Assume you are in a battle, not a tournament. You are either a dismounted knight who has lost your horse, or you are still lucky enough to be on your mount at this point. While in the thick of combat, you run into the other knight. 1 on 1 combat ensues.
Question1: Would you rather be the mounted or dismounted knight and why.
Question2: What are the advantages/disadvantages of both positions?
Question3: What tactics would you use to smite the enemy?
Thanks,
ScottC
Foot vs. Mounted combat
-
Gordon the Grey
- Archive Member
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Trenton, Ontario,Canada
Well if your dismounted ( ie horse is dead) I think your best bet would be to get off the battle field as fast as possible! Before someone still mounted or polearmed infantry can get to you. I,m assuming that you are armed to fight from horseback,not the best for fighting heavey infantry or mounted knights in ground combat. Guess you could always hope that they are taking ransoms that day!
-
JJ Shred
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10324
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Altamont, Tennessee
- Contact:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Well if your dismounted ( ie horse is dead) I think your best bet would be to get off the battle field as fast as possible!</font>
Exactly. One of the main jobs of a squire was to either bring a second horse to the knight, or whisk him out of harm's way if he lost his horse.
A heavy cavalry charge would start knee-to-knee with lances and blow through the other line. Continuing the momentum they would turn to the right so shields would be towards the enemy, and regroup and attack again as a unit. Broken lances would be disgarded and secondary weapons - mace, sword or hammers would be used. Once again, blowing through the line and back to their side.
Without a doubt I would rather be mounted. I can instantly reach bursts of speed of 25 mph. I have reach where it counts, overhead. I have 1500 + lbs. of impact when I make contact.
Carrying a 12 - 14' cavalry lance, I have about 10' of reach in front of my body, 9' in front of the horse's legs, and 8' in front of the horse's nose. Compared to 32" - 48" of reach for a arming or longsword, You could see how ludicrious the scene from Braveheart was where Gibson waits to the last moment to sweep the horse's legs out from under him. In reality, a lance would be sticking several feet out the back of his body before he was in range for a longsword. Sword-to-sword, I am on a platform reaching down and out, so I still have a "lethal reach advantage" over a footman similiarly armed. With a mace, striking down not only with a stronger blow overhead, but with the forward impact of the horse's motion more power would be put to task.
Even if I was at a reach disadvantage to Gibson with his longsword and I with the mace, as he was striking and the horse was falling, I could still strike a lethal blow on the way down. An experienced horseman can dismount a falling horse without turning into a pile of helpless scrap. I rolled Merlin at a canter on a turn when he was on the wrong lead, and he slipped right out from under me, leaving me on my feet and running. My equestrian skills are probably 1/500 of what someone who trained daily, hunted and did all traveling on horseback.
If faced with a point-blank crossbowman or gunner, I could rear the horse and let it take the shot instead of myself. At a rear, you would basically be standing and only need to jump clear of where the horse is heading.
My stallion would bite and kick in a combat situation if it felt threatened and smelled blood. A horse can tear off a man's hand or face in an instant, and can kick a man's head off his neck.
Of course, in a static situation, I could easily be pulled off my horse by 5 or 6 men. But you are just one.
------------------
Virtus vincit invidiam
"Virtue overcometh envy"
[This message has been edited by Bascot (edited 03-07-2002).]
-
Bob Charron
- Archive Member
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Contact:
The question assumes a one-on-one engagement.
I would *very much* want to be the dismounted individual. The advantages are too great to the one on foot. The man on horse has an added variable of the horse to maneuver around and the horse's neck in the way of any change-through from side to side.
The man on foot may strike the horse or the man, and proper use of distance means he can do both (given equal weapons) in safety by manipulating distance.
------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
I would *very much* want to be the dismounted individual. The advantages are too great to the one on foot. The man on horse has an added variable of the horse to maneuver around and the horse's neck in the way of any change-through from side to side.
The man on foot may strike the horse or the man, and proper use of distance means he can do both (given equal weapons) in safety by manipulating distance.
------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
-
Winterfell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 12345
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Reston
Through many egagements during the middle ages knights fought dismounted. There are tons of references of King Whosie Whatzuz had this many groups of dismounted knights led by Lord So Andso. Most believe that a knight on horseback was well nigh invincible. Then someone came up with the schiltron, the pike, the halberd! Me in a single combat, I would rather be on foot with a nice pole axe, and full armour.
