| Author |
Message |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
 Posted: Fri 20 Feb, 2009 7:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
On the broadness of the horse thing - I forget the name of the breed now, but it is a mongolian horse. I'm not 100% sure if this was a common mongol war mount or if they used something similar to an Akhal-Teke.
But if this was a war mount, it's 13-14 hands high, and I think is sometimes referred to as a pony, also interesting since the mongol horses are sometimes referred to as ponies.
But while it is rather short, it ways as much as the taller breeds often thought to the closest thing to represenatatives of the middle ages horses of war - using an andalusian as one example.
So while it is short, it is also rather stout.
|
|
  |
 |
Phil Crawley
Location: Auld Reekie- Capital village o'Jockland Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 42
|
|
 |
|
Stanley Watts
Location: CAMBRIDGESHIRE Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Feb, 2009 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
So , let us put that into a language our friends who don't use the Stone as a measurement can understand. 1 stone = 14 lbs, therefore a man of 23 stone, would be 322lbs in bare feet. Let us then add his saddlery, personal kit and weaponary, say 80-90bs?, that will take us to around 400 + lbs (similar to our friendly yard stick King Harry the 8th lol). Discounting the preachings of Rosenberg and Smith with their 20% ratio, if we apply the 25-30% rule this would take us to a horse weight of circa 1400-1500 lbs. Do you think this 14:2 fulfills this?
Last edited by Stanley Watts on Fri 20 Feb, 2009 9:54 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Crawley
Location: Auld Reekie- Capital village o'Jockland Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 42
|
|
|
|
|
Stanley Watts
Location: CAMBRIDGESHIRE Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Feb, 2009 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Phil,
It would be interesting to see what your horse weighs. The Fell and Dales are renowned weight carriers. Afteral they humped lead around. If I could get that chart downloaded you could give it a go 
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Crawley
Location: Auld Reekie- Capital village o'Jockland Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 42
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Feb, 2009 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting site, Phil. It appeare these functioned in the manner of true light cav - not meaning their battle field function, but the recon, raiding, rearguard action, etc.
Seems like the weight they are capable of carrying would be similar to that of a Norman Knight C. 11-12th century.
Are these descended from the horses the Romans bred in England by crossing Fell ponies and Friesians?
|
|
|
|
|
Stanley Watts
Location: CAMBRIDGESHIRE Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Fri 20 Feb, 2009 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is another one of me and my horse a la Cuyp.
Out of interest, as this is a weaponary site. The sword is a rapier of a la papenheim, it is a matching pair with a mangauch with 4 sprung loaded sword breakers, the point of the mangauche is back cut so it can pierce armour plate. The pair were made to my height. The pistols are copies of 1645 commonwealth horse pistols. The vambrace is fish-scaled leather and is a copy of one in the Tower of London made from elk. The buff coat is a copy of Nethaniel Fiennes 1642 and is made of reindeer lined in calf. The deep gorget is a copy of Gustafus Adolphus but I am a Wallenstein man so I added a golden fleece , the helmet is a zigschagge fluted for strength by being beaten out of red hot metal.
Back to horses lol
 Attachment: 133.19 KB
[ Download ]
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Crawley
Location: Auld Reekie- Capital village o'Jockland Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 42
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheryl J.
Location: Tennessee Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sun 22 Feb, 2009 8:26 am Post subject: Horse for reinactment |
|
|
Have you considered a Lipizzan Stallion?
They were bred for warhorses and royalty. They are a very strong durable horse. Not to tall, average about 15.1 hands, big boned for their size, great feet, rare- about 5000 in the hole world, and not to expensive (depending on how old and how much training the horse has had under the saddle- these horses are used in dressage a lot and can get very expensive if they have a lot of that type of training.) Due to current economic conditions- many horses these days can be found for very good prices..... They are also absolutely beautiful- most turning totally white by 6 to 10 years old. They are also long lived and usually live well into their 30's, very smart and the stallions are much easier to handle than most stallions.... anyway they make an ideal warhorse- since that is what they were bred for..... Check out Youtube for "Spanish Riding Academy" The airs above the ground moves where generated for war. The leaps were to kick their opponents. They were bred for strength, speed and agility.... 
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R.Fox
Location: Youngstowm,Ohio Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Feb, 2009 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sirs-Just wanted to point out that RenFaire does have jousts wit full kit, at least the Great Lakes RenFaire does. However, thet do not melee, the horses are too expensive.I don't remember the breed they use, but if I remember right, it's bigger than a Morgan, but looks the same.
