Author |
Message |
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Sun 18 Jan, 2009 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
M. Eversberg II wrote: | I'd think for poorer knights, a riding horse and warhorse would be one in the same. |
I'm not so sure about that. After all, the distinction between the riding horse and the charger is based on the idea that the charger is supposed to be faster and to be able to carry more weight at the cost of endurance while the riding horse ought to have great stamina and a smooth gait that allows comfortable long-distance travel. And would any warrior have been accepted as a man-at-arms if he couldn't provide at least the standard trio of horses?
Of course, the case might have been different in other cultures and other eras where cavalry shock warfare wasn't such a specialized affair.
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
Posted: Sun 18 Jan, 2009 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
M. Eversberg II wrote:
Quote: | I'd think for poorer knights, a riding horse and warhorse would be one in the same. |
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Quote: | I'm not so sure about that. After all, the distinction between the riding horse and the charger is based on the idea that the charger is supposed to be faster and to be able to carry more weight at the cost of endurance while the riding horse ought to have great stamina and a smooth gait that allows comfortable long-distance travel. And would any warrior have been accepted as a man-at-arms if he couldn't provide at least the standard trio of horses? |
Difference between Riding horse and charger are mostly training and temperament. A charger could be ridden, though it would be nice to have another horse to ride. But a riding horse not bred and trained for war would be rather useless. I see poorer nkinghts having 1 horse, the charger, and perhaps even 2 chargers as opposed to a riding horse for their "spare". Hav ing your one charger go lame on campaign turns you from a knight to a dismounted man at arms rather quickly!
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
Posted: Sun 18 Jan, 2009 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I admit I know little of horses. I've had limited contact with them throughout my years, only having ridden a really old saddle horse. I figured the charger would be the only horse of a poorer knight, unless a riding horse is "not" expensive.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
|
|
Zac Evans
|
Posted: Mon 19 Jan, 2009 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Knights involved in the Agincourt campaign were required at least three horses for personal use. Knights were rich, much richer than our middle classes, and if we class horses as equivalents of cars its perfectly reasonable to think that knights would have stables full of them. After all archers quite often had their own horses too.
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
Posted: Mon 19 Jan, 2009 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good topic. I don't think we do nearly enough discussion about mounted charges. This is odd because Mounted charges with lance were the primary method of fighting for knights. Fighting from horseback with swords, maces and axes were a backup. Fighting on foot was not preferred.
Today we tend to focus more on the foot combat because we can best relate to it, but this is a very two dimensional view of medieval combat. Mounted horse charges added a third dimension. Missile weapons added yet a fourth dimension.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
Posted: Mon 19 Jan, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Zac Evans wrote: | The Knights involved in the Agincourt campaign were required at least three horses for personal use. Knights were rich, much richer than our middle classes, and if we class horses as equivalents of cars its perfectly reasonable to think that knights would have stables full of them. After all archers quite often had their own horses too. |
On the other hand, by the fourteenth century knights were scarce and humbler men-at-arms made up the balance of a cavalry force. I'm not sure how many of them had a full set of horses (any 14th century experts want to chime in?) The logistical requirements for three horses per man, each eating as much grain as three men and a big load of fodder, add up quickly.
Back to the OP, most ancient cavalry (such as Roman equites) were allowed to bring one servant each on campaign. They presumably did all the menial work which a medieval knight's squires and servants would do for him.
|
|
|
|
James R.Fox
Location: Youngstowm,Ohio Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 253
|
Posted: Mon 19 Jan, 2009 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sirs-The Roman army grouped it's legonaries by 8 man mess groups. These units were provided with a tent and at least enough mules to carry the tent and the bulk of the unit ratons. (The Legionary had to carry a 3-day emergency ration on his person at all times on campaign). The 8 man units often clubbed together and bought a slave too. Given the Roman Army's conservatism and penchant for standardization, I would bet the Ala ( horse and foot auxillaries) were organized the same way, espically after Augustus abolished Legionary calvary. The basic Auxillary horse and foot formations were then commanded by centurians gaining experience to become primi pilani and hopfully equestrian prefects. All Primi Pilani ( first centurian first cohort of a Legion )became equestrian nobles on retirement, and the majority went into military commands, Prefect of legonary castra,(headquarters fort) Tribune of auxillaries,etc, where they would have to handle auxillaries. as well as legionaries I would imagine a hardnosed centurian would arrainge his unit of Ala the way he was used to seeing his men, 8 per tent, pack animal(s), and slaves or servants to assist the men. An extra servant to help with care of horses and armour would hardly be out of line in his experience.I wouldn't think.
Ja68ms
|
|
|
|
James R.Fox
Location: Youngstowm,Ohio Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 253
|
Posted: Tue 20 Jan, 2009 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sirs I forgot to add that Thucididies in his PEloponesian War discusses the military conracts o number of states made with each other. If calvary was involved there were always specific payments discussed,one for the calvary man, one for his batman and often one for his horse. This is because Mainland greece was never self sudffcient in grain, They bought most fron the Russian Crimea, where the Scythuans had unslaved the inhabitanrs and forced them to traade grain,hides,wax,slaves and gold for pottery,metalwork.fabtics, wine and olive oil(The scyrhians got almost all their metalwork, uaually made with greek themes from the greeksThe greeks seem to have distributed the food in a market sysrem That is the men were expectrd to buy their food from thr market their ally providedwith the funds they had been provider woth at the beginning campaign
Ja68ms
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Sun 01 Feb, 2009 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sean Manning wrote: | On the other hand, by the fourteenth century knights were scarce and humbler men-at-arms made up the balance of a cavalry force |
But that hardly makes a difference; knighthood had become mostly a social title at that time, and the man-at-arms was the highest class of soldiery in the army. So the man-at-arms was hardly "humble" and the equipment standards needed to be included in this category was really that exacting.
It's also worth noting that the highest class of equipment, pay, and privilege for the rank-and-file in the French and Burgundian Ordonnance armies was the homme d'armes--the man-at-arms, not the chevalier (knight) or anything of that sort.
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Sun 01 Feb, 2009 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
M. Eversberg II wrote: | I admit I know little of horses. I've had limited contact with them throughout my years, only having ridden a really old saddle horse. I figured the charger would be the only horse of a poorer knight, unless a riding horse is "not" expensive. |
But was there such a thing as your image of the "poorer knight" at all? As Zac has mentioned, you have to be reasonably rich in the first place to be a mounted man-at-arms, and if you weren't rich then you'd get yourself neck-deep in debt in order to procure the necessary equipment. If you couldn't get enough gear and enough horses, you simply could not be a mounted man-at-arms, period.
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
Posted: Sun 01 Feb, 2009 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good point, and well taken.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|