolingers are supposed to have develloped the knight on.... There is a VERY nice and well knowm statue of Karel the Stoute (I think) about.
Back to the original question we can conclude that whereas it sure is possible to train horses to push over straw mannequins it would have only been very sparsely used as a tactic.
HC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joep Klijs
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Dec, 2006 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Peter Bosman said:
¨The heavy horse such as the belgian breed was NEVER EVER used as a warhorse and was bred to propel mechanised agricultural machinery before those became selfpowered. ¨
Could you provide me with some sources on that statement? There are a lot of contradictory statements on this subject but the majority I came across on the web explicitely mention the use of the heavier breeds as warhorses.
Here is an excerpt from one of them found on http://horsecare.stablemade.com/_articles/belgian.htm
The Flemish type
The Flemish horse is the actual founder of today’s Belgian horse. He was the most robust of the Belgian horses and already in the early middle Ages belonged to the strongest and most favorite horse of the armored knights. The king Charlemagne (Frank monarch 771-814) donated several Flemish horses to the Baghdad’s caliph Harun al-Rashid in the year 807.
The somewhat smaller Brabant horse was also very sought out a warhorse and with the Flemish horse was in the time of “chivalry” very high priced export. Many of these horses were exported mainly to England; Richard the Lion Heart (1189-1199) returning from a crusade bought a large count of Belgian stallions, which he took with him to England. In England gave these horses in certain regions the offset to the “black warhorses”, known as “black horses” on which foundation the English breeders brought up their coldblooded breeds.
As earlier mentioned, the old Brabant and Flemish horses were very much sought out and became a great source of wealth for Belgium. However, the invention of the black powder drastically changed the warfare tactics. Too heavy, too slow and clumsy to escape the enemy fire, the knight-horse became useless and already in the 15th and 16th century there was a need for a faster, quicker and more maneuverable horse for the new type of warfare. From the war and tournament horses became draft horses pulling carts or ships; which actually served to their preservation, because their breed lacking the demand was slowly disappearing during the centuries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Bosman
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Dec, 2006 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
and there is the mentioned statue of a Karoningan king riding such a horse..... QUITE small.
Also skeletons found confirm the size deduced from period art.
I will look up the reference of a study from medieval London.
Like I wrote large is relative.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Dec, 2006 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew Ayton wrote on medieval warhorses and indicates fairly convincingly that the horse used later became larger than those earlier. It is a good read and alot of the questions posted here are in it as well. Having the expereince I have had with horses I would prefer a larger horse if it were expected to fight carrying its plate armour and mine as well as me. In earlier times it would not have perhaps been as useful, in the late medieval period it seems to have been so. The medieval period covers alot of time.
One is that in europe at least you do not deal with javelineers so a pilum would be unlikely or other types of weapons, even if it could puncture my full plate harness. If your horse also is encased in armour you likely would not make lightning attacks but to my mind like a steam roller with a few hundred men. Weight does tend to favor the half a ton or more horse to the few hundred pound human.
I have seen horses kick, bit and throw people. I have seen a good number of horse that clearly show no fear of humans and even agression. I think training would turn a typical horse into a war horse that could harness the horses natural strenghts and make them obey. In the accounts of the Black Prince's register it has prices of war horses. His horses would be the same as what a typical knight made in a year. There had to be something they were paying for and I assume it was the war training to be agressive and protect its master.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Walker
Location: NSW, Australia. Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 230
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Dec, 2006 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Breeding a larger horse in the later medieval period does not mean that they were using draughts like the Belgian shown, or Clydesdales or Shire Horses or Percherons etc.
These are horses for Agriculture.
They may indeed have bred larger horses but we are talking about something in the 15-16hh range and of a type built like a heavy hunter or an eventer.
Cheers
Rod
Jouster
www.jousting.com.au
"Come! Let us lay a lance in rest,
And tilt at windmills under a wild sky!
For who would live so petty and unblessed
That dare not tilt at something, ere he die?"
--Errantry, John Galsworthy
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Dec, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rod Walker wrote: | Breeding a larger horse in the later medieval period does not mean that they were using draughts like the Belgian shown, or Clydesdales or Shire Horses or Percherons etc.
These are horses for Agriculture.
They may indeed have bred larger horses but we are talking about something in the 15-16hh range and of a type built like a heavy hunter or an eventer. |
I could be wrong as I know little about horses but I think Gordon once mentioned to me, in an e-mail or on a topic here at myArmoury, that these really big draughts horses are very calm and gentle in personality ?
Big but very nice and sweet doesn't make for a better war horse than a little smaller but very dominant and potential mean horses.
Really BIG can also mean very strong but not that fast and agile ! A good mix of strength, speed, agility, aggressively, controllability, maybe varying depending on being for light, medium or heavy cavalry. ( Just doing my best to sum up things in one sentence with no pretence that I actually know anything.  )
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Dec, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rod Walker wrote: | Breeding a larger horse in the later medieval period does not mean that they were using draughts like the Belgian shown, or Clydesdales or Shire Horses or Percherons etc.
These are horses for Agriculture.
They may indeed have bred larger horses but we are talking about something in the 15-16hh range and of a type built like a heavy hunter or an eventer. |
Uh, Rod? I had hoped you might have something to toss in about the original question. No? Never heard that one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Walker
Location: NSW, Australia. Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 230
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Dec, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Kel, I can't find anything either on the original question.
I have Cruso and Vernons manuals from the early 17thC and Gordon has already covered what is in them.
I saw them use straw dummies in the early 1970's movie Cromwell but that is about it.
Sorry.
Cheers
Rod
Jouster
www.jousting.com.au
"Come! Let us lay a lance in rest,
And tilt at windmills under a wild sky!
For who would live so petty and unblessed
That dare not tilt at something, ere he die?"
--Errantry, John Galsworthy
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Dec, 2006 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rod Walker wrote: | Hi Kel, I can't find anything either on the original question.
I have Cruso and Vernons manuals from the early 17thC and Gordon has already covered what is in them.
I saw them use straw dummies in the early 1970's movie Cromwell but that is about it.
Sorry. |
Maybe used the way road cones are used today to mark a course to practice specialized car manoeuvres or just practising parallel parking. 
Rows and ranks of straw soldiers might be useful training in cavalry manoeuvres weaving in and out of one's own formation and not primarily as a way to teach horses to run down infantry ?
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Dec, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rod;
Thank you, and indeed, Cruso says the same thing as Markham, just with fewer words.
Jean;
No doubt having row upon row of straw men WOULD be a cool training tool... but I certainly haven't ever found a reference to anyone ever doing it. At least so far. We'll keep looking though! 
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Dec, 2006 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: | Rod;
Thank you, and indeed, Cruso says the same thing as Markham, just with fewer words.
Jean;
No doubt having row upon row of straw men WOULD be a cool training tool... but I certainly haven't ever found a reference to anyone ever doing it. At least so far. We'll keep looking though!
Cheers!
Gordon |
Just making the comment above to bring up an optional use of " straw men " as an alternative to assuming that they might have been used to train horses to knockdown men. If these where even used ???
I guess some obscure mention of using straw men exists somewhere, even if only some Victorian era or fiction based idea in origin ? I have to go back to the first few posts to remember how this subject all started.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic