| Author |
Message |
|
Zac Evans
|
 Posted: Sat 03 Jan, 2009 2:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Something I've not seen mentioned here is the need to mount up in armour, under adverse circumstances. The Knights of the late medieval period would need to mount their horse in full armour without block or stirrup. Now while we all know that armour wasn't as heavy as some people think, I would suggest that anyone who claims an average height of 17 hands for a warhorse should attempt to mount such a horse in the way described.
To me the best size is between 15 and 16 hands, with the lower end being more practical. Its easy enough to get horses of the strength and speed needed within that size bracket, and there really is no viable reason I can see to want bigger.
|
|
  |
 |
Konstantin Tsvetkov
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Jan, 2009 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello,
As an example here is a picture of a horse I rode, they use it for heavy riders in the stable where I take horse riding lessons. The horse is huge,180 cm tall in her back, on the picture the boy riding is 190 cm tall. This horse is quite comfortable on the trot, carrying a load of some 130 kilos on her back for about 10-15 minutes without any signs of fatigue and is very obedient. For this horse they use plastic bits and you don't even need those, you can control her using only your legs. This was checked many times, when this horse performed all turns and maneuvers with rider not even holding reins. She is very calm and safe. The official name of the breed is "Market horse", but I can't see any obstacle for military use of such a horse.
 Attachment: 124.1 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R.Fox
Location: Youngstowm,Ohio Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Jan, 2009 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sirs-WE have to remember standard use. In the first place, Mounted spearmen, bowmen, and light-armed sergents did not need heavy weight carriers. These light-armed and mounted foot ( English Hobilars, Spanish genetes, Turk spahis, etc ) did not wear heavy armour, just a gambeson and brigandine, or a mail shirt with maybe alittle leg protection, plus a sallet and gorget. Only the rich could afford plate, which is why so much surviving plate is so fancy.
Ja68ms
|
|
 |
|
|
Werner Stiegler
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Jan, 2009 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
How common was changing the horse during battle anyway? To me, it sounds like knights would only own one dedicated warhores and like they were welded to that animal just before battle.
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Jan, 2009 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zac Evans wrote: | The Knights of the late medieval period would need to mount their horse in full armour without block or stirrup. Now while we all know that armour wasn't as heavy as some people think, I would suggest that anyone who claims an average height of 17 hands for a warhorse should attempt to mount such a horse in the way described.
|
A lot of great points (others teaching me, and pointing out practical aspects of how we can and can not expect to determine everything....) have been brought up. It is true that the warrior-horse burials stopped in main medieval period, so that is not producing much convincing data for me.
Vegetius spoke of troops performing winter time practices of jumping onto a vault in armour so that they would be practiced and capable of hit and run guerilla type cavalry / infantry switching in battle. I am pretty certain Charlemagne's forces did this as well. I suspect dismount and remount or switch tactics occurred quickly in some instances. We know from accounts that 12th century mounted melee tournament could involve capture of a horse, while the rider who was knocked off ran to safety in a recet. Later the rider could re-enter on a different horse. (Gambling aspect of the contest actually encouraged them to loose more horses.) I suspect in a heavy cavalry charge, the ones who got knocked off in the middle of an enemy line had a very bad time of it.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Downing
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Jan, 2009 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello everyone, this is my first post on myArmoury and since I am a horse owner and medieval weapons collector, I couldn't resist joining in!! I find this post very fascinating, since I have done a lot of research on horse breeds prior to buying horses, since I wanted to find a horse that approximates an old European warhorse. I definitely agree that most modern sporthorses probably would not make suitable medieval warhorses, particularly most of the European and American warmblood breeds. They are rather tall, averaging 16 + hands and they also tend to have a "refined" ie light build bone structure. One breed that was mentioned in the beginning of the post, the Friesian, was originally used as a warhorse. The Friesian is a small draft horse, but it is also renowned for it's tremendous agility, particularly in relation to it's build. One other thing that I came across when I was trying to decide which modern breed would best suit me that I had not considered was disposition. Some of the other breeds mentioned, particularly the Arabian are very fractious. I would think that the calmer disposition of some of the draft breeds would probably be better for a horse that someone wanted to count on during a calvary charge, especially for the less wealthy knight, who may not be able to afford to have better mount training. Most of the early European horse breeds are related to a primitive horse called the forest horse, which was the tallest (15 hh) and heaviest of the three primitive breeds that all modern horses are decended from. This would seem to lean more toward the heavier draft animals being more commonly used as warhorses, particularly in the earlier periods in European history. The Morgan was the other breed I had considered, since they are known for their gentle nature and tremendous strength and endurance. They are an American breed however, and would of course not have been available to a medeival knight.