Ja68ms
|
|
 |
|
Stanley Watts
Location: CAMBRIDGESHIRE Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Feb, 2009 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think I have cracked re-sizing the below. REMEMBER, the chart is based on A4 paper size so you MUST make it this size again to make sure the thing works. Ofcourse the nomogram is based on 20% but you can decide if this is the right ratio yourself. Nonetheless, the nomogram will work to calculate the weight of your horse.
Attachment: 121.1 KB
Attachment: 68.26 KB
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Feb, 2009 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So I'd need a horse of about 1500 pounds to carry me with all the trappings and armor I think. How much do these "appropriate" horses normally weigh, anyways?
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
    |
|
Stanley Watts
Location: CAMBRIDGESHIRE Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Feb, 2009 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think we have already decided that the ratio of 20% of the above, based on Smith and Rosenberg is probably on the conservative side. They were concerned about campaigns. The gentlemen of this thread have considered that a ratio of around 25-30% is more appropriate. Nonetheless, the nomogram would still work. Does this answer your question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Mar, 2009 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | 1) Knights functioned in a different role than later cavalry. While later cavalry was used a lot for recon and skirmishing, knights (generic term for middle ages european heavy cavalry) were used predominantly as main battle line units. Maybe some recon/skirmishing, but this would likley have been left to lighter armoured cavalry if any were available, or the lesser armoured cavalry. The difference in tactical roles plays a great deal here IMO. Knights are not running around scouting and skirmishing, but taking their spot in a set battle line.
The type of cavalry tactics used in the 19th century were far more similar to that of mongols or other steppe peoples. |
I don't think it's really that simple. A previous discussion on this forum (I don't remember which, though it was one of the longer threads that sprawled over five or more pages) pointed to a figure in the Bayeux Tapestry that seems to be a scout according to the narrative but is clad in the full miles's gear of hauberk, helmet, and shield; this may indicate that the armor at that time was light enough to be worn on long marches, and that therefore there was no need to distinguish between "light" and "heavy" types of cavalry. Later on, we do get lighter forms of cavalry like hobelars, haubergeons, and the like, but it's worth noting that the Black Prince is often said to like going around on rear-area raids and scouting expeditions with minimal (or no?) armor. I frankly think that a considerable proportion of (or perhaps even most) medieval men-at-arms were actually trained and expected to do light cavalry duties in addition to our modern conception of them as "heavy" cavalry, since otherwise their training would have been a huge waste of investment--why train specialized heavy cavalrymen who couldn't take on other duties if pitched battles that involved heavy-cavalry charges were the exception rather than the norm in the territorially-oriented, siege-and-raid-dominated landscape of medieval European warfare?
Moreover, "later cavalry" also had many notable examples of dedicated heavy cavalry; Napoleonic commentators noted that heavy units like Cuirassiers, Carabiniers, Grenadiers a Cheval, Dragoon Guards, Heavy Dragoons, and the like were quite inefficient in outpost duties and were not used for such if proper light cavalry (Hussars, Chasseurs, Light Dragoons, or whatever) was available.
|
|
|
|
|
Stanley Watts
Location: CAMBRIDGESHIRE Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Tue 10 Mar, 2009 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I looked at a horse on Sunday. He is a dark bay irish sports horse (a tb with weight lol). He is very beautiful and went well in the school. He is being sold as 16:2 hhs but he looks taller than that, I will run a stick over him tomorrow to confirn either way. It is my intention to take him out for a hack and see how he goes in traffic and when he is not confined in a school and has room to run. He is 8 years old, so he has lots of time infront of him. If all goes well I will get the Vet in to look him over.
We are getting closer I .think
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 10 Mar, 2009 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't think it's really that simple. A previous discussion on this forum (I don't remember which, though it was one of the longer threads that sprawled over five or more pages) pointed to a figure in the Bayeux Tapestry that seems to be a scout according to the narrative but is clad in the full miles's gear of hauberk, helmet, and shield; this may indicate that the armor at that time was light enough to be worn on long marches, and that therefore there was no need to distinguish between "light" and "heavy" types of cavalry. Later on, we do get lighter forms of cavalry like hobelars, haubergeons, and the like, but it's worth noting that the Black Prince is often said to like going around on rear-area raids and scouting expeditions with minimal (or no?) armor. I frankly think that a considerable proportion of (or perhaps even most) medieval men-at-arms were actually trained and expected to do light cavalry duties in addition to our modern conception of them as "heavy" cavalry, since otherwise their training would have been a huge waste of investment--why train specialized heavy cavalrymen who couldn't take on other duties if pitched battles that involved heavy-cavalry charges were the exception rather than the norm in the territorially-oriented, siege-and-raid-dominated landscape of medieval European warfare? |
I'd actually pretty well agree, Layafette, at least for the earlier Middle ages. Norman Knights probably did both, but there were a fair amount of illustrated unarmoured cavalry that seem to disappear from illustration around 1150 or so. The lighter type would have functioned a bit better, for if no other reason the fact that if the main body was attacked while foragers or scouts were out, you would prefer to have your better melee cavalry with the main body.
