Intersting Info for Mounted Combat

[Halfdan]

I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me like this guy pretty much knows what he's talking about.

http://www.classicalfencing.com/chivalry.shtml

[Magmaforge]

I don't claim to be an expert either, and frankly I'm skeptical of someone who does. He would increase his credibility by providing some citations to his articles. For instance,

Horses have always been able to carry 25-30% of their own weight. Thus a small, 850 pound animal could reasonably be expected to carry 170 to 255 pounds. This is the weight of a fully equipped 11th century knight in 35 pounds of chainmail. The Knights depicted in the Battle of Hastings Bayeux Tapestry (c.1077) are riding what appear to be small mounts, even allowing for artistic license...As the weight of defensive armor increased, so too the need for larger horses and the selective breeding for size began. The term "Great Horse" first appears in English records in 1282, more than two centuries after the Battle of Hastings.

this statement bothers me, because I feel fairly certain that the heavily mailled, mounted warriors at Hastings in 1066 were wearing heavier armour than most fully clad warriors in the 15th century. He has avoided making the onerous statement involving winches to get armoured knights onto horses, but not by much. I would be interested at seeing something to back this statement. I would contend, from my small knowledge, that heavier horses, like heavier plate, were developed for the tournament/joust, and (comparatively) lighter, high quality plate and lighter horses were used for war.

Although history tells us of horses so short and riders so tall that their legs almost touched the ground, the mere fact that they were recorded for posterity proves the uniqueness of such an arrangement.

again, this statement irks me without some citation. We know that stirrup suspensions (apologies for the ignorance on proper terms) were longer in the medieval era, and therefore warriors were almost "standing" in the saddle, but this is rediculous without some backing.

In medieval times, a European Knight thought it unmanly to ride into battle on anything other than a stallion. This preference lasted at least until the sixteenth century.

as above. Incredibly broad and simplistic. Without backing, it lowers his credibility more. I would think that at least a few minds would have sparked a thought outside of "it's not manly," especially if there were qualities relating to sex that were deemed that substantive to the horse's action. Perhaps there was some intelligent analysis of the properties of sexes, with a decision commonly being made in favor of the stallion?
lastly,

The modern trooper can enjoy the fruits of "scientific" equitation while mastering the skills of the ancient warriors.

this statement smacks of Beavis and Butthead's "People were Stupid in Olden Times" series.

I think this guy needs to do much more homework.
-Mag

[Fire Stryker]

I think it was Rene, Duke of Lorraine, who rode a gray mare named La Dame. I think he would have taken exception to being called unmanly.

I will look up the citation when I get home.

And I have a library of books on "siyentifyck ekwytashun" , Xenophon (4th c BC) thru Robichon (1730s).

Jenn

[chef de chambre]

I don't claim to be an expert either, and frankly I'm skeptical of someone who does. He would increase his credibility by providing some citations to his articles. For instance,

Horses have always been able to carry 25-30% of their own weight. Thus a small, 850 pound animal could reasonably be expected to carry 170 to 255 pounds. This is the weight of a fully equipped 11th century knight in 35 pounds of chainmail. The Knights depicted in the Battle of Hastings Bayeux Tapestry (c.1077) are riding what appear to be small mounts, even allowing for artistic license...As the weight of defensive armor increased, so too the need for larger horses and the selective breeding for size began. The term "Great Horse" first appears in English records in 1282, more than two centuries after the Battle of Hastings.

this statement bothers me, because I feel fairly certain that the heavily mailled, mounted warriors at Hastings in 1066 were wearing heavier armour than most fully clad warriors in the 15th century. He has avoided making the onerous statement involving winches to get armoured knights onto horses, but not by much. I would be interested at seeing something to back this statement. I would contend, from my small knowledge, that heavier horses, like heavier plate, were developed for the tournament/joust, and (comparatively) lighter, high quality plate and lighter horses were used for war.