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Jan, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One thing about european horse breeding was that many of the Roman breeding centers in europe ceased to exist after the fall of Rome. The only one I am aware of that continued pretty well intact was in Spain. This is interesting because Spanish horses were some of the most sought after warhorses throughout much of the middle ages.
Cataphracts, fully armoured horses that carried pretty well head to toe armoured men were used by the Parthians, Sarmations, Rome had some armoured this fashion as well, not to mention the later Byzantines and Sassanids.
The Roman breeding centers in the near east continued after the fall of Rome, probably contributing to the continuance of use of Cataphracts in that area.
Western European horse breeding improved after the inial Crusades, probably due to the mixing of arabic blood with native stock. One interesting thing is there are references to knights in the crusades preferring local horses to their own european ones. This leads me to believe that the middle eastern breeds were certainly capable of bearing the weight of a knight and his amour, though that should not be a suprise as cataphracts were actually a heavier burden on a horse than knights of this time.
My guess, based on both sizes of shoes and found pieces of horse armour, as well as other info like the above is that the warhorse of the middle ages ridden by knights and men at arms was in the 14-15 hand size and 900-1200 pounds or so. As far as the draft breeds of over 2000 pounds - first it is highly doubtful these types were used for war. Secondly and maybe more important, it's likley that these size of horses even for draft6 work did not exist, draft breeds were probably no heavier than the warhorses of the day.
Horses have gained size throughout history, and much of this has been selective breeding. It is thought that one of the main reasons the chariot was around in ancient times well before cavalry is that horses were not of the size needed to be effective cavalry mounts til later.
One the destrier/courser issue - It is thought that the training and temerament had a fair amount to do wit the classification of these horses as much as size did. The "destrier" class was exptremely rare - of a few musters in England, one has about 2% of the horses classified as Destriers, another 5%. One of these musters goes into detail where a noble was to have 20 Hobilars as a portion of his muster - and he had 20 amroured men mounted on fine horses, and was upset that the assayer considered these 20 as hobolars, not paying him the higher rate for mounted men at arms. Seem the classification was rather subjective of horses as well.
My thoughts on the Destrier/Courser issue - This was not a classification done by breed. You could have a heavy Arab that was a destrier, or mani Friesians were probably considered of the courser class. As far as which ones would be armoured in the later middle ages - If you could afford it you would. Of course if you could afford horse armour, you were more likely to be able to afford a destrier. But it's not just about protecting the investment - having your mount throw you because it was wounded with an arrow, or being dismounted in a melee was dangerous to you the rider, so by armouring the horse you were protecting yourself.
Another interesting issue - No one is real sure what the Mongols rode. Could have been Akhal-Teke's, or it could have been the mongol pony. Now these "ponies" are a bit interesting, a bit shorter than what was thought of as warhorse height, but stocky, their weight in the 1000-1100 range, pretty much similar to warhorse weight. Perhaps they rode a mixture, the better equipped riding Akhal-Teke's.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Jan, 2009 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Horse farms continued after Rome fell. Charles the great had a fair number in fact. I just read an article on the production of war horses from four of them in fact. It is in this years De Re Militari Journal.
