[Ian S LaSpina]

With regard to a horse charging a pike line or any seemingly solid object, I think from examining modern horse racing we can see the level of training a horse can be put through and ultimately be taught to completely ignore it's instincts at the cost of it's health.

Here's an external site that tracks racehorse death:

http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/

It's data spans from 13 March 2007 to 31 July 2011. Of all the horses that died as a result of racing, I count 47 horses on that list in just over 4 years that died after collapsing from exhaustion either after the race, and even during the race. I believe this goes to show that a horse, when trained properly, and driven by it's rider, will do things beyond it's limits on command, potentially to it's own death. If the bond between horse and rider is so strong, that a horse will allow itself to essentially be exhausted to the point of collapse and death, is it not by extension reasonable, that the horse could be trained to run at a line of men with pikes? Beyond shear training, I think the bond between rider and horse is worth examining as well, and should not be underestimated. Just as a dog will put itself at risk for it's master, so to a horse will push beyond its limits.

I believe we see examples in modern life of horses being trained to do things against their natural prey instinct, so it seems silly to me to think that horses selected and bred for war wouldn't just as easily be trained to violate their natural instincts and charge seemingly immovable or dangerous objects.

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

[quote="Kurt Scholz"]

[Randall Moffett]

Well as to them being unwilling to charge into a tight line..... I think evidence demonstrates this untrue.

A few years back I spoke to a gent who trained riot control horses for duty and he made a comment the only thing they could not teach them how to do was fly. The more I have looked at this I think he might be right.

Here are some excerpts from 2008 when Tampa police are trained by as well as the horses by Cpl. Mike Morrow for riot control and descriptions of what they are doing.

'It allowed Tampa police Cpl. Mike Morrow to evaluate riders and get the horses used to tight spaces. Other drills included trainers trying to grab and tackle mounted officers who maneuvered their horses into intimidating defensive spins.

The horses also clumped together and marched shoulder to shoulder through a mob of practice rioters, splitting the crowd while smoke bombs boomed and loudspeakers blared crowd noise.....

Their mere presence can settle unruly crowds because mounted officers say the animals are calm, stoic police ambassadors who don't look as menacing as riot police. But they are more than community relations tools, officers quickly pointed out.

Horses cut through traffic jams, push more people aside than 18 men, give officers high vantages and keep law officers safe, because people are less likely to attack a mounted officer than one on foot."

St. Petersburg Times, Justin George, Times Staff Writer In Print: Friday, September 26, 2008 ( http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article827557.ece )

Now this is not quite the same as war but still they are trained to do a huge variety of things not in their nature.

Another interesting article that talks about the progression they use for teaching horses to push things out of the way.

'Exercises at this year's spring training helped the newer horses overcome a natural inclination to flee from danger. Crowd control techniques were introduced by having the riders ask the horses to push a 6-foot inflatable beach ball around the arena. In another exercise, the horses were asked to stand still while firecrackers were thrown near their feet.

More experienced horses and riders practiced pushing human volunteers out of the way.'

( http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29579929.html )

They even have fairly detailed lines of genealogy for horse bred for riot control, not unlike what was done in period for war.

One can train a horse to do anything. I have family who work in training horses (not riot training by the way) and it is amazing what a horse can learn. Couple this with how aggressive some horses are, I watched a lone horse plow into a group of people outside some stables simply because it was irritated by something one of them had done. I worked at a place training some horses for jousting and it took some work to get them to do it, I remember one young horse turn 180 degrees and bolt back to the stables, but they get it eventually.

Also consider often with a lance or later pistol horses still have an advantage of distance, power and weight. Horses can push much more than their own weight, having been knocked aside by horses a handful of times I'd hate to see what a line flank to flank would look, or worse, feel like.

Just some things to look at related to the horses themselves and training influence.

RPM

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

Browsing discussions on romanarmytalk I found one odd argument why charging any horse into any solid formatiom deep enough is suicide- because a tightly packed wall of men acts alike brickwall so horse wouldnt have a chance to survive collision. (Maybe as an update to horse would never ever charge anything )

My personal feeling of it is its overstated a little. Even if it was completely true such a dense formation would be great target for any missile. Or are there any accounts of horses dying because they hit a wall of people cemented together?

[Kurt Scholz]

[Randall Moffett]

I certainly think it is possible for infantry to hold up against cavalry. No question about that as we do have several battles showing a massacre of horsemen from frontal assaults. I do think it had is time and place where it was effective though. If one horse can push aside 18 men then 500 can push aside some 9000 men optimally. Now the deeper the ranks and such I am sure makes it less of a straight forward process but still if they can displace even 3-4 times their numbers this would cause men to push and force there way into the surrounding force and create a massive weakness in the ranks.

I know of no accounts of horses dying by impact with people, missiles though, yes this seems fairly common to be an issue.