------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics
------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics
I would have to agree with Bascot here. The man on the horse has a huge advantage in reach and power. You can get pretty good thrust with a spear standing still. You can get unbelievable thrust with a spear when you are moving 20 miles an hour.
Also, remember that armor was general designed to protect the guy on the horse.
The guy on the ground's best hope is to kill the horse to even things up.
Watt
Also, remember that armor was general designed to protect the guy on the horse.
The guy on the ground's best hope is to kill the horse to even things up.
Watt
-
Winterfell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 12345
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Reston
-
Winterfell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 12345
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Reston
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob Charron:
<B>The question assumes a one-on-one engagement.
I would *very much* want to be the dismounted individual. The advantages are too great to the one on foot. The man on horse has an added variable of the horse to maneuver around and the horse's neck in the way of any change-through from side to side.
The man on foot may strike the horse or the man, and proper use of distance means he can do both (given equal weapons) in safety by manipulating distance.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For once I *completely* agree with Bob; the man on foot has a tremendous advantage. With a lance you have to hold it perfectly steady during the charge to do any good. When charging against another man with a lance that's hard enough, but both are *trying* to stay in line. All a man on foot has to do is to wait for you, then step gently out of line as he deflects the tip of your lance (where you have almost no leverage) with whatever weapon you're using (a dagger should be enough, really; remember, you aren't facing it head on, you're stepping aside). Then all you have to do is to kill his horse with your sword as it runs by.
If the mounted man is armed with a sword, all you have to do is use the greater mobility and quicker turning ability a two-legged human has to place yourself in a position where he can't hit you while you kill his horse.
Then, after you've killed his horse, you have plenty of time to get over to him and attack him while he's still dazed from the fall, or, at least, entangled with his saddle and tack.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>The question assumes a one-on-one engagement.
I would *very much* want to be the dismounted individual. The advantages are too great to the one on foot. The man on horse has an added variable of the horse to maneuver around and the horse's neck in the way of any change-through from side to side.
The man on foot may strike the horse or the man, and proper use of distance means he can do both (given equal weapons) in safety by manipulating distance.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For once I *completely* agree with Bob; the man on foot has a tremendous advantage. With a lance you have to hold it perfectly steady during the charge to do any good. When charging against another man with a lance that's hard enough, but both are *trying* to stay in line. All a man on foot has to do is to wait for you, then step gently out of line as he deflects the tip of your lance (where you have almost no leverage) with whatever weapon you're using (a dagger should be enough, really; remember, you aren't facing it head on, you're stepping aside). Then all you have to do is to kill his horse with your sword as it runs by.
If the mounted man is armed with a sword, all you have to do is use the greater mobility and quicker turning ability a two-legged human has to place yourself in a position where he can't hit you while you kill his horse.
Then, after you've killed his horse, you have plenty of time to get over to him and attack him while he's still dazed from the fall, or, at least, entangled with his saddle and tack.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Russ Mitchell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 11800
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: HQ, Garden Gnome Liberation Front
- Contact:
Totally depends ...
Evil Bob, Syr Rhys, and Bascot all have excellent points... but it makes a huge difference if I'm armed for the 11th century, where the knight is likely to reverse-grip his lance and stab me, as opposed to armed for the 14th or 15th, when he'll have it couched on his lance-rib-thingy? And how far away are we before we know each other are there? And is the *horse* going to attack me? -- I don't know about western europe, but Hungarian horses were considered their primary weapon by the hussars, and that tradition had to have come from somewhere... And did I manage to keep my lance and cut it down, or am I working with sword and shield, and how good is my traction.... and is the opposing knight going to simply try to smash his horse *through* me? It's one thing if I'm perfectly fresh... but if I'm winded and on foot...
Evil Bob, Syr Rhys, and Bascot all have excellent points... but it makes a huge difference if I'm armed for the 11th century, where the knight is likely to reverse-grip his lance and stab me, as opposed to armed for the 14th or 15th, when he'll have it couched on his lance-rib-thingy? And how far away are we before we know each other are there? And is the *horse* going to attack me? -- I don't know about western europe, but Hungarian horses were considered their primary weapon by the hussars, and that tradition had to have come from somewhere... And did I manage to keep my lance and cut it down, or am I working with sword and shield, and how good is my traction.... and is the opposing knight going to simply try to smash his horse *through* me? It's one thing if I'm perfectly fresh... but if I'm winded and on foot...
