Foot vs. Mounted combat

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:15 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bascot:

Of course, if we are talking SCA KNIGHTS it's a whole new ballgame...everyone knows they are superheros.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We find mild manner reporter Rhys for the daily archive at work.
Suddenly his super hearing picks a robbery.
?gemme your dough!?
?WITH A PULL OF THE CHAIN, A TIGHTEN OF THE BELTS AND A CLASH OF MY SPURS I SUMMON THE KNIGHTS OF SOCIETY!?

CRASH, THUNDER LIGHTNING, BOOM BOOM BANG

From the four corners of the known world, the knights are summoned!

Dum Dum dum dum dum Flash ! um KNIGHTS !
OF!
THE
SOCIETY!

Sir Rhys, ?QUICKLY SIR RICHARD TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME?

With a single stride able to cover small shires, our heroes arrive at bob?s bakery.

Evil voice from person wearing sneakers, mad max armour, and carrying a bow, ?Gemme the dough!?

Sir Richard, ?LOOK! IT IS ONE OF EVIL ARCHERS OF ARRGGGH!?

Sir Rhys,? AND WHERE THE EVIL STEVIEY OF FORKEN CASTLE!?

Voice, ?Hold! I got my cross bow aim at your dirt ken nig ets!?

Will our heroes survive?
Find out in the action pack movie near you!

THE KNIGHTS OF SOCIETY SUPER HEROES OF THE UNIVERSE

Coming soon.
A Jasper Murtagh Production,

------------------
If Hollywood did the 20th Century like the middle ages;
Pappy Boyington would be fighting the Red Baron, over the trenches of Iran.
Howard Cosell and Snoopy would be the ace reporters in the Gulf war.

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:22 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
Read: Devries, Kelly, _Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century_.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but just to be an irritating dweeb, the central tenet of Kelly's hypothesis is not that infantry beat cavalry, but that large numbers of **densely packed** footmen beat cavalry... which is a much different affair than one-on-one...

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:28 am

Bob...

Have you ever done this while the horseman wielded the lance in two hands? I'm just curious, as this was, for a long time, the way in which it was often wielded in East-Central and Eastern europe (old steppe custom, as well as ancient world).

I'm curious whether it makes a difference in this situation.

Destichado · Post by **Destichado** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 10:02 am

I'm infantry by God, and I'd stay infantry!
Unless I was a commander. Horses were Mobile Command Units (MCUs), and made life sooo much easier when things go sour. Then again, I don't retreat, so what's the point?
INFANTRY -Queen of Battles

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 10:07 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gordon the Grey:
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!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I think you're misinterpreting that. If you run you die, and most people would run. But if you stand your ground and you know what you're doing you can cause terrible harm.

One technique that's missing from the manuals, and I don't know why, is to simply step to the rider's off side and cut hard into the forleg of the horse. You can do that from a position that's not vulnerable to any attack from the rider except a lance thrust, and a couched lance thrust is fairly easy to deflect (now an overarm thrust is harder to deal with because it's more flexible, but that went out of favor by the 11th century).

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 10:10 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Russ Mitchell:
Ah, but just to be an irritating dweeb, the central tenet of Kelly's hypothesis is not that infantry beat cavalry, but that large numbers of **densely packed** footmen beat cavalry... which is a much different affair than one-on-one...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure it is... but how did they *do* it? Think about the mechanics. You have to be able to hit the horse and the rider, and that's one on one. They didn't use massed shield walls like we do, so the only real advantage of the dense-packed formations was to keep the cavalry off your flanks. That's the true danger of cavalry: mobility.

In one of the battles (Felms vs. Frogs) deVries specifically talks about them luring Flemings out of formation, then running them down with 2-3 horsemen.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Aelric · Post by **Aelric** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 11:19 am

It seems to me that even at a gallop just simply side stepping(if your brave enough to stand your ground in the first place) wouldnt ensure your safety. Even at a full out gallop a horse could just veer right or left enough to run you down if you could react quickly enough.

I dont really think a full out single horse cav charge would be the best tactic for assaulting a single man with a single horse anyway.

As a knight I would think it dishonorable to strike at the mount and dont think I would do it. I sure would never let my squire use a crossbow or a gun.

Would an armoured mount change the story?

Aelric

JJ Shred · Post by **JJ Shred** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:01 pm

I dunno, Bob. After taking your course, the only way I would consider meeting you in one-on-one combat is if you would give me the advantage of being mounted. Now if I can just raise $50,000.00 for that Lucitano in Lisbon and the $5,000.00 import/quarrantine fee we could test this theory!

Bob Charron · Post by **Bob Charron** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:16 pm

Hey Russ,

The two-handed lance carry would make things a bit easier for the horseman, but the power for the thrust is still provided by the horse (you can't take a step while in a saddle :-)

So, it's a very good question, and one that has some result.

I think there's a good deal of romanticism concerning the prey animal (lion food) that we're riding here. Stallions may be aggressive to a certain extent, but they know not to run on pointy things and they don't like being hurt.

The military manuals are consistent. It's no dishonor to kill the horse in battle. In fact, it's the smartest thing to do if you mean not to fool around in an attempt to get money. William Marshal killed Duke Richard's horse right out from under him during a pursuit.

Look, it's a matter of distance, mobility and independence. If we both have spears the man on foot has the distance advantage - he can hit your horse before you can hit him. He has the side to side mobility advantage. He has the advantage in the manipulation of his weapon. He has the advantage of not trying to control another beast which in turn controls him.

I don't care for waxing romantic about cavalry or infantry - that's for storybooks. The historical evidence supports the footman winning. It happened when the Spanish Christians in what they thought would be a humiliating display pitted a horseman against an Almoravid footman. The horse was mortally wounded almost immediately. I happened when Bertran du Guesclin was dismounted in his combat against an English knight for the ransom of his cousin during a siege. He sidestepped, grabbed the other fellow's weapon and pulled him off his horse, beating him into submission until he yielded.

If you study the manuals, you will see that the majority of techniques learned in the knightly paradigm with weapons involve actively setting aside cuts, thrusts and hurled weapons. It's probably the thing that, besides wrestling, they were the best at. I don't think they'd have any trouble parrying an incoming lance, and Talhoffer and others show it done with just the forearm. Fiore shows the sound defeat of a horseman by a spearman on foot. Etc., etc.

------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms

Sieur Raymond · Post by **Sieur Raymond** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:17 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:
One technique that's missing from the manuals, and I don't know why, is to simply step to the rider's off side and cut hard into the forleg of the horse. You can do that from a position that's not vulnerable to any attack from the rider except a lance thrust, and a couched lance thrust is fairly easy to deflect (now an overarm thrust is harder to deal with because it's more flexible, but that went out of favor by the 11th century).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I recall reading how a popular tactic of footmen was to hamstring the horse and when the rider is dumped, using pointy implements on the (former) rider's unarmored buttocks. The tactic you suggest would be ideal for bringing down the rider with a crash for that purpose--as contrasted with striking the rear legs which would tend to cause a less precipitous decent for the rider.

Sieur Raymond · Post by **Sieur Raymond** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:45 pm

A number of people have commented on mounted knights riding down pedestrians. That certainly happened. However, as I mentioned earlier and Rhys points out, that was due to the foot troops breaking and running.

In a unit engagment, its a morale issue. On foot, facing a charge of mounted knights would be daunting. If the infantry line is thin or dispersed, if they are without long weapons to set against the charge, and if they have no terrain feature to impede the charge or prevent flanking, their outlook is grim.

Certainly, a man on foot can't sidestep a knee to knee unit charge. If he's supported by others, can ground shield or pike, however, the charge can be resisted. If the charge fails to break the line, the guys on horseback are in trouble. At Courtrai(1302) and Bannockburn (1314), the infantry did not break and run, they had some terrain help to slow the charge and prevent flanking and they were able to crush the mounted troops. At Rosebeck (1382), the mounted troops probably would have lost, except that they *were* able to flank the infantry and break them from the side.

I recommend Hans Delbruck's Medieval Warfare for a more indepth discussion of these and many other engagments.

[This message has been edited by Sieur Raymond (edited 03-08-2002).]

Russ Mitchell · Post by **Russ Mitchell** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 2:26 pm

Hrm... You two gentlemen have me, I think. Can't think of any good contra arguments.

Jonathon More · Post by **Jonathon More** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 7:07 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:


One technique that's missing from the manuals, and I don't know why, is to simply step to the rider's off side and cut hard into the forleg of the horse. You can do that from a position that's not vulnerable to any attack from the rider except a lance thrust, and a couched lance thrust is fairly easy to deflect
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not picking on you in particular, Syr Rhys, this examle was just the easiest to isolate quickly. Anyone here ever stand up to a real well trained horse in combat where your life was at stake? No? didnt think so. So Maybe we should back off the absolute, definitive answers a bit. Having done quite a bit of mounted crowd control in real-life situations (ask me about Mardi-Gras) I will say that I want to be on my horse. If nothing else, you guys on foot can't catch me if I decide to leave. (keep in mind the original one on one premise)

One little tidbit to add to the discussion. Y'all realize that a horses' reaction time is about seven or eight times quicker than a humans, right? Ever see the spanish riding schools demos? ever wonder where the capriole or lavade came from?

------------------
Johnathon
pax, pax, est non mi pax

Jonathon More · Post by **Jonathon More** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 7:12 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SyrRhys:

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).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not true! have to dissagree on that one.

------------------
Johnathon
pax, pax, est non mi pax

JJ Shred · Post by **JJ Shred** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 8:40 pm

I wish someone would have explained all of this to my mother's Arabian. That mare jumped laterally six feet at a canter when a sparrow flew up from behind a haybale. If she would have known she couldn't do this (because of the informed discussion on this thread) I'd never have fallen on my butt!!

If you teach your horse to disengage and turn on the haunches or turn on the forelegs, you can do this at any gait. (Working on a two track). With proper training a horse can do anything working off of weight shifts or leg cues, leaving the rider free to attack the hapless footman. Of course, if you don't know how to ride, or your horse is poorly trained, then you may have more difficulties.

How many of you "heros" really think you'd have the balls to stand there with 1500 lbs barreling down on you? If you have that kind of nads, why not carry the logic a step further and say you can attack and kill an English longbowman with a dagger as you merely have to wait until he looses his arrow, then sidestep and go for the kill?

[This message has been edited by Bascot (edited 03-08-2002).]

Rev. George · Post by **Rev. George** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:03 pm

As a side note, aztec warriors had a tactic of diving forward when shot at. They changed this after dying by the droves during the conquests. It seems that bullets tend to have a differnt trajectory than arrows....

So dont side step the arrow, dive toward the bastard

-+G

JJ Shred · Post by **JJ Shred** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 9:53 pm

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.

Don't you mean to say that it's hard for you to get the horse to move? Not everyone shares your equestrian skill level.

Look, it's a matter of distance, mobility and independence. If we both have spears the man on foot has the distance advantage - he can hit your horse before you can hit him. He has the side to side mobility advantage. He has the advantage in the manipulation of his weapon.

Sorry Bob, I feel you are totally incorrect here. As I stand in my stirrups and lean into the charge, I am over my horse's front legs. Where are you deriving this reach advantage?
While you are thrusting into the horse's chest? neck? face? I am reacting - thrusting at you. Now where is your spear - lodged in the horse while mine is lodged in your body? True, you could injure my horse, but the price you would pay is your own death, unless you are saying you could plunge your spear in and out of a huge beast of thick hide, muscle and bone, as well as perhaps armour, then still raise your spear and plunge it into my armour, padding, skin, muscle and bone, while I just what, sat there? Give me a break. You'd die before my horse did, and would be knocking on the Pearly Gates before I hit the ground.

[This message has been edited by Bascot (edited 03-08-2002).]

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 10:27 pm

Hi All,

Bascot, I think most of the people who argue that a solitary man can somehow fight off cavalrymen with ease by themselve, rather than being in a body of disciplined troops just don't know much about horses, the sort of training that went into making a courser or destrier, or have never seen what a large agile horse can do. Some people have seen these things and are just plain wrong-headed and stubborn, or live under the delusion they are some sort of supermen.

My own mount (as many know) is a Perch/Quarterhorse cross, that takes after his old stock quarterhorse mama. He can stop on a dime, turn on a dime at any speed, and can easily leap the height of a tall man or more, bucking, rearing, and kicking (sometimes with a full battery of four hooves) for fun. He weighs in at 1650 lbs, and is currently 16.4 (sigh). He is rather well dispositioned, and wouldn't intentionaly hurt anything (except a pig - long story). He also is 'bombproof'. Oh, he can easily go from '0-20+' in as short a time than it takes to count out a 'one-Mississippi'. Although he is in my estimation an above average horse due to some of the qualities mentioned, he is by no means an exceptional one. He is suited to be trained as a cavalry mount, as near as I (and may other much more experienced breeders and trainers than I) can determine by looking at the traditional requirements for same. He would only make a fair to middling courser for real. An exceptional courser or destrier I would never care to face, or ride for that matter.

Most people haven't dealt with a trained cavalry mount, and have no idea what they are capable of, thinking they are all somehow docile critters. I would put them to reading about one of Napoleons chefs d' brigade, who owned a interesting mare, that was a trained warhorse. He kept running through grooms as she had a habit of disembowling those who weren't exceptionaly careful. He 'cured' her of the habit with a couple of torches and a hot iron, after which she suffered his presence and his head grooms, but still kept her old habits in action. She was actually a warhorse, not a mere cavalry mount, and had much more training.

Then again, there are some people labouring under the delusion that cavalry was irrelevant in the Middle Ages, because a bunch of poxy English gits managed to come up with a method for confounding heavy cavalry temporarily from prepared defences - a mere 75 years of history, but since that is all they study, it is the entire 'period' for them. Since they aren't military historians, and their conclusiuons are based on limited evidence that can easily be confounded by stacks favouring the other opinion, and can't document anything outside of the 14th and early 15th century and the locations of France and England to support their position, their opinion can be dismissed after a short read of it, and comparison to more scholarly studies of the subject.

I'll wager the superheros who think they can bring down mounted heavy cavalry right and left single handedly, fighting by themselves in the middle of a battle (rather than in the close formations patently documentable) have never been in the middle of a herd of horses on foot that panicked.

------------------
Bob R.

Sieur Raymond · Post by **Sieur Raymond** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 10:29 pm

Hey Bascot, Do have to be so rude? Just wondering.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bascot:
I wish someone would have explained all of this to my mother's Arabian. That mare jumped laterally six feet at a canter when a sparrow flew up from behind a haybale. If she would have known she couldn't do this (because of the informed discussion on this thread) I'd never have fallen on my butt!!).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Horse startles and jumps at a funny angle throwing you the ground? How is this relevant? When the footman moves laterally will you have the time to nudge your horse to follow while simultaneously keeping your lance on target? Have you done this?

If you teach your horse to disengage and turn on the haunches or turn on the forelegs, you can do this at any gait. (Working on a two track). With proper training a horse can do anything working off of weight shifts or leg cues, leaving the rider free to attack the hapless footman. Of course, if you don't know how to ride, or your horse is poorly trained, then you may have more difficulties.).]

But if I injure your horse or kill it what will you do? And how can you prevent me from injuring or killing your horse?

How many of you "heros" really think you'd have the balls to stand there with 1500 lbs barreling down on you?

I don't see the need to be rude. Of course, this takes courage. I've made that point a couple of times. But if I run, I know I'm dead, so I think I'd stick around. Question: I'm pretty good with a variety of weapons. Do you think you'd really have the courage to charge me? And what does my question or yours have to do with it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
If you have that kind of nads, why not carry the logic a step further and say you can attack and kill an English longbowman with a dagger as you merely have to wait until he looses his arrow, then sidestep and go for the kill?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(shaking my head) Can you give me a reason not to consider this last bit a waste of electrons? It does not seem to have much to do with the issue.

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 10:51 pm

Sieur Raymond,

You are not going to get the chance for a one-on-one in the middle of a battle. Cavalry acted in units of men. The comparison of ones and twos attacking each other in these situations is ludicrous. The whole point of a charge of heavy cavalry is to deliver a massive shock in a close order formation. You don't only have the one man at arms to worry about, you have his twos or three mates on each side as well, and the custilors (on even more agile horses) as well, covering the flanks of the charge.

If you are by yourself in these circumstances, you are in a broken formation, and are being hacked down. Your reaction time compared to a cantering horses is not going to make a significant difference - it is like arguing how you are going ro roll, dodge, and stike at the driver of a single car in the middle of rush hour traffic.

The weight of evidence for the effectiveness of heavy cavalry against anything but unbroken and well drilled close order infantry, or a combination of same and large numbers of troops with projectile weapons behind 'hasty works' is overwhelming.

There is a grave full of bodies of strong, agile, and most likely well trained (read the forensics report) foot soldiers in Towton, who current theory has being hacked down in clumps by mounted men (due to the preponderance of head wounds), as they tried to make their way clear of a lost battle.

If I was vehemnt in my first post to this topic, it is due to some of the opinion expressed due to an incredibly myopic vision of an extemely narrow timeframe, and limited regional experience. Opinion based on a pre-existing bias, 19th century jingoistic propaganda about 'national superiority', and a simple lack of reading any serious material on the subect other than Froissart's comicbook-esque third hand accounts written years after events, whitewashed to make people feel better about 'chivalry'.

Frankly, I just get tired of the jingoistic view of the middle ages, put forward by people who ought to know better (they are intelligent after all, and in most things reasonable men). It is starting to rank right up there with my feelings about nazi-wannabee's drooling over the equipment of the Third Reich.

------------------
Bob R.

Sieur Raymond · Post by **Sieur Raymond** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 11:05 pm

Bob-

I agree with alot of what you say. Did you read my other posts? I actually said some of what you say. I agree that the idea of one on one in a battle is unlikely to say the least, but that was the premise of the thread so I addressed it.

Realistically, if I had the choice of having a horse or not in this bizarre senario, I'd take the horse--'cause then I could dismount, beat my opponent into submission, and ransom him. Or, if he *scared* me, I'd ride away. ;-)

Cheers.

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 11:14 pm

For the record,

My own opinion regarding the evolution of the mounted man-at-arms. A preponderance of evidence points to him being the dominant force on the Medieval battlefield from the late 11th century through the 13th centuries. There are occasional accounts of dismounted actions, but the vast majority at this time indicate the mounted man at arms being principly employed mounted, and enjoying great success in that role.

History also indicates that from the late 13th century, organized bodies of drilled infantry with specialist weapons were introduced to the Western European battlefield. In most cases, these troops being orgainized with these weapons centered around towns, and is linked to the struggle of these towns attemptiong to achieve a political importance, against the interests of their Feudal masters (the exception being the English yeoman with his bow - many English experiences run counter to 'norm' trends in Europe).

After some rough starts, these groups of organized infantry upset the previous dominance of the mounted man-at-arms. The English, using a combination of enthusuiastic volunteers (peasants they could trust with weapons), and filling out the actual battles of infantry with dismounted men at arms in place of the organized rabble-rousing peasants of the continent, came up with a 'paper' to the normal 'rock' of heavy cavalry tactics that was to confound their primary opponents (the French) for a span of about 75 years.

