[Gary Teuscher]

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

Thank you all for your input.

Speaking about test in which two riders would contest against each other, thats exactly what I originally meant: someone well trained, even to the degree he himself is excellent horseman against someone mounted. Someone confident in his skill.

Would this dismounted horseman, or more specifically knight for example, well trained in both mounted and dismounted feel at a disadvantage if faced with someone mounted in a duel (no more or less skilled than him) or the other way round, he would consider his opponent foolish for not dismounting? (Maybe, to make it more specific, both would have sword and lance at their disposal) I know its almost impossible to completely ommit psychological effect of facing charging horse or fighting for his life, but for the sake of argument, lets consider both combatants have scientific approach to this contest and consider only technical advantages and disadvantages stemming off facing someone on a horse dismounted and vice versa.

Or maybe put in a different way: If these two were to write few sentences, as an advice, both accomplished fighters, one proponent of mounted combat, one of dismounted, what would each other highlight to make his point on his preferred way of fighting (mounted/dismounted), some maybe not absolutely objective, even dehonesting his antagonist for some reason. (relative vulnerability of a horse being valid point, just as any point about how to use it against opponent)

That infantry in formation is almost impenetrable by most cavalry, if it holds and no other accident occures, that would eventually lead to the break up of formation and morale, is more or less certain Id say. Therefore I aim my questions rather at single combat, or combat of little units on smaller scale in cases both combatants are able and self confident fighters, maybe even supposing both are perfectly familiar with what can they expect of their opponent. Once again it doesnt have to be clear cut answer in terms of wholl win, rather contemplation about what taughts would run through the heads of both in this situation. (both well trained, self confident, both have some idea what they can expect of the other side to sum it up once again)

[Bennison N]

The Chinese developed both special swords and special forces to fight horses.

The former is the Zhanmadao, or "Horse Cutting Sabre".

And the best of the second were the Tigermen. Using shields which had the stylized face of a Tiger on them, and dressed in light uniforms that resembled the distinctive fur pattern of a Tiger, they would rush horses, growling and carrying on, and the horses would nearly always bolt and the enemy cavalry would become ineffective. I've also seen mention of grappling hooks and fireworks used by Tigermen. These were very rare, more famously Qing Dynasty elites, recruited from ethnic Han Chinese (not Manchurian, who were the ruling ethnicity at this time) and during the Taiping Rebellion, a Western observer only ever recorded having seen around 20 or so at any one time. They were quite effective, a force of Ming Dynasty Tigermen helping drive the Dutch from Formosa (Taiwan) in around 1662 or so.

I've also heard of Song Dynasty General Yue Fei's Teng Pai Chun ("Rattan Shield Troops") using shields coated in slippery oils to bring down Jin Dynasty chariot and war-cart horses by throwing the shield on the ground in front of the horses' feet. They would slip, and then the soldier would finish the horse with their sabres. And once the horse was down they would swarm and kill the enemy soldier/s. Teng Pai Chun remained a part of the Chinese Army, regardless of the Dynasty, even listed amongst the Green Banner Army of the final Qing Dynasty.

These were both types of specialist soldiers, so they were very well trained and disciplined. And accounts say they often easily defeated mounted forces, whilst being on foot themselves.

[Scott Woodruff]

Very similar to Germanic horse-stabbers mentioned earlier. Germanic tribes made extensive use of highly trained and very fast infantry to back up their cavalry. Basically, each horseman had a squire who ran beside the horse iin battle, extricating him from trouble when needed and attacking the horses of other mounted opponents. This tactic must have been effective since it was used for over 800 years. These horse-stabbers were a sort of beserker, fighting in only trousers or a short cloak and usually carrying only a knife. This is probably a good example of the success of extremely aggressive charging against a horse as opposed to standing firmly on the defensive.

Jaroslav, I think in this context the horseman would suggest that you simply avoid these really aggressive infantry and seek a softer target ( keep in mind that cavalry was without stirrups during the time of the horse-stabbers) while the horse-stabber would probably suggest that the best tactic would be to look for a distracted horseman and run up as quickly as you can and stab the horse. It seems that the horse-stabbers usually attacked the horse frontally, and are often depicted hanging under the trotting horses neck and thrusting at the neck arteries. Based on my own experience with being attacked by aggressively territorial horses, the frontal attack does seem more sound than a flank or rear attack.

[Zac Evans]

The problem we have with the x vs y question is that skill is a massive factor. I ride horses in a 15th century context. I'm not great, but I've taken part in several battles, and I'm learning. With the right horse, I can deliver a solid charge both with sword and lance, but that's not the level of horsemanship I'd expect from a medieval knight. Moving up, some of my friends are great horsemen. They can get their horses to canter pretty much on the spot, or circle around you at the canter with their face toward you all the time. I would not want to face these guys in battle as a single foot soldier.

Finally, possibly the most dangerous modern sport using horses is mounted bullfighting. While I don't agree with the ethics of the bullfighting, the horsemanship is phenomenal, and I think it represents medieval military horsemanship a lot better than almost any other analogue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJiaSHwOkcs

To echo a quote from a knights tale:

"How would you beat him?"
"With a stick while he sleapt. But on a horse? With a lance? He's unbeatable."

Now that is suggesting high levels of skill for both. If the foot knight is of a higher skill level, then he stands a chance.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

There is one advice in fencing manuals that I know about, in Lovino, plate LXVI. The situation is a sword&dagger fighter on foot, charged by a horseman with a single sword. The horseman's plan is apparently to bump into the man on foot and strike down on his head. The advice given is to void the horse, parry the horseman's cut with the dagger and cut with the sword into the horse's legs. Once the horse is disabled the horseman is in a bad situation.

I think the simplicity of the horseman's plan, and the fact that the author exposes in greater details the reaction of the man on foot, reflect a sort of assumed advantage to the horseman. A bit like unarmed vs. dagger, where authors tend to detail life-saving reactions against a relatively unrefined attack.

Regards,

[Gary Teuscher]

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

Id like to ask about Zhanmadao, No-Dachi and maybe other possible far-eastern variants of sword with long blades, that are often atributed with significant horse-slaying capability. I only have brief knowledge of these, generally only what their name is. Is this easy horse slaying trait in either individual combat or in battle documented by any evidence besides it being notoriously mentioned whenever I look into some information about them?

I dont know about any special anti-cavalry property attributed to european zweihander for example, its generally disciplined formations of pikemen, that are credited as anti cavalry weapon. Could it be, that average medieval/rennaisance knight and his art of horsemanship would be so much more advanced, compared to chinese horseman of the era, when these weapons were used? Or am I missing something and large swords were considered very dangerous against a horseman even in Europe?

Isnt it maybe self perpetuated misconception, like in many others cases about their preeminent effectiveness against mounted enemies? Could someone maybe share some experience of duelling mounted, with a footman armed with such a sword with significantly longer blade than himself?

Also, great point about generally assumed simplistic plan of horseman in many manual depictions of how to deal with a hoseman on foot. I have seen very little, though most of what Ive seen seem to show horseman riding by in straight line. I allways wondered how would a situation change, even for a man, who consideres himself competent in many of these anti cavalry techniques, if he faces accomplished horseman, who would utilize more maneuvering, than just riding by hacking at him for example? Also my primary assumption, when seeing, that how to deal with a man on a horse is maybe seen as more important than vice versa means there was bigger or smaller inherent advantage of mounted man at this times. (Once again I only mean on one on one basis, not in formation in set piece battle) But was it physical, or purely psychological? Was it needed to know such a techniques for plain survival, or only to get confidence in oneself to face the threat, that by itself was almost solely in overcoming ones fear of facing a mount in combat?

My personal feeling was, that speed and direction changes, along with perfect horsemanship and a plan little more complex, than just ride by and attempt to score a hit would deal serious trouble to anyone on foot, with any close combat weapon. Though I wonder if it wouldnt be counterproductive to change direction and speed in quick sucession and if it was really worth it in compare to simpler solution, making it even more risky, than remaining simple. I cant judge by myself, as Im surely not as good at a horse, as to be sure about myself with moving delicately and exactly how much and when I need.

Id also like to ask about these ancient horse stabbers, especially how they faced rider to the front of them (as with information about far eastern weapons, or ancient military as a whole I must admit I only know very brief information about ancient europeans in general): Wouldnt it be something like a suicide mission against someone who concentrates on a stabber? Its quite hard to picture. Were they jumping around horses neck with just a knife, frontally, against opponent armed with sword or lance? How would they do this? What would it be like, if rider decides to cut at him, as hes trying to cut horses throat, or if horse decided to kick, or bite? (I want kicked by horse myself yet, though from what Ive seen fully naked man would be quite certainly put out of action by this) If they were very serious threat to cavalry, werent there some counter measures applied to help individual horsemen overcome such a threatening situation and get out of it along with their mount in one piece? If they were able to get so close, wouldnt it be more sound and safer to deal with the rider rather than a horse, that maybe could run amok, if hurt in this way? Or was it done because it was considered manly to take the danger maybe?

[Craig Shackleton]

The von Danzig manuscript had a section on armoured combat (I believe Ringeck has the same or similar) that starts with advice on how to counter a mounted opponent if on foot, under the specific circumstance that your opponent is a better rider than you, so you dismount to negate his advantage. It gives techniques for countering lance and sword attacks with spear or sword, including a technique for tripping or throwing the horse with a spear shaft. There is no advice in that section for the rider against the person on foot, although it's possible there's something like that in the mounted combat section.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Kurt Scholz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Strasbourg is a wiki article written with some effort that directs you to the right places in the primary sources. The horsestabbing light infantry on the Alamanni side seems to have had mostly a massive psychological impact.

Chinese anti-cavalry swords are reported as positioned slightly advanced from the main force. They might be similar to the Byzantine menavlion in dense formation and work as cutting weapons against more open order formation that allowed for archery support. The tigers are rather like a mix of sword and buckler and Almogavars that can work well against cavalry under certain conditions. It is an error of perception not to see how small these groups of select soldiers were, who had to break up Eastern Eurasian cavalry charges that had a higher component of missile support and how little we know either of the organization of these charges nor of the specific geography of the battlefields. The smaller a group is, the better they can exploit natural or man-made features.

[Gary Teuscher]

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

So when speaking about Huscarls at the battle of Hastings, were they almost exclusively using two handed axes? My impression was, they could be armed with variety of weapons, this axe being only one possible choise and that they faced cavalry charge with spear and shield mostly. Is this completely wrong?

So would front of english line at this battle look like quite loose line of axemen rather than interlocked shields with protruding spears? (Or maybe would they alter, depending on, if they faced norman cavalry, or infantry?) How would it work then? They surely needed some space to wield it, though that seem to make it easier for horsemen charging in tight formation to get among them. And if they faced them with axes in tighter formation, wouldnt it still be better to use spears instead?

Also what about the question of one on one, for example single huscarl against single norman knight, somewhere in the open land?

[Kurt Scholz]

It's my perception that the deployment of this infantry could be quite fluid. As far as we know, they were well-suited to sorties, but loose infantry was on a disadvantage against cavalry that probably could team up on targets.
Sometimes it might be advisable to wait close to the line in order not to have a concussion from being overrun by a horse (still happens today). In other cases, it could be safe to deploy in front (geography, enemy tactics) of the line and break up an attack. Caltrops would be a tool I'd use to reduce the speed of attacking horses. Behind caltrops I'd feel safer as an axeman who attacks the horse. Clever infantry would have the caltrops on a rope in order to remove them quickly if they wanted to cross this terrain.

found in http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=255594 Caltrops reduce speed and enable a number of attacks.

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

[Luka Borscak]

Anything solid I ever read about Hastings emphasizes tightness of Saxon shield wall and Norman cavalry disability to penetrate through it. So huscarls with two handed axes would maybe be incorporated as a second line behind shield and try to swing vertically over the shoulders of shield bearing man in the front rank. From time to time axeman might step outside the shieldwall to attack lonely mounted Norman but axemen would be unable to withstand the charge with axes alone without shields. And mounted Normans made a series of mounted attacks that retreated to regroup when they failed. Infantry and cavalry attacks were launched separately as far as I know. And both armies had at least 5000 men overall, exact composition not really known.

[Gary Teuscher]

[Jaroslav Kravcak]