During no time in the High to late medieval period that I know of in England after William do English kings not have some form of horse farm for war horses. Edward I had at least 9; 5 in England and 4 in Wales. These could easily produce a well over a hundred over a few years as usually there were hundreds of ready female horses. Clearly they also have a similar program for non-warhorses as well. Clearly there exists a difference between them besides upbringing as breeding seems to be the first aspect of this. In 2-3 year old they go off to become warhorses and some likely do not make it and are not used. So warhorses are set apart from other horses by breeding, likely good blood for size and such as well as training.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Sun 04 Jan, 2009 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | During the decline of the Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages, much of the quality breeding stock developed during the classical period was lost due to uncontrolled breeding and had to be built up again over the following centuries.Carey et al, p. 112 In the west, this may have been due in part to the reliance of the British and Scandinavians on infantry-based warfare, where horses were only used for riding and pursuit.
However, there were exceptions; in the 7th century a Merovingian kingdom still retained at least one active Roman horse breeding centre.Nicolle, p. 267 The Spanish also retained many quality horses, in part due to the historic reputation of the region as a horse-breeding land, and partially due to the cultural influences related to the Islamic conquest of the Iberian peninsula between the 8th and 15th centuries.Bennett (1998), Needs page numbers |
It's a Wiki article, but also collaborates much else of what I have read, Ian Heath is another who makes mention of this.
I'm not saying their were not horse farms, but what I was thinking along the lines of were thrue selective breeding programs. I was remembering incorrectly though that the one I mentioned was in Spain, apparently per the above it was in France. It may be the one I recalled from another article where the breeding records had been kept by monks for centuries.
The other issue is that much of later horse breeding in the middle ages had a good couple century plus interruption on the selective breeding process, which of course sets them back some.
Here is some more interesting stuff from the same article:
| Quote: | The origins of the medieval war horse are obscure, although it is believed they had some Barb and Arabian blood, through the Spanish Jennet, a forerunner to the modern Friesian and Andalusian horse.Bennett, Deb (2004) [http://www.frankhopkins.com/mustangsA.html "The Spanish Mustang: The Origin and Relationships of the Mustang, Barb, and Arabian Horse"]. ''Frank Hopkins''. Retrieved 2008-08-14. It is also possible that other sources of oriental bloodstock came from what was called the ''Nisaean breed'' (possibly akin to the Turkoman horse) from Iran and Anatolia, another type of oriental horse brought back from the Crusades. "Spanish" horses, whatever their breeding were the most expensive. In fact, in Germany, the word ''spanjol'' became the term used to describe quality war horses. However, German literary sources also refer to fine horses from Scandinavia.Bumke, p. 178 France also produced good war horses. Some scholars attribute this to the strong Feudal society there,Gies & Gies, p. 88 but an equally probable explanation is the historic influence of the Roman horse breeding traditions preserved by the Merovingians, combined with the addition of valuable Spanish and oriental bloodstock captured in the wake of the victory of Charles Martel over the Islamic Umayyad invaders at the Battle of Tours in 732. Following this battle, the Carolingians began to increase their heavy cavalry, which resulted in the seizure of land (for fodder production), and a change in tribute payment from cattle to horses.
As the importance of horse breeding to successful warfare was realized, planned breeding programs increased. Many changes were due to the influence of Islamic culture through both the Crusades and the Moorish invasions of Spain; the Arabs kept extensive pedigrees of their Barb and Arabian horses via an oral tradition.Edwards, Needs page numbers Some of the earliest written pedigrees in recorded European history were kept by Carthusian monks, who were among those who bred the Spanish Jennet. Because they could read and write, thus kept careful records, monastics were given the responsibility for horse breeding by certain members of the nobility, particularly in Spain. Written pedigrees for certain breeds of horses existed by about 1330 A.D. Lewis, Barbara S. [http://www.pyramidarabians.com/news/articles/arabianmystique.html "Egyptian Arabians: The Mystique Unfolded"] ''The Pyramid Society'', Retrieved 2006-05-10. In England, a common source of warhorses were the wild moorland ponies, which were rounded up annually by horse-breeders, including the Cistercians, for use as campaign riding horses, or light cavalry; one such breed was the Fell pony, which had similar ancestry to the Friesian horse.