After this time, due to advances in technology, heavy cavalry reemerge as being an important factor on the battlefields of Continental Europe. They are never the battle dominating force they were prior to the military revolution beginning in the 13th century, but they were a key factor in any army of the day - an indispensible auxilliary to the professional footsoldier now emergant. If you wished for a decisive victory, you needed them amongst your army composition. They then began a gradual decline in importance from after the first quarter of the 16th century until being finally ousted by the 'reiters' - pistol armed armoured cavalry - for which there was no remedy for the mounted lancer of the day. The mid-16th century sees the final demise of the mounted man at arms.

This is what the preponderance of evidence supports. This is what the top scholars and the serious students of military history generaly accept as fact.

I hold no misplaced romantic view of the 'chevalier' on this topic. When it comes to military history, I study it seriously, and I look at it with hard-nosed fact-finding foremost, not through rose-coloured glasses.

------------------
Bob R.

Aelric · Post by **Aelric** » Fri Mar 08, 2002 11:45 pm

Although I agree with this I have afunny story bout this.

How many of you "heros" really think you'd have the balls to stand there with 1500 lbs barreling down on you?

We went on a trail ride 2 weeks ago and my wifes horse decided he was gunna roll in a particularly sandy area. Forgetting he had a saddle and rider he laid down to roll. As my wife yipped and jumped off he realized his mistake, got up, and ran around in circles like an idiot. My wife lept in front of this charging, scared 1200 lb horse and yelled stop. Bud, her horse slammed on the brakes and skid to a stop. Then he just stood there looking like a beaten dog. I thought that was a pretty ballsy thing to do and pretty funny.

Aelric

FrauHirsch · Post by **FrauHirsch** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:07 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by chef de chambre:
Most people haven't dealt with a trained cavalry mount, and have no idea what they are capable of, thinking they are all somehow docile critters. I would put them to reading about one of Napoleons chefs d' brigade, who owned a interesting mare, that was a trained warhorse. He kept running through grooms as she had a habit of disembowling those who weren't exceptionaly careful. He 'cured' her of the habit with a couple of torches and a hot iron, after which she suffered his presence and his head grooms, but still kept her old habits in action. She was actually a warhorse, not a mere cavalry mount, and had much more training.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A young Shire stallion was being used at the local Renn faire for the jousting show some years ago. The scary part was that he had figured out that he was huge and strong. Only one of the grooms could handle him at all, and he was a 250 lb 6' tall guy who had been around horses for years. I'll never forget when I watched Giovanni grab that bridle and with a small flick of his head the horse just flipped Gio into the air like he was a leaf.

I watched that horse do things that were really quite scary on several occasions. One time I just watched him slowly push through a 5' 6 bar stud pen. It just bent before him! It was stunning to me as I had trained normal sized riding mounts since I was a teen. But the sheer strength and *attitude* was probably only a minute glimpse of what a real warhorse really was like, after all, this horse was just being a pissy teenager, not a fully trained death machine.

Thinking of those feet that are the size of dinner plates aimed at me is not something I'd like to experience.

One of our locals has a shire, but shoeing alone runs $200-300...

Juliana

FrauHirsch · Post by **FrauHirsch** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:38 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Richard Blackmoore:
I used to rid in armour and play at jousting and did limited sword and shield work on horseback too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW, Amsha said to say Hi. She has a new baby, I think she said he is 16.3. Our dear Sister went back East awhile and we are quite happy to have her back at the Abbey where she belongs. We will forgive her absense since she brought Bart back with her, however.. :-)

Juliana

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:49 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by FrauHirsch:
 A young Shire stallion was being used at the local Renn faire for the jousting show some years ago. The scary part was that he had figured out that he was huge and strong. Only one of the grooms could handle him at all, and he was a 250 lb 6' tall guy who had been around horses for years. I'll never forget when I watched Giovanni grab that bridle and with a small flick of his head the horse just flipped Gio into the air like he was a leaf.

I watched that horse do things that were really quite scary on several occasions. One time I just watched him slowly push through a 5' 6 bar stud pen. It just bent before him! It was stunning to me as I had trained normal sized riding mounts since I was a teen. But the sheer strength and *attitude* was probably only a minute glimpse of what a real warhorse really was like, after all, this horse was just being a pissy teenager, not a fully trained death machine.

Thinking of those feet that are the size of dinner plates aimed at me is not something I'd like to experience.

One of our locals has a shire, but shoeing alone runs $200-300...