-
JJ Shred
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10324
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Altamont, Tennessee
- Contact:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If the mounted man is armed with a sword, all you have to do is use the greater mobility and quicker turning ability a two-legged human has to place yourself in a position where he can't hit you while you kill his horse.</font>
Now this is news to me!
[This message has been edited by Bascot (edited 03-08-2002).]
-
Sieur Raymond
- Archive Member
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Midrealm
I'd rather be on foot in a one on one. The concept of mounted vs dismounted troops is that dismounted often break and run out of fear of the oncoming engine of destruction. At that point, the mounted soldier mops up. If the foot soldier holds ground, he has tremendous advantages.
Personally, I would not strike to kill the horse, but rather strike to the hind quarters to injure the beast, slow it, and make it fearful and more likely to shy. I've seen paintings showing cavalrymen with their sabers in guards protecting the horses hindquarters, so perhaps that tactic was not uncommon.
Also, I would keep to the off hand side of my mounted opponent to reduce their striking range vis a vis me. A major target for me would be my opponents legs which are accessible and less mobile in the stirrup than other parts. If I can make a significant injury there, then I'd kill the horse and finish the job on my crippled opponent (or take him captive).
[This message has been edited by Sieur Raymond (edited 03-07-2002).]
Personally, I would not strike to kill the horse, but rather strike to the hind quarters to injure the beast, slow it, and make it fearful and more likely to shy. I've seen paintings showing cavalrymen with their sabers in guards protecting the horses hindquarters, so perhaps that tactic was not uncommon.
Also, I would keep to the off hand side of my mounted opponent to reduce their striking range vis a vis me. A major target for me would be my opponents legs which are accessible and less mobile in the stirrup than other parts. If I can make a significant injury there, then I'd kill the horse and finish the job on my crippled opponent (or take him captive).
[This message has been edited by Sieur Raymond (edited 03-07-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bascot:
[QOUTE]If the mounted man is armed with a sword, all you have to do is [b]use the greater mobility and quicker turning ability a two-legged human has to place yourself in a position where he can't hit you while you kill his horse.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now this is news to me![/B][/QUOTE]
A P-51 has greater mobility and quicker turning ability than a ME 262, but it can't outrun it, you operate in your envelope to survive, theirs to die.
I ain't gonna try to outrun the horse. How often does the bull win?
[QOUTE]If the mounted man is armed with a sword, all you have to do is [b]use the greater mobility and quicker turning ability a two-legged human has to place yourself in a position where he can't hit you while you kill his horse.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now this is news to me![/B][/QUOTE]
A P-51 has greater mobility and quicker turning ability than a ME 262, but it can't outrun it, you operate in your envelope to survive, theirs to die.
I ain't gonna try to outrun the horse. How often does the bull win?
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
Bascot beat me to most of my answers in terms of why mounted is better. But anyway...
Question1: Would you rather be the mounted or dismounted knight and why.
Mounted. It is what we are born and bred for. It is what distinguishes us from the common footsoldier. I would prefer that my opponent had his horse too, so that we could engage in gentlemanly combat. I would then knock him from his steed, take him prisoner for purposes of ransom, take him back to my castle and share fine food and wine with my guest.
Unless he was a real jerk who had insulted my king, kingdom or person. In which case I would run him through whether he was ahorse or on foot.
Question2: What are the advantages/disadvantages of both positions?
The guy on foot dies. The guy on the horse lives. Got milk?
Question3: What tactics would you use to smite the enemy?
When on foot and being charged by horse, it is a fine time to test the power of prayer and faith in God. Unless you are in an SCA battle, in which case you are shit out of luck as it is a tournament, and corpora prohibits you from asking God for assistance in gaining an advantage over your opponent
Seriously? The first thing I would do is use terrain to put myself in a better defensive or offensive position. Even on a flat plain, terrain can be used to your advantage. A dead horse counts as terrain.
I would never run away. I might consider a strategic withdrawal in order to lead my opponent to his doom!
I would never scream in fear. I certainly would call for the assistance of my noble bretheren and my retainers (Give me a goddamn horse NOW!).