Well, you would be wrong on several counts. Firstly, he is accurate concerning the "usefull" weight a horse is expected to carry on campaign - I have the figure 25% of bodyweight from two sources, the U.S. Artillery manual of 1912 (1922 printing) and the British Armys assessment of horses on campaign in the 19th century.

Secondly, your assessment of the weight of armour of William the Tanners men at Hastings. If they were wearing elbow length hauberks, the odds are they were in the 30-35lb range, given the best modern reconstructions. Keep in mind that the bulk of them weren't wearing chausses, or long sleeved hauberks from our best estimation. The weight of a 15th century harness would range from @ 45-60lbs, given surviving examples.

Although history tells us of horses so short and riders so tall that their legs almost touched the ground, the mere fact that they were recorded for posterity proves the uniqueness of such an arrangement.

again, this statement irks me without some citation. We know that stirrup suspensions (apologies for the ignorance on proper terms) were longer in the medieval era, and therefore warriors were almost "standing" in the saddle, but this is rediculous without some backing. [/quote]

Actually, the best studies of warhorses from the 13th-14th centuries show a distinct difference listed in types used in was (the plain horse (equis, the rounsay, and the great horse - later in the 14th century the courser makes it;'s appearance in lists, as well as a distinct difference in costs), coupled with archaeological information, as well as early descriptions (the one he quotes is a tenthcentury French description, of a nobleman who prefered horses where his feet were not far off the ground) places Medieval horses pretty short on average 14-15hh is the accepted norm in current scholarship. Variations in height likely occured, but horses over 16hh occuring in the conditions of animal husbandry as practised in the Middle Ages, as witnessed to by surviving veteranary teatise are highly unlikely.

In medieval times, a European Knight thought it unmanly to ride into battle on anything other than a stallion. This preference lasted at least until the sixteenth century.

as above. Incredibly broad and simplistic. Without backing, it lowers his credibility more. I would think that at least a few minds would have sparked a thought outside of "it's not manly," especially if there were qualities relating to sex that were deemed that substantive to the horse's action. Perhaps there was some intelligent analysis of the properties of sexes, with a decision commonly being made in favor of the stallion?
lastly, [/quote]

Again, he is correct, as is documentable by searching texts contemporary to the time (as well as art, which almost invariably shows 'knights' mounted on intact stallions). For instance, accounts of the Crusades make note of the 'oddity' of the 'saracens' prefering mares as cavalry mounts. It was not until the 15th century when geldings begin to appear on Northern European battlefields as acceptable mounts for the 'chivalry' - the geldings as mounts being refered to as an Italian practise. That Rene of Lorraine was indeed mounted on a grey mare called 'la Dame' at Nancy in 1477 was marked out in the accounts of the battle as being a distinct oddity.

The modern trooper can enjoy the fruits of "scientific" equitation while mastering the skills of the ancient warriors.

this statement smacks of Beavis and Butthead's "People were Stupid in Olden Times" series.

I think this guy needs to do much more homework.
-Mag [/quote]

Given the subject of Medieval equitation as being barely studied at all, it goes without saying that much more work needs to be done. Anyone considering themselves 'expert' in the subject is very likely to find themselves embarassed as future investigation reveals more information.

[JJ Shred]

It was not until the 15th century when geldings begin to appear on Northern European battlefields as acceptable mounts for the 'chivalry' - the geldings as mounts being refered to as an Italian practise.

Weren't geldings ridden by the Huns, or am I mistaking them for another race?

[chef de chambre]

It was not until the 15th century when geldings begin to appear on Northern European battlefields as acceptable mounts for the 'chivalry' - the geldings as mounts being refered to as an Italian practise.

Weren't geldings ridden by the Huns, or am I mistaking them for another race?

They may have been, I don't know. Russ probably would.

[Seth Woodworth]

Does he actually use the term 'Chainmail' ? *shudder* And this is suposed to be schollarly?