Juliana<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just an FYI: No scholars think the Shire is representative of a real destrier any longer. There's some *slight* argument as to whether *very* late horses used for jousting might have been pretty big (from the modern sense), but from extant equipment, iconography, etc., it's pretty clear that destrier were fairly small animals, height-wise. Most experts believe that the charger would have been around 15 hands for most of the middle ages. How stocky they were depends on where in the world you were from; middle eastern warriors seemed to have preferred a variety of "weights", while medieval knights seemed to prefer heavier horses. Even during the 14th century when the "grande cheval" was popular, it was still more like a good-sized Irish hunter today, and smaller horses again became the norm after that. A horse the size of a shire would never have been used for jousting; that's a myth. Many scholars argue that the Andalusian is the closest modern breed to a destrier, other argue for the Frisian. I don't know; I suspect the medieval warhorses were sufficiently different from what we have today to make such comparisons moot.

As for controlling them, it really is more attitude than anything else. I've seen tiny women control big, powerful horses better than a bigger man who didn't know what he was doing (although when it comes to *riding* some of the horses with more attitude a stronger man does seem to have some advantage, not in controlling the horse, but in being able to resist the horses shenanigans over a longer period of time). The fact is that the strognest man who ever lived is still an ant compared with a horse: what makes them hard to control isn't size, it's attitude. That more larger horses seem more difficult to control has to do with people's perception and fear of the horse more than reality.

Whomever posted about the woman who jumped in the way of the out-of-control horse has it right, and, incidentally, points out one of the most salient points here: People who have insufficient experience with horses who don't *really* know how to handle them (and I'm talking about less than 10+ years of constant work) are more intimidated by them and react incorrectly, while someone with a lot of experience would know exactly how to deal with them.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:58 am

I believe the horse and rider would win â€“ it would be a no-contest sort of thing.

1. We're discounting the "fear-factor" here... Just do this sometime, have a competant horseman charge past you on his horse at full speed. The charge alone will "freeze" people in place due to their fear of being trampled.

2. Also, that lance is very long, and a small twitch of the arm and wrist should move the lance tip quite a bit. Nine feet of lance moving just 5 degrees at its fulcrum (take a look at your protractor, that isnâ€™t much!) will give the lance tip a 1.5 foot arc (total). Moving just 10 degrees at the fulcrum will give you a 3 foot arc.

3. As a test, I tried jumping SIDEWAYS six feet, and I can just barerly do it -- while dressed in nothing but boxer shorts here in my room. Now, Iâ€™m 32 year old, veteran soldier, rested, 175 lbs, 71 inches tall, currently in a military school enganged in intense daily exercise (I can still do the six minute mile, etc...). So, physically, I would compare myself to a foot soldier of the time. But, the soldier of the time would not be in boxer shorts with no weapon on a flat surface, and I believe this would slow them down quite a bit.

4. And the horse can just sidestep a little to compensate further. The horse is a quite dexterous creature. At 25 miles per hour (as quoted by Bascot) the horse is moving at 440 inches per second (or ~37 feet per second). I moved to one side at about ~3 feet in half a second. A twitch of the wrist from the knight will move the lance tip three feet.

5. Furthermore, that lance tip is deceptive. Itâ€™s a VERY small object coming very fastâ€¦are you sure youâ€™ve jumped before it arrived? Timing and location are everythingâ€¦and you are not REALLY sure of the location of that tip. This deceptive nature of a long object is the reason we are required to put red hankies on the end of long objects sticking out the back of trucks and cars...you realy don't have a clue where the tip is without the rag.

In conclusion, I would greatly favor the horseman.

-Aaron

[This message has been edited by Aaron (edited 03-09-2002).]

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 11:17 am

Sir Rhys is correct in that no scholar thinks Shires or other draught animals closely resemble a Medieval destrier, or a courser.

That said, the principle argument put forward by most people for the 'shortness' of Medieval war mounts centers on Anne Hylands books, and the MoL book on the Medieval horse. The MoL book freely admits that the evidence it presents is a flawed example. Their only concern is with horses in and around London, and they cannot identify any of the gear dug as belonging to any other creature than a cart horse. Not surprising, as warhorses were kept on studs in rural areas. Anne Hylands book is written by a well meaning amature who's scholarly credentials are non-existant, and which fact is well reflected in the way her books are written and researched.

Andrew Ayton's book on the subject, although from a narrow perspective of about 100 years is very well researched and documented, and a model for this sort of book. His work clearly shows a changing fashion in size and type of warhorse (again, in England - the 'obvious center of the universe' - sheesh) over the course of time. Physical evidence in the form of horseshoes dug across Europe indicates many horses in the 15 - 16 hh range, just as many on either end of the scale, and also a plethora of shorites 14+. The same is reflected in sizes of bits.

Anne Hylands presumption that horse armour was intended for a short horse is based principly on observing surviving armour stuffed onto dummies roughly the size (and more importantly the shape) of draft breeds, by older scholars working on older presumtions. The fact it doesn't fit has much more to do with the horses 'stockiness' and musculature, than how leggy it is. All it proves is that horses were more bulit like modern hunters (which no one argues with0 not their heigth, which is as ignorant a position as to presume all Medieval people were much shorter than we are, despite foprensic evidence. Such evidence in the form of horses found in Saxon burials have uncovered horses even at that early date on the order of more than 16 hh.