RPM

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

Wouldnt it be worse for men in frontal ranks of infantry formation if horsemen decided to push them, not ride into them, rather than for horses themselves? (rather in case of roman infantry than rennaisance pike and shot) It seems to me like these would be compressed from both sides maybe. Higher plaftorm would favour cataphracts and with men in front of them being pushed together and men behind them unable to help they would be presented with good target. Maintaining solid line of horses would be crutial as not to allow outflanking. Could this scenario be realistic?

Battle of Adrianople and also Carrhaee is sometimes interpretes as this:
In first instance that flanking charge compressed roman infantry to the point they werent able to use their weapons effectively in second that cataphracts (directly or indirectly) forced romans to tighten formation and make it nice target for horse archers.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

[William P]

[A. Tomsinov]

[William P]

[Joakim Løvgren]

Hi.

I'm doing my bachelor thesis on how a knight would ride his horse in battle, in the middle ages.
Off course a horse could charge a massive wall (of people) and brake the line. It's all about how your train the beast, and off course sometimes the cavalry charge didn't manage, because the infantry was too experienced.
If you take sources, for example, you see it on almost every source, that the lance strike is given, while both hind legs are in the ground, and the front legs are in the air. That means that all the horses weight the riders, is pushing forward, and is centered on the lance tip, and then it is capable of smashing through anything. This was a galop called the "Carrière", a variation of a galop called "terre a terre", and it it important to add that this is a renaissance lingo, we don't know the medieval ones.
I'm very sceptical by using personal experiences when answering this question, because by doing that, you think of yourself that you are as good as the medieval horse trainers - and we will never bee! Instead of thinking, "that's not possible" we should think "What is the reason why they painted/write it? And what can we do, to make it possible?" The medieval people didn't write/paint this because it looked good, they had to have a reason.
On my opinion we have to acknowledge the riders of the middleages, because the had a different relationship with their horses. They rode the on a everyday basis, because they had to get from a to b, wich meant that they acknowledged them as living creatures, and respected their individualities. This also what Dom Duarte explains in his book "Bem Cavalgar", and if you noticed how horses are always depicted with "human" eyes on illustrations, it gives a perception that these animals was regarded as a sort spirituel creature, not with a soul, but as important.

http://academicartofriding.com/exercises/terr...[/url][/i]

[Gary Teuscher]

I think a few things about a cavalry "charge" - first, we really don't know how they actually charged into an enemy infantry line.

Could have been at the gallop (I doubt), canter, trot or even a walk. Someone mentioned earlier the horse would have merely walked and pushed - like pikeman tactics - this is a distinct possibility.

I would think the speed at initial engagement depended on the depth and resolve of the infantry formation. If it was only a few deep, or breaking, a canter or trot could make sense. Steadfast and a deep infantry formation - a trot at best, or a walk.

These 1000+ pound animals could puch effectively against men at best abut 1/5 of their size.

and being pushed back is demoralizing - it could lead to the collapse or route of a body of infantry depending on how well they react.

However, if they stand their ground, they outnumber the cavalry, sherely based on the fact that you can pack more men than horses per square meter.

A cavalry force that interpenetrates an infantry force can cause them to route - but if they do not, the cavalry are at a disadvantage, and outnumbered. Riders can be drug from the saddles or attacked by a few men at a time. and heavy cavalry are an "expensive" unit, not one that you want to trade man for man with infantry.

But much is determined by the depth of the infantry formation, and the resolve of the infantry. Of course, pikes are better than swords at least on the initial impact, though hand weapons are effective when it gets into a slogging match.

Cavalry, even heavy, are much more effective against infantry if hitting them in the flank or rear - preferably with their own infantry attacking the enmy infantries front.

[A. Tomsinov]

[Joakim Løvgren]

[/quote]we really don't know how they actually charged into an enemy infantry line.

That is not true. If we look at contemporary illustrations of horses charging in war situations, it's, as I've mentioned earlier, with both hind legs in the ground, which means in full gait, which means that it is smashing through enemy lines. I agree with you that this is a very dangerous attack, because if it fails it is crucial for the cavalry. However, we must not forget the mentality of these knight, because they fought under a chivalry code, which is a mixture of af roman and germanic warrior mentality. For these knights is was a honour to die in combat, or an even greater honour to have charged enemy lines hard, and won the battle. It was all about glory, and I do not think that we should think modern military mentality, where it's all about winning (sort of, compared to chivalry mentality). It is, in my opinion, dangerous to think effectiveness when thinking about medieval cavalry charges, because they fought with a different discourse, then a modern one.
Besides, medieval dressage was much more elegant, than what you see at medieval faires today. Horses were much lighter and faster, and would look much more like rejoneos ride their horses when fighting bulls in the corrida. This means that knights wasn't an easy target, as you would imagine a modern day medieval faire jouster is, but much faster, agile, and the advantage of riding a horse in battle is that when you are fighting an opponent, you are always fighting two against one: if the man on the ground attack the horse, the knight will attack the man on the ground, and if the man on the ground attack the knight, the horse attack the man on the ground. To teach your horse to be an active attacker, was very difficult, and that is why it took up to seven years of intensive training to train your destrier, before it was able to rear, bite and kick on command, which also explain the high price for a destrier. Biting on command might seem far out, but a rejoneador called Diego Ventura has a stallion called Morante, which actually bites the bulls, when it gets close: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu_6NNOAW_c

There is no reason why you should use a horse, if you only want to trot or walk against your enemy, because there will be no weight in the lance strike, and then you might aswell dismount and poke your enemy from the ground. The horse is only useful when you use its weight in full gait, as almost all illustrations show us: [/url]http://www.manuscriptminiatures.com/roman-dalexandre-francais-790/2440/
Notice how both hind legs are in the ground, as the lance strike is delivered.
What you see very rarely, is a war situation where a cavalry is charging an infantry line, and I think that it is because both warlords would know that an infantry line wouldn't hold long against a cavalry charge, so often both warlords would send his heavy cavalry, against his opponents heavy cavalry, and then hope thats his own heavy cavalry would fight down the opponent, so that his heavy cavalry could start attacking the infantry (from the flanks). This is also what you see on illustrations of war, that the knights are fighting in the middle, and then the infantry is fighting around the cavalry: [url]http://www.britishbattles.com/100-years-war/poitiers.htm
This picture shows very well how I think that a medieval war, with heavy cavalry would look like. Of course this i a propaganda depiction of the french king fighting the english king, but nonetheless, the artist must have made the illustration out from how he experience battles, and might not be aware of this.

A medieval heavy cavalry is not an expensive unit, because the warlord wouldn't get any money out of his pocket, by using it. The knight payed his own equipment, and servants, and he had an obligation to serve his lord. The king/warlord would always have new knights, because squires would become knights eventually - so I don't think that it was something a warlord would be nervous about.[/url]

[Rusty Thomas]

Joakim an illustration that shows the horse on its rear feet just before impact doesn’t necessarily mean that the horse is smashing through the line. It could also mean that the horse trotted up to the line, saw a group of men whose courage was wavering, and at the last moment leaped toward those men. Or it could be that horses simply look better when they are painted like that as opposed to a trot. I'm not saying it doesn't mean they weren't at a full gallop but I don't think we can be for sure. There are also images of mail clad warriors cut clean in two by the sword and of saints fighting dragons. There is also a drawing of an elephant I’ve seen that was clearly done by someone who has never seen an elephant. Not to mention all the images of biblical figures painted wearing clothing and armour that didn't exist until 1000-1500 + years later. I'm not saying we can't learn a great deal from these images but we shouldn't rely solely on them as proof.
I think one of the main assets of the mounted cavalry is from its mobility. They can change the tide of battle because they can more easily take advantage of openings and weaknesses in the opposition’s lines and not to mention the added vantage point from being higher than everyone else. Harass the infantry until you find a weakness. Now I’m not saying that they didn't charge at a full gallop into infantry because i suspect they did at times. It's even probably that during a full on charge some knights would slide to a stop just before impact, but others would not. Do that in some semblance of order with the knights in front stopping, the ones further behind continuing on past them then the nights who stopped falling in behind the others as they hit the line and pressing forward. That would be a very simple move for trained cavalry and disorienting for the infantry. Or it might end in total failure for the cavalry, Who knows Maybe that was even the tactic, get as close to the enemy as you can at full gallop. Lower the lance and try to impale someone while your horse slid to a stop. Pivot the horse on its hind end and gallop off to get another lance? Of course this is all conjecture and speculation on my part. After all I wasn’t there.
Know for my opinion about horses, they are stupid animals....period. If anybody doubts me find even one of them that can do my taxes or read a book or even plant a garden But seriously you can train a horse to do anything it can do on its own and to do it on command. Some are easier than others and some aren't worth the effort. Those get different jobs. I honestly don't think it would be that much of a challenge to train a horse to gallop right into a wall of pikemen. Some have said a horse wouldn't run headfirst into a wall of spears. Well a horse doesn’t know the difference between a spear and a pool noodle. They are scared of everything: new, different, noisy, out of place, flapping, waiving, flying etc. Once you get them over being scared of a mail box on their left side you turn them around and have to work on them not being scared of the exact same mailbox on their right side. Is there any difference between a wall of pikes and a mailbox or a grocery bag blowing underneath them? To a horse they can all mean the end of the world. (On a breezy day bring some grocery bags to the next horse event you go to and you will be able to quickly tell who the good riders are).
I don’t know if I’ve added anything to the topic or not but there’s my two cents.

[Gary Teuscher]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Len Parker]

Some info here on templar cavalry http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/bennett1.htm