If the terrain is flat, you have no support from your own side, you are alone and unhorsed with only your sword and your wits to save you, and a knight in full plate is charging you with a lance, there is only one solution.
Serpentine! (Blues Brothers, I think)
(Being unhorsed is actually NOT that big a deal. I once saw Richard Gere get off his horse on purpose as the enemy approached, rip off his helm and whip out florentine broadswords. He decimated the enemy, proving that being unhorsed is an advantage. He apparently learned this from reading about the superior French tactics that worked so well at Agincourt).
Actually, having read Bob's and Rhys's commentary, I wish to revise and extend my remarks:
Clearly there is no advantage to fighting on horseback. It is obviously much better to be fighting on foot. And lets face it, the knights were the best trained foot soldiers in the period. I have finally figured out why the knights had horses.
It was given to them as a handicap, so that they would not have an unfair advantage over the poor infantry, who would never have had a chance if the the knights started out in their strongest position; on foot.
Those knights, wonderful guys, very chivalrous. They probably opened the carriage door for their dates too!
-Richard.
"Hey, who's that squire? He's kicking ass!"
"Yeah, better give him a white belt and a horse, that'll slow 'em down."
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 03-07-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 03-07-2002).]
Question1: Would you rather be the mounted or dismounted knight and why.
Mounted. It is what we are born and bred for. It is what distinguishes us from the common footsoldier. I would prefer that my opponent had his horse too, so that we could engage in gentlemanly combat. I would then knock him from his steed, take him prisoner for purposes of ransom, take him back to my castle and share fine food and wine with my guest.
Unless he was a real jerk who had insulted my king, kingdom or person. In which case I would run him through whether he was ahorse or on foot.
Question2: What are the advantages/disadvantages of both positions?
The guy on foot dies. The guy on the horse lives. Got milk?
Question3: What tactics would you use to smite the enemy?
When on foot and being charged by horse, it is a fine time to test the power of prayer and faith in God. Unless you are in an SCA battle, in which case you are shit out of luck as it is a tournament, and corpora prohibits you from asking God for assistance in gaining an advantage over your opponent
Seriously? The first thing I would do is use terrain to put myself in a better defensive or offensive position. Even on a flat plain, terrain can be used to your advantage. A dead horse counts as terrain.
I would never run away. I might consider a strategic withdrawal in order to lead my opponent to his doom!
I would never scream in fear. I certainly would call for the assistance of my noble bretheren and my retainers (Give me a goddamn horse NOW!).
If the terrain is flat, you have no support from your own side, you are alone and unhorsed with only your sword and your wits to save you, and a knight in full plate is charging you with a lance, there is only one solution.
Serpentine! (Blues Brothers, I think)
(Being unhorsed is actually NOT that big a deal. I once saw Richard Gere get off his horse on purpose as the enemy approached, rip off his helm and whip out florentine broadswords. He decimated the enemy, proving that being unhorsed is an advantage. He apparently learned this from reading about the superior French tactics that worked so well at Agincourt).
Actually, having read Bob's and Rhys's commentary, I wish to revise and extend my remarks:
Clearly there is no advantage to fighting on horseback. It is obviously much better to be fighting on foot. And lets face it, the knights were the best trained foot soldiers in the period. I have finally figured out why the knights had horses.
It was given to them as a handicap, so that they would not have an unfair advantage over the poor infantry, who would never have had a chance if the the knights started out in their strongest position; on foot.
Those knights, wonderful guys, very chivalrous. They probably opened the carriage door for their dates too!
-Richard.
"Hey, who's that squire? He's kicking ass!"
"Yeah, better give him a white belt and a horse, that'll slow 'em down."
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 03-07-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 03-07-2002).]
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Alcyoneus:
<B> A P-51 has greater mobility and quicker turning ability than a ME 262, but it can't outrun it, you operate in your envelope to survive, theirs to die.
I ain't gonna try to outrun the horse. How often does the bull win?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! You've never ridden, have you? You don't *outrun* a horse; you stand your ground and dodge aside at the last minute. A human can do that move more quickly than any horse, even the best calf-ropers (if the horse is charging; then can be pretty quick if they're stationary and trained to so so).