It is also hard to trace what happened to the bloodlines of destriers when this type seems to disappear from record during the seventeenth century.Prestwich, p. 30 Many modern draft breeds claim some link to the medieval "great horse," with some historians considering breeds such as the Percheron, Belgian and Suffolk Punch likely descendants of the destrier. However, other historians discount this theory, since the historical record suggests the medieval warhorse was quite a different 'type' to the modern draught horse Such a theory would suggest the war horses were crossed once again with "cold blooded" work horses, since war horses, and the destrier in particular, were renowned for their hot-blooded nature. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Downing
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Jan, 2009 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
It would be very difficult to say with any certainty that horse breeding had dropped off for any length of time after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Charles Martel was known to have been an excellent horse breeder and was breeding the Hanoverian as well as importing Andalusians to improve his stock during his time. It is also maintained by many modern breed associations that many older breeds such as the Friesian, Holstein and the Percheron were being founded prior to 800 AD. The difficulty lies in the fact that no one knows how accurate the record keeping was during this time period so it is hard to say how good the breeding was. IF there was no method being used to track the lineage of the various horses being breed and what other breeds were being used to improve the native stock, then these breeding farms may have produced poor quality mounts. However, warfare did much for the evolution of some of the European horse breeds as it did for the evolution of weaponry and armor, it improved it.
Many horse breeds in Europe underwent tremendous changes in height and weight over the course of the middle ages according to their use and the what was popular at the time. The Percheron is a perfect example. At the time of the breeds founding, it was much smaller than todays breed standard. It was originally used as a riding horse and for light draft work. These horses were initially founded by breeding arabian stallions to native heavy mares. It was subsequent cross breeding with more Arabians and Barbs that eventually led to a reduction in size in this breed. During the eighteenth century they were even further lightened by the addition of Thoroughbred blood. They were then again bred to local heavy mares to produce the large draft animal that is seen today. The lighter heavy riding version has also been preserved.
As far as the Arabian methods of record keeping and more selective breeding, I would agree that this did contribute to the refinement of many of the breeding programs in Europe after the crusades. However, I think more of the improvements were the result of the quality of the horses used as much as the record keeping itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Jan, 2009 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Charles Martel was known to have been an excellent horse breeder and was breeding the Hanoverian as well as importing Andalusians to improve his stock during his time. It is also maintained by many modern breed associations that many older breeds such as the Friesian, Holstein and the Percheron were being founded prior to 800 AD. |
There was a Frankish horse breeding center that had continued since Roman times as mentioned above. What you say here falls in line with that.
However, this does not mean that all of the Frankish horse farms had this advantage, the better horses may well have been is short supply.
The other issue is that just because a breed was around in the 9th century or prior does not mean they were high qulaity warhorses at this time. Look at the dramatic changes in the Percheron over time - these are a result of breeding. Percherons and Friesians may well have been around at this time - but what were they? Were they as high qulity of warhorses as Andalusians - Apparently not, as the Andalusian was highly sought after. IIRC, Duke Willima rode one at Hastings. He certainly could have had his pick of horses with his wealth, and he chose an Andalusian, not a Percheron or Friesian.
| Quote: | | The difficulty lies in the fact that no one knows how accurate the record keeping was during this time period so it is hard to say how good the breeding was. IF there was no method being used to track the lineage of the various horses being breed and what other breeds were being used to improve the native stock, then these breeding farms may have produced poor quality mounts. However, warfare did much for the evolution of some of the European horse breeds as it did for the evolution of weaponry and armor, it improved it. |
I agree here entirely. The horses of say the 13th century were likley better on average than those available to 11th century riders. I do believe though that the quality of native northwestern european warhorses was lacking overall in the 7th-11th centuries or so compared to the Middle East.
A | Quote: | | s far as the Arabian methods of record keeping and more selective breeding, I would agree that this did contribute to the refinement of many of the breeding programs in Europe after the crusades. However, I think more of the improvements were the result of the quality of the horses used as much as the record keeping itself. |
That's really a chicken/egg statement. It takes both to develop quality horses, and one is dependent upon the other.