As to iconographic evidence, this is truely a flawed argument as well. Early to very late Medieval art attributes often stature of subject painted to it's importance. Perspective is often non-existant. In Italy, where perspecive is actually coming in lmid 15th century, one sees a variety of mounts of differing heigth, from the order of 15 - 16hh, and occasionaly a little more. Even Rene of Anjous books show horses being led or ridden by grooms that are larger than the casual riding horses of the rest of the mounted party.

Real evidence can be gleaned from written evidence from Duarte to Grissone regarding horsemanship. Often horses from differing regions are explained to be of differing sizes, and useful for differing tasks (what a novel concept!). The horses of Naples and the Campagnia are in particular mentioned as being amongst the best for coursers, and are explained to be larger than many horses from other regions (something also attributed to Brabant, another key center of Warhorse production). The proponderance of evidence is for differing sized horses in differing regions (de Commines notes the Burgundian men at arms in 1465 "rode large horses - he never saw men so well mounted"). Looking to England, where the warhorse had a secondary role at very best during this era is to give a skewed view of the overall picture. A Spaniard noted in 1485 observing Anthoney Grey's contingent to the reconquest of Grananda "that they will ride horses of any type, indiferent quality, and even mules for they dismount to draw up in order and fight".

The last judgement is not in regarding this topic. Anne Hyland is certainly not the last word on it. She is a breeder and trainer of arabians, her books are paens to the worth of the 'breed', and she spends the vast ammount of her books (allegedly on the subject presumably of European warhorses) investigating the horses of India, China, and the Near East. If only she spent so much time on the subject of the European horse! Her understanding of Medieval Warfare, how it was conducted, tactitcs, logistics, weaponry, etc is laughable. Her understanding of Eastern warfare is only slightly better.

Scholars have only begun the serious study of this subject, and much more awaits to be documented coalated, and published before conclusions are drawn. The only definite myth exploded is the old saw regarding gargantuan plow horses were warhorses. The best is yet to come.

------------------
Bob R.

Khann · Post by **Khann** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:19 pm

I use a Flemish as my mount. Big strong and mean.(expensive

Khann

FrauHirsch · Post by **FrauHirsch** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 1:33 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by chef de chambre:
Sir Rhys is correct in that no scholar thinks Shires or other draught animals closely resemble a Medieval destrier, or a courser.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should have been elaborated as I do agree that most drafts are not representative of period destriers or chargers. This particular Shire stud was a young horse and only about 15.3 hands. But he was broad and had the thick stallion's crest shown on many period depictions. He just gave me a glimpse of the size and strength coupled with the *attitude* which might have been represented in a warhorse. I believe the temperament required by a warhorse wouldn't be anything close to your average Quarter or TB or general riding horse mix we would find today, even when they are acting up. Since one of the side jobs I had in my youth was "fixing" insane and dangerous horses for people, I am fully aware of even modern horse temperament ranges.

Since I tend to focus on the early 16th c, there are quite a few horses that look very similar to the shire I mentioned in 16thc iconography. One that has quite a few examples is "The Rennaissance at War" by Thomas Arnold. At this point artistic representation tends to be more realistic than the earlier period iconography, therefore it is a bit more reliable. From many different artists we see 15-16 hand horses that are very broad, thick-crested, and large footed (compared to a Quarter, Arab, or even most TBs). These are shown carrying armored knights. Most pure drafts are overly large, but I've met several similar to this particular small Shire I mentioned above that do fit the bill (which was why the tournament company doing the jousting selected this horse).

My key point was really about temperament.
Even in dog breeding we can soften the temperament of a line in only a few generations. There hasn't been a need for a horse with the kind of temperament we would want in a destrier or courser for some time, and most people consider any horse that is willing to run over humans a major liability. To compare any modern horse breed's responses with a period horse bred and trained for the purpose of war just isn't realistic IMHO, no more than I can compare a Great Dane with an Anatolian Shepherd Dog. Both may be of similar size but its how they behave that makes the Anatolian 10 times more dangerous than the Dane given a threatening situation.

In the dog world (and the horse world too) there is a constant argument from the "show people" that form follows function, but any working dog owner will tell you that form doesn't mean squat without the temperament and drive to back it. Performance is not just about conformation.

Not to mention that most horses are gelded now and early, because dealing with a stud is a whole different story than dealing with a gelding. I just think making an assessment using modern people and modern horses would fall short of the mark.

Given the original discussion, I would take the horse, and if faced with a single opponent, I would draw a sword. I'd aim right at the guy expecting to que my horse to jump right or left depending on which direction I thought the footman would slip. If I chose wrong, then I'd be out of range. If I chose right, I'd run him over. If he stood his ground, I'd still be within range and he'd still have to deal with the added velocity and mass that the horse gives the rider.