If you try to run, however, you die.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B> A P-51 has greater mobility and quicker turning ability than a ME 262, but it can't outrun it, you operate in your envelope to survive, theirs to die.
I ain't gonna try to outrun the horse. How often does the bull win?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! You've never ridden, have you? You don't *outrun* a horse; you stand your ground and dodge aside at the last minute. A human can do that move more quickly than any horse, even the best calf-ropers (if the horse is charging; then can be pretty quick if they're stationary and trained to so so).
If you try to run, however, you die.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Richard Blackmoore:
<B>Bascot beat me to most of my answers in terms of why mounted is better. But anyway...
Question1: Would you rather be the mounted or dismounted knight and why.
Mounted. It is what we are born and bred for. It is what distinguishes us from the common footsoldier. I would prefer that my opponent had his horse too, so that we could engage in gentlemanly combat. I would then knock him from his steed, take him prisoner for purposes of ransom, take him back to my castle and share fine food and wine with my guest.
Unless he was a real jerk who had insulted my king, kingdom or person. In which case I would run him through whether he was ahorse or on foot.
Question2: What are the advantages/disadvantages of both positions?
The guy on foot dies. The guy on the horse lives. Got milk?
Question3: What tactics would you use to smite the enemy?
When on foot and being charged by horse, it is a fine time to test the power of prayer and faith in God. Unless you are in an SCA battle, in which case you are shit out of luck as it is a tournament, and corpora prohibits you from asking God for assistance in gaining an advantage over your opponent
Seriously? The first thing I would do is use terrain to put myself in a better defensive or offensive position. Even on a flat plain, terrain can be used to your advantage. A dead horse counts as terrain.
I would never run away. I might consider a strategic withdrawal in order to lead my opponent to his doom!
I would never scream in fear. I certainly would call for the assistance of my noble bretheren and my retainers (Give me a goddamn horse NOW!).
If the terrain is flat, you have no support from your own side, you are alone and unhorsed with only your sword and your wits to save you, and a knight in full plate is charging you with a lance, there is only one solution.
Serpentine! (Blues Brothers, I think)
(Being unhorsed is actually NOT that big a deal. I once saw Richard Gere get off his horse on purpose as the enemy approached, rip off his helm and whip out florentine broadswords. He decimated the enemy, proving that being unhorsed is an advantage. He apparently learned this from reading about the superior French tactics that worked so well at Agincourt).
Actually, having read Bob's and Rhys's commentary, I wish to revise and extend my remarks:
Clearly there is no advantage to fighting on horseback. It is obviously much better to be fighting on foot. And lets face it, the knights were the best trained foot soldiers in the period. I have finally figured out why the knights had horses.
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 03-07-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Richard,
I think you might possibly misunderstand the advantage a horse provides. He doesn't make you a better fighter, he makes you faster and more mobile.
Oh, and by the way, 14th-century knights *were* foot soldiers, for the most part. Do you know why? It's because foot soldiers beat knights on horseback time and time again. Look at the battles where a bunch of lousy Flemish burghers beat the cream of French chivalry, who were all mounted.
Read: Devries, Kelly, _Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century_.
If you get on a horse and try swinging a weapon you will see that there are *lots* of weak spots in your defense, and that it's hard to get the horse to move to allow you full play of your weapons.
Yes, a charging lance was a terrible thing, but dismounted infantry beat it again and again. Again, horses vreat speed and mobility, they don't give you an advantage in terms of fighting ability.
And I would have expected a less sarcastic and more scholarly response from you, my brother!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Bascot beat me to most of my answers in terms of why mounted is better. But anyway...
Question1: Would you rather be the mounted or dismounted knight and why.
Mounted. It is what we are born and bred for. It is what distinguishes us from the common footsoldier. I would prefer that my opponent had his horse too, so that we could engage in gentlemanly combat. I would then knock him from his steed, take him prisoner for purposes of ransom, take him back to my castle and share fine food and wine with my guest.
Unless he was a real jerk who had insulted my king, kingdom or person. In which case I would run him through whether he was ahorse or on foot.
Question2: What are the advantages/disadvantages of both positions?
The guy on foot dies. The guy on the horse lives. Got milk?
Question3: What tactics would you use to smite the enemy?