[Magmaforge]

Chef, thanks for the feedback. I like it that you don't pull anything.
I was not taking issue with the useful weight a horse is expected to carry. My apologies, I should have made that more clear. With regards to the Hastings warriors, I was basing my supposition on warriors wearing full wrist-length/mid-thigh hauberks w/ chausses as depicted in places on the Bayeux tapestry. I guess that when he said "fully equipped 11th c knight" I envisioned the "deluxe package," moreso than the typical one. This may still (at best) contend with the weight of the typical 15th c rig, rather than superceding it. Pooh on me.

As for the legs almost touching the ground, I could not think on an example of artwork where the feet of a rider seem to be skirting the very earth. I fully admit that I am making speculation about a topic I know very little about, and I appreciate your informed view.

On the issue of the "manliness" of riding a stallion, I feel that your commentary does not argue in favor of his point. I do not disagree as to the commonality of stallion use by knights in period. What I am disagreeing with is his assertion about the thoughts of the men using them.

I agree wholeheartedly with the vast majority of what you have said, and I think I interpreted his statements to mean things highly exaggerated from what he intended. So I listen to someone like you and learn.

-Mag

[Lia]

On the issue of the "manliness" of riding a stallion, I feel that your commentary does not argue in favor of his point. I do not disagree as to the commonality of stallion use by knights in period. What I am disagreeing with is his assertion about the thoughts of the men using them.

Manly or not, the problem with riding a mare is what is fondly referred to as "mareness" -- think PMS at 800-1000 lbs as often as every 2 weeks.

[Russ Mitchell]

Can't tell you for the Huns... too early for me. I know that mares and geldings were both used in Hungary later along with stallions... but whether by the konigsna"he and other courtly "heavy cavalry" types... I'd have to do some serious looking to find out.

Kind of a moot point, really, since the Hungarians, at least in the Renaissance, despised the western warhorses in general, though the local breeds were notably larger than those used by the Ottomans.

[Buran]

I should think there are plenty long bones from horses in that period that would indicate their size.

[Halfdan]

Interesting discussion so far!

Chef: I'm of the same opinion as you seem to be: the basic premises this guy is working off of seem to be relatively sound, but his lack of citations is indeed somewhat irksome. I think the main strength of his argument that encourages me is that he appears to be (from this site at least) a skillful and experienced horseman; the historical knowledge he displays on this website may not be in-depth, but most of it goes along with my understanding of mounted combat.

Perhaps his forthcoming book will include his source material. I may email him to inquire about this.

BTW: Regarding horse height, I am perfectly willing to accept that the destrier was not some ferocious equivelent to a Shire, but in watching mounted sword combat (admittedly mainly SCA-style, where the object is to de-crest the opponents helm) I have noticed that there is a fairly consequestial advantage to be gained from having a horse that is taller than your opponent's.

[Templar Bob/De Tyre]

On the issue of the "manliness" of riding a stallion, I feel that your commentary does not argue in favor of his point. I do not disagree as to the commonality of stallion use by knights in period. What I am disagreeing with is his assertion about the thoughts of the men using them.

Manly or not, the problem with riding a mare is what is fondly referred to as "mareness" -- think PMS at 800-1000 lbs as often as every 2 weeks.

Arab writers (Beha-ad-Din in particular) note that Muslim warriors of the Crusades preferred mares and geldings, because they were more biddable. Usamah ibn-Munqidh, a 12th century Syrian Muslim (who served as both a warrior and a diplomat), notes the scorn that they had for Western European stallions, commenting they were "overlarge in body and lacking in spirit".

[JJ Shred]

again, this statement irks me without some citation. We know that stirrup suspensions (apologies for the ignorance on proper terms) were longer in the medieval era, and therefore warriors were almost "standing" in the saddle, but this is rediculous without some backing.

http://www.tolt.net/stallions.html

When you consider the Icelandic horse is basically unchanged since it was introduced in 1000 AD, I'd think it would be say to assume the horses here would be consistant with the size horses in Williams army.

Certain "coldbloods", or northern horses are far easier to deal with as studs, and gelded drafts can be so lazy I could easily see why one would ride a stallion for the spunk, as well as the fact that stallions will fight, and you are riding into a situation of fear, blood, death and dieing horses all around you. You would need the natural aggression.