Randall Moffett wrote:
| Quote: | | Clearly there exists a difference between them besides upbringing as breeding seems to be the first aspect of this. In 2-3 year old they go off to become warhorses and some likely do not make it and are not used. So warhorses are set apart from other horses by breeding, likely good blood for size and such as well as training. |
Absolutely agree here. My guess it was similar to breeding police dogs today. There is a big fallout rate. My guess is many draft and riding horses were failed warhorses.
I wonder about the Horse archer cultures, and how selective they were with horses for training. They need to be steady under fire and steady in a battle situation, but the mounted melee was not as important, though they certainly could melee. I wonder if there was less stringent requirements for temperament than for a melee type horse. If this were the case, the more well off and better armoured horsemen would likley have horses with better temperament for melee - maybe many of the other lighter armoured horse archers rode horses not as well suited for melee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Downing
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Jan, 2009 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are some references to the Friesian in Roman times that may allude to the quality of the this breed early on in it's history. Tacitus wrote that they were a powerful all around horse, however he thought they were ugly!! The Romans used them while building Hadrians wall and appeared to consider them of good quality. The Hanoverian was being bred and used by the Franks at the battle of Poiters and was bred large for the heavy cavalry tactics used by them. There does seem to be some evidence that the horses of Europe outside of Spain did produce at least some quality animals. However, I do agree wholeheartedly that the Arabian and the Andalusian were used to improve most if not all European horse breeds. It may be possible that they were at least partially brought in to "improve" the disposition of some of the northern large breeds. Most cold blooded horses tend to be docile and laid back, so perhaps they were crossed as much to add some fire to their temperment as well as to improve the breed overall. It may stand to reason that medieval knights may have realized that they needed to add some fight to their horses to enable themincrease the number of horses they had to choose from with the right amount of attitude to choose from so as to reduce the risks to their best stallions.
Good record keeping and quality horses do not always go hand and hand. The plains tribes of North America were known for good breeding practices, having contributed a few modern breeds often considered popular, doing so without having recording lineages, etc. In contrast, modern record keeping via the various breed registries is very good, and there are very good quality horses around to breed, yet many breeders are becoming concerned with the growing number of poor quality horses being bred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Jan, 2009 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The Hanoverian was being bred and used by the Franks at the battle of Poiters and was bred large for the heavy cavalry tactics used by them. |
TMK the Franks at Poiters were almost exclusively infantry, IIRC many of the troops would ride to battle but fight on foot. I think most accounts of the battle list the Franks as an infantry force. Most recounts of the battle list the Moslims clashing with the frankish infantry formations.
It's possible of course there could have been a small contingent of cavalry though, it's hard to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Downing
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Jan, 2009 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gary,
I think your right on that account. Was this one of the earlier battles that the Franks may have just started using heavy cavalry ? I don't have much detailed info on their culture aside from the more obvious stuff. I also delved into a couple of books that I have that mention the Mongols and the concensus seems to be that they initially used their steppe ponies (obviously) but they then used the best of the captured animals for combat, as well as to improve their own herds. I couldn't locate anything pertaining to particular breeds they may have used, though the Akhal - Teke is definitely one they would have encountered and it has a reputation for being fast and very manueverable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justin H. Núñez
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Jan, 2009 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anybody ever read Sword at Sunset? There's a book that a thing or two to say on war horses. Not to mention alot of other stuff. I think it still holds up well even after all of these years in spite of the new discoveries.
It had been my experience that while a horse's temprament is somewhat realted to breed, it is more related to the individual horses personality, the training given him and the person riding him. I have trained horses for quite awhile and of all types from dressage horses to race horses to rope horses and they all recieve pretty much the same training. I have had some dressage horses actaually be better at and liked better roping and working cattle and have had some ranch horses be really good at the test. Furthermore, alot depends on who rides him. Some people. like my cousin, can really rev up a horse. So she always rode the "sleepy" horses. I, however, always got the hot horses could I could calm them down. But you put a hot rider on a hot horse and you got a good bet that there's going to be wreck, inless the rider is good enough to feel it coming and head it off before it happens while doing whatever else he's doing. Those kinds of riders are few.