When on foot and being charged by horse, it is a fine time to test the power of prayer and faith in God. Unless you are in an SCA battle, in which case you are shit out of luck as it is a tournament, and corpora prohibits you from asking God for assistance in gaining an advantage over your opponent
Seriously? The first thing I would do is use terrain to put myself in a better defensive or offensive position. Even on a flat plain, terrain can be used to your advantage. A dead horse counts as terrain.
I would never run away. I might consider a strategic withdrawal in order to lead my opponent to his doom!
I would never scream in fear. I certainly would call for the assistance of my noble bretheren and my retainers (Give me a goddamn horse NOW!).
If the terrain is flat, you have no support from your own side, you are alone and unhorsed with only your sword and your wits to save you, and a knight in full plate is charging you with a lance, there is only one solution.
Serpentine! (Blues Brothers, I think)
(Being unhorsed is actually NOT that big a deal. I once saw Richard Gere get off his horse on purpose as the enemy approached, rip off his helm and whip out florentine broadswords. He decimated the enemy, proving that being unhorsed is an advantage. He apparently learned this from reading about the superior French tactics that worked so well at Agincourt).
Actually, having read Bob's and Rhys's commentary, I wish to revise and extend my remarks:
Clearly there is no advantage to fighting on horseback. It is obviously much better to be fighting on foot. And lets face it, the knights were the best trained foot soldiers in the period. I have finally figured out why the knights had horses.
[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 03-07-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Richard,
I think you might possibly misunderstand the advantage a horse provides. He doesn't make you a better fighter, he makes you faster and more mobile.
Oh, and by the way, 14th-century knights *were* foot soldiers, for the most part. Do you know why? It's because foot soldiers beat knights on horseback time and time again. Look at the battles where a bunch of lousy Flemish burghers beat the cream of French chivalry, who were all mounted.
Read: Devries, Kelly, _Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century_.
If you get on a horse and try swinging a weapon you will see that there are *lots* of weak spots in your defense, and that it's hard to get the horse to move to allow you full play of your weapons.
Yes, a charging lance was a terrible thing, but dismounted infantry beat it again and again. Again, horses vreat speed and mobility, they don't give you an advantage in terms of fighting ability.
And I would have expected a less sarcastic and more scholarly response from you, my brother!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Gordon the Grey
- Archive Member
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Trenton, Ontario,Canada
I'm afraid Bascot has it right, Knight's fought as a unit on the battle field (mounted or dismounted) if they didn't they where dead knights (ask the french who fought against dismounted knight's woops sorry they all died trying to fight single combat on the battle field,those who lived though the arrow storm) and of no use to thier king at all. There would be very little or no single combat that was for the turney or a duel. As for a man on foot against a mounted fighter well you might dodge the horse but killing 1500 lb's of horse comeing at you at 20 mph would not be my top choice of things to do after falling off my horse in the middle of a battle!! As for heavy horse being beaten by infantry it was only after the infantry learned that as a highly trained and disciclined units they could stop a charge with pike's and bow or crossbow's to kill the horses when the knight's stopped moving. One man on foot is not match for a mounted man but 4 or 5 with pikes and pollarms are more then a match
-
Richard Blackmoore
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4990
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bay Shore, NY USA
LOL. Hi Rhys. I should have put smilies on both of those lines. I used to rid in armour and play at jousting and did limited sword and shield work on horseback too. So yes, I understand that in one on one combat it is not always as clear cut an outcome. But I'd still rather be on horse back 9 times out of ten, in an open area with flat, solid footing. I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but I'd still rather be the guy with the lance on horseback. Personal preference.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SyrRhys:
<B>
LOL! You've never ridden, have you? You don't *outrun* a horse; you stand your ground and dodge aside at the last minute. A human can do that move more quickly than any horse, even the best calf-ropers (if the horse is charging; then can be pretty quick if they're stationary and trained to so so).
If you try to run, however, you die.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought that was what I said. ???
Godendag anyone?
<B>
LOL! You've never ridden, have you? You don't *outrun* a horse; you stand your ground and dodge aside at the last minute. A human can do that move more quickly than any horse, even the best calf-ropers (if the horse is charging; then can be pretty quick if they're stationary and trained to so so).
If you try to run, however, you die.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought that was what I said. ???
Godendag anyone?