The expectation of killing a horse with one sword blow or a *dagger* thrust I feel is more than a little unrealistic. I have spent plenty of hunting time and butchering large farm animals (4-H, FFA). Big animals just don't die that easy. Getting that "perfect" one shot kill in on a horse traveling 25 mph is just poor odds.

-Juliana

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:12 pm

"Bascot, I think most of the people who argue that a solitary man can somehow fight off cavalrymen with ease by themselve, rather than being in a body of disciplined troops just don't know much about horses, the sort of training that went into making a courser or destrier, or have never seen what a large agile horse can do. Some people have seen these things and are just plain wrong-headed and stubborn, or live under the delusion they are some sort of supermen."

Bingo.

I gave up after only briefly scanning this thread. Anyone who thinks that they, as a single combatant, can take on a mounted knight and win is out of their minds.

I'm not even going to bother constructing an argument to defend that position. It's not worth the effort. If you think you're superman, good for you.

Steve

------------------
Forth Armoury
The Riveted Maille Website!

Owen · Post by **Owen** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:40 pm

I don't believe that I, as a single man on foot, could easily defeat a mounted knight. I MIGHT be able to keep him from killing me long enough to evade, if I can get into cover. I might even get lucky, if he stops charging and trys to stand over me. Me AND all my buddies against said knight and HIS buddies stand a much better chance. Missiles on either side, whether arrows or firearms, drasticly change the scenario. If we have 'em, they better run away. If they do, we're toast. If both, we can hold 'em off and march away.

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

Sieur Raymond · Post by **Sieur Raymond** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:51 pm

I find it very amusing when people get on their high horse (so to speak) and use sarcasm instead of discourse, and rudeness instead of argument. Ever heard of "I don't agree because of x and y."?

JJ Shred · Post by **JJ Shred** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 3:18 pm

Hey Bascot, Do have to be so rude? Just wondering.

I wish I was able to convey my arguments with the eloquency of Chef, Bob Charron or Templar Bob. I think SyrRys's writing style is a lot like mine, we tend to be outspoked and direct. Numerous times I've read his posts, started to get pissed, then realized he was actually agreeing with me.
I do get tired of belabouring the whole horse/knight thing with SCA members who, when faced with their own lack of experience or fear of horses, merely change the definition of "knight" to suit their convenience and rationalize their inadequecies.

This is one discussion where I appreciate Owen's position: He doesn't like horses, doesn't understand them, and wants nothing to do with them. I respect his honesty, rather than hiding behind a smoke-screen of unattempted and undocumentable as well as unlikely events.

I am around horses at least 5 days a week. I have been for years. I can read a horse, know what he's thinking, and the horse knows that by my attitude. I respect horses, but don't fear them. They react to given stimui in predictable ways. Anyone who tells you the horse "just lashed out at me with no warning" is incorrect. The horse was telling them what it was going to do, they just couldn't or wouldn't read the signs.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bascot:
I wish someone would have explained all of this to my mother's Arabian. That mare jumped laterally six feet at a canter when a sparrow flew up from behind a haybale. If she would have known she couldn't do this (because of the informed discussion on this thread) I'd never have fallen on my butt!!).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Horse startles and jumps at a funny angle throwing you the ground? How is this relevant?

An example of what a horse is naturally capable, with a little self-effacing humour thrown in. Someone posted horses can move at speed only in a direct line, and can only move agily when more-or-less stationary. This is an incorrect assumption.

When the footman moves laterally will you have the time to nudge your horse to follow while simultaneously keeping your lance on target? Have you done this?

Yes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you teach your horse to disengage and turn on the haunches or turn on the forelegs, you can do this at any gait. (Working on a two track). With proper training a horse can do anything working off of weight shifts or leg cues, leaving the rider free to attack the hapless footman. Of course, if you don't know how to ride, or your horse is poorly trained, then you may have more difficulties.).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But if I injure your horse or kill it what will you do? And how can you prevent me from injuring or killing your horse?

Injure? Perhaps. Kill? Unlikely. This was explained sufficiently in Juliana's post.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many of you "heros" really think you'd have the balls to stand there with 1500 lbs barreling down on you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see the need to be rude. Of course, this takes courage. I've made that point a couple of times. But if I run, I know I'm dead, so I think I'd stick around. Question: I'm pretty good with a variety of weapons. Do you think you'd really have the courage to charge me? And what does my question or yours have to do with it?

Many folks have made comments of sheer impossibility, so I assume they are giving me a LARP answer. They assumed superhuman status, I merely labeled it.

As far as you and weapons, I dunno....I don't have a clue of who you are, what you look like, and what I am allowed within this scenareo, but then, this really wasn't a question, was it?

[This message has been edited by Bascot (edited 03-09-2002).]

Owen · Post by **Owen** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 5:42 pm

Actually, "Owen" doesn't know much about horses, but likes them. "M. Didius Ovenvs" hates them, distrusts them, and wants nothing to do with, knowing far more than he'd like!

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"