Now there are some horses that, regardless of breed, are just good at everything, that never make a false move in their life and are still working at age 27.
I think that finding the right calvary horse depends on what your going to use him for obviously. It is very much like which sword is the best. The answer I think is none of them and all of them. You just have to know their limitations and adjust accordingly. Cana person with a gladius beat a person with a smallsword? You bet. If the person has had the right training, has the wisdom to know how to change his tactics and have patience. Can a detachment of cavalrymen on arabs beat a bunch on percherons, not in a full joust no, but on the field yes.
I may have missed the original point of this post; but these are a few thoughts I've had.
By the way: my vote is for the Spanish-Norman.
"Nothing in fencing is really difficult, it just takes work." - Aldo Nadi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Jan, 2009 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gordon Frye wrote: | | Still, the Cataphracts were impressive as all git, and it wasn't until the hordes of Muslim light cavalry overwhelmed them at Khadisiya that the form was overthrown. |
It wasn't really "overthrown;" records show that the Arab conquerors employed Persian defectors in asawira units (a name suspiciously similar to asavaran, the Persian name for their heavy-horse formations) and presumably let them fight in their time-honored Persian tactics because they were still one of the best heavy cavalry types in the world at that time. Arguably, their traditions survived long enough to form part of the syllabus for the training of the ghilman and Mamluk slave cavalry troops, who also often had horse armor (though mostly of a lighter quilted kind).
| Quote: | | However, I note in the other thread going on now on Eastern Armour that there was still Heavy Horse of the Cataphract type in the Turkish army at Mohacs in 1526. |
These were probably revivals rather than survivals, though there may be a tenuous link through the tijfaf cloth bardings of the medieval age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Jan, 2009 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James R.Fox wrote: | | In the first place, Mounted spearmen, bowmen, and light-armed sergents did not need heavy weight carriers. These light-armed and mounted foot ( English Hobilars, Spanish genetes, Turk spahis, etc ) did not wear heavy armour, just a gambeson and brigandine, or a mail shirt with maybe alittle leg protection, plus a sallet and gorget. |
Um...I'm not sure that the generalization is true. The most important kind of "mounted spearmen" in medieval Europe was arguably the men-at-arms, who--as has been mentioned before in this thread--probably needed a light horse for strategic duties and general riding but also a heavy horse for battlefield situations. And then, mounted bowmen...don't be deceived by the lightly-armored (or unarmored) horse archers that usually formed the bulk of the forces in horse-archer cultures, since the same rules did not necessarily apply in (non-horse-archer-focused) medieval Western Europe. In fact, the most notable statements about mounted archery in medieval Europe is probably the bonus offered to Spanish knights and men-at-arms if they knew how to use a bow on horseback--and probably in armor! We could also mention heavy horse archers like the Sasanian cataphracts and the Mamluks, though they may not exactly be relevant to a discussion about medieval Europe.
Oh, and BTW, Turkish sipahi were heavy cavalrymen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Jan, 2009 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | I wonder about the Horse archer cultures, and how selective they were with horses for training. They need to be steady under fire and steady in a battle situation, but the mounted melee was not as important, though they certainly could melee. I wonder if there was less stringent requirements for temperament than for a melee type horse. If this were the case, the more well off and better armoured horsemen would likley have horses with better temperament for melee - maybe many of the other lighter armoured horse archers rode horses not as well suited for melee. |
The ability to handle close combat was probably quite important for medieval horse archers at least. Middle Eastern and Chinese manuals are replete with injunctions that a horse archer should get as close as possible to the enemy as he took his shot, and at least one (Qi Jiguang) actually said that the horse archer only performed really well when he was almost within the reach of the enemy's hand-to-hand weapons. Not to mention that even light horse archers would probably have needed to be able to engage the enemy in hand-to-hand combat during the pursuit phase of the battle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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