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gordon the Grey:
One man on foot is not match for a mounted man </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How do you know? Where's your evidence; your experimentation?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
One man on foot is not match for a mounted man </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How do you know? Where's your evidence; your experimentation?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Alcyoneus:
<B> I thought that was what I said. ???
Godendag anyone?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I apologize, I thought you were using sarcasm to disagree.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B> I thought that was what I said. ???
Godendag anyone?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I apologize, I thought you were using sarcasm to disagree.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Khann:
<B>A well-trained horse will beat the shit out of you. A wild or mean horse will kill you if mean or freighted enough. A horse trained to stomp and bite as well as shoulder roll would be a nightmare.
Khann</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most horses will sqeal and run away if you bonk them on the nose. Yes, a horse can be dangerous, but not as much as you seem to think. Believe me, I grew up on and around horses. I've seen them screaming mad and I've seen them be pussycats.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>A well-trained horse will beat the shit out of you. A wild or mean horse will kill you if mean or freighted enough. A horse trained to stomp and bite as well as shoulder roll would be a nightmare.
Khann</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most horses will sqeal and run away if you bonk them on the nose. Yes, a horse can be dangerous, but not as much as you seem to think. Believe me, I grew up on and around horses. I've seen them screaming mad and I've seen them be pussycats.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
One mounted knight versus one man on foot. I'd be the guy on foot. But battles didn't involve one on one. If it was a a battle. I'd want to be the mounted guy. A mount will have much more effect to even up the odds. True the first guy can jump out of the way but his buddy behind him is in big trouble.
-
theodrik
- Archive Member
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: San Jose, CA, USA
- Contact:
thick of battle, midst the melee, another knight. Is he dismounted also? Terrain, is is a nice flat field, a muddy mire like Agincourt? Where is my squire? Squire, shoot that man! Get me a horse! Rain dampened his powder? Squire, kill His squire, get me his horse. Weapons, who has what? I have a busted lance and him a horsemans hammer? Both with one-handed swords? Being SCA and a member of a unit, I engage, hold him up, rotate him so that someone in my unit can either tent stake with a polearm or one of the crossbowmen nail him. Not fair? Well He could ask for single combat, or better yet, just yield. We feed our prisoners and don't ask high ramsoms, believing in the volume theory since the King will want His Cut. More for all you understand.
------------------
Sir Theodrik of Skane,
West, Mists, Blackwood Company
'Lude Fortier, Lude Juste, Nemini Damnum!'
------------------
Sir Theodrik of Skane,
West, Mists, Blackwood Company
'Lude Fortier, Lude Juste, Nemini Damnum!'
-
JJ Shred
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10324
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Altamont, Tennessee
- Contact:
There is a difference between cavalry charging a fixed defensive position with holes dug, sharpened stakes planted, shields and pikes fixed and covered by archers as in Agincourt. A heavy cavalry will slaughter archers not protected by pikemen, and will out flank a fixed position not covered by archers.
As far as manueverbility of horse/man, perhaps some of you should watch a polo match to see how nimble a horse can be. I'd being willing to bet even the great Bob Charron couldn't touch a Lucitano trained for Portugese bull-fighting with a sword while on the ground. And the whole time the horse is keeping it's ass out of trouble, there is that steel-clad chap on his back trying to ruin your day as well. Your results may vary if you are on some lumbering plough-horse, or are incapable of riding at a gallop, but I understand "fear of the unknown" for those who don't know how to ride.
Of course, if we are talking SCA KNIGHTS it's a whole new ballgame...everyone knows they are superheros.
------------------
Virtus vincit invidiam
"Virtue overcometh envy"
[This message has been edited by Bascot (edited 03-08-2002).]
As far as manueverbility of horse/man, perhaps some of you should watch a polo match to see how nimble a horse can be. I'd being willing to bet even the great Bob Charron couldn't touch a Lucitano trained for Portugese bull-fighting with a sword while on the ground. And the whole time the horse is keeping it's ass out of trouble, there is that steel-clad chap on his back trying to ruin your day as well. Your results may vary if you are on some lumbering plough-horse, or are incapable of riding at a gallop, but I understand "fear of the unknown" for those who don't know how to ride.
Of course, if we are talking SCA KNIGHTS it's a whole new ballgame...everyone knows they are superheros.
------------------
Virtus vincit invidiam
"Virtue overcometh envy"
[This message has been edited by Bascot (edited 03-08-2002).]