It makes sense to me that knights were cross-trained if you want to call it that, and prior to more specialization functioned in the role. Even at Manikzert, there was a body of Frankish knights on recon that were attacked by the turks to start the battle of Manikzert.
But my point was that while knights could be dual function, they were also true heavy cavalry on the battlefield, while 19th century cavalry functioned as LC for the most part and were more specialized.
|
|
|
|
|
Stanley Watts
Location: CAMBRIDGESHIRE Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Mar, 2009 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I went to take this bomb proof horse out for a test ride today. I expected to be on its toes but after a while it still had its eyes out on stalks and was half passing away from anything and everything it saw (all this on a busy road). In the end, it did a very neat half rear with a full 180 degree turn on its haunches. Whilst turning, at the same time it dropped its head in the direction of the turn thus leaving the front door wide open for me to fall through. I hit the hard metal road like a sack of spuds. However, I still had the reins with me so I held on. All this mean't was, I was dragged for 20 metres before the rein buckle snapped. 
Not being a quitter, I caught the bugger, knotted up the reins and rode on. It didn't get better. When I got back the seller was ofcourse so surprised. So I said my farewells to her and her horse. The final insult to injury was when I found that one of her dogs had torn up one of my leather gloves. So I did the only thing I could and gave it the other glove so that he could make it match the other one. 
We live and learn. I atleast found out I can still bounce if with a few dark blue things on my arse leg and shoulder 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Wed 18 Mar, 2009 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | But my point was that while knights could be dual function, they were also true heavy cavalry on the battlefield, while 19th century cavalry functioned as LC for the most part and were more specialized. |
Only if you compared them to 19th-century light cavalry. 19th-century heavy cavalry was, arguably, even more specialized than medieval men-at-arms; there were more battles in the Napoleonic Wars than in perhaps an entire medieval European century put together, but there were far more instances of medieval men-at-arms dismounting to fight as heavy infantry than of 19th-century heavy cavalry doing the same. Moreover, if you stripped a man-at-arms of his armor and stuck him on the back of a light horse, there's a fair chance that he would have made a decent light cavalryman, but a 19th-century cuirassier or horse grenadier would (very) probably just have turned into mediocre heavy cavalry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Mar, 2009 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Moreover, if you stripped a man-at-arms of his armor and stuck him on the back of a light horse, there's a fair chance that he would have made a decent light cavalryman, but a 19th-century cuirassier or horse grenadier would (very) probably just have turned into mediocre heavy cavalry. |
The important issue here for me is if you mean tactical function of light horse, or strategic function of light horse, and to a lesser degree what definition of "light horse" we are using.
A middle ages man at arms was probably cross trained to function on the strategic level as a light horse, but rarely in the tactical sense.
The definiton of light horse I am using is for tactical purposes, they would screen the opposing main battle line (usually a waste of horse unless the "battle line" is predominantly horse as in steppe people armies for instance, though these would have battle line that is proportionately smaller than other armies.
They also usually will skirmish, often armed with missiles. This makes the screening function more effective.
For combat, they are usually ineffective against heavy infantry holding formation, unless for flanking attacks, and still not the best option here.
In combat they are most effective against light infantry or other light cavalry, and effective in riding down routers.
In a standard middle ages army the screening force if one is used is most often light infantry armed with missiles. Among western europe, you rarely see cavalry units specifically designed as true light cavalry, Jinettes being one example to the contrary. As you go east, you see it more often even in feudal armies, as Hungarians and others made true use of light cavalry. The are best in a mobile battle like Hattin, when it comes to exching fore with foot skirmishers they are at a disadvantage, other than the can fare better than the foot in melee and can be used to drive back an opponents foot skirmishers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