-
Gordon the Grey
- Archive Member
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Trenton, Ontario,Canada
Hi SyrRhys, the experimentation has been done for me , the evidence is writen accounts of battle's that are full of storys of broken infantry units being riden down by heavy horse. Most of my reading is from the thirty years war so it was guns doing the breaking. While horses will not charge into a mass of pike's, caseshot doe's wonders to massed pikemen. But once a infantry unit was no longer massed they where easy meat for the horse. Foot vs Mounted in single combat with foot winning may have happened, but I'm willing to bet it was real rare! Facing a well trained war horse with a guy on it's back who was riding almost before he could walk,and wearing full armour, would not have been awhole lot of fun!!
, the evidence is writen accounts of battle's that are full of storys of broken infantry units being riden down by heavy horse. Most of my reading is from the thirty years war so it was guns doing the breaking. While horses will not charge into a mass of pike's, caseshot doe's wonders to massed pikemen. But once a infantry unit was no longer massed they where easy meat for the horse. Foot vs Mounted in single combat with foot winning may have happened, but I'm willing to bet it was real rare! Facing a well trained war horse with a guy on it's back who was riding almost before he could walk,and wearing full armour, would not have been awhole lot of fun!!-
Bob Charron
- Archive Member
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Contact:
This isn't tanks, it's the Israeli air force. Fly slower, turn tighter, gain position. The horse can move fast, but in a straight line. If they are nimble and are quickly changing direction, it's because they aren't moving forward - the Lusitano example above.
If you stab most horses with a sharp object, they're through with you.
We've done this experiment for fun - really. Not to hurt one another or the horse, but to test the relative mobility and efficacy of each person in a mounted versus dismounted fight - and as someone said this is quite artificial in warfare. With lances, the neck of the horse makes it easy to change sides of the horse for the man on foot, and extremely difficult for the one on horse. In addition the man on foot can wield his spear in two hands, using both ends strongly and alternatively, while the one on horseback must wield his in one hand, and depends on the speed of the horse to strike the solid blow necessary for armored combat. If the horse is running fast enough to strike a good blow for his rider, it's easy to step aside - the horse can't change direction quickly at that speed. If they are going slow so they can maneuver, there's no impetus to the weapon if it's couched, and if it's being used overhand the deflection of that weapon is easy since the grip is very weak relative to the fellow using his spear two-handed.
In addition, the impression is skewed if you take the horse away as a target. All the manuals, military and otherwise, advise that in a combat in earnest kill the horse first. You can't defend your horse with a lance, and his falling or the horse's running around screaming and wounded gives you a distinct advantage.
If we both have swords it may be more interesting, but the advantage in footwork belongs to the human, not the horse.
As an old Spanish proverb says, "No one is wise on horseback."
My wife trains horses and riders professionally and has helped me with this experiment. She agrees. The man on foot has the advantage.
------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
If you stab most horses with a sharp object, they're through with you.
We've done this experiment for fun - really. Not to hurt one another or the horse, but to test the relative mobility and efficacy of each person in a mounted versus dismounted fight - and as someone said this is quite artificial in warfare. With lances, the neck of the horse makes it easy to change sides of the horse for the man on foot, and extremely difficult for the one on horse. In addition the man on foot can wield his spear in two hands, using both ends strongly and alternatively, while the one on horseback must wield his in one hand, and depends on the speed of the horse to strike the solid blow necessary for armored combat. If the horse is running fast enough to strike a good blow for his rider, it's easy to step aside - the horse can't change direction quickly at that speed. If they are going slow so they can maneuver, there's no impetus to the weapon if it's couched, and if it's being used overhand the deflection of that weapon is easy since the grip is very weak relative to the fellow using his spear two-handed.
In addition, the impression is skewed if you take the horse away as a target. All the manuals, military and otherwise, advise that in a combat in earnest kill the horse first. You can't defend your horse with a lance, and his falling or the horse's running around screaming and wounded gives you a distinct advantage.
If we both have swords it may be more interesting, but the advantage in footwork belongs to the human, not the horse.
As an old Spanish proverb says, "No one is wise on horseback."
My wife trains horses and riders professionally and has helped me with this experiment. She agrees. The man on foot has the advantage.
------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms