Talk:Horses in warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Bold text

Good articles Horses in warfare (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives

If you want to discuss something before putting it into the main article, do so here.

Contents

[edit] Good Article

It looks as if all major concerns have been addressed (and quickly, too), and the article continues to improve. I'm happy to pass it as a Good Article at this point. I also think it's a pretty strong candidate for FA; I see further prose polishing and perhaps the one image noted above as the only likely objections. A peer review or a review by an appropriate WikiProject might be helpful steps to take at this point, on the way to FA status. Thanks for all your hard work. Shimeru 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When did armies stop using horses as cavalry?

The following sentence appears in the article:

Though most mounted fighting units were phased out during or immediately after World War II,[1] horses still had military uses.

Surely this should read World War I? Or what armies are we talking about? I know that officers rode horses in WW1, at least in some of the European theatres, but I thought the European armies learned their lesson then, and started phasing out the mounted soldier from 1914 onwards. Do any editors have access to this book, or others, to check? Thanks BrainyBabe 17:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

World War II is correct. The footnote has a link to the web page, you can read it for yourself. For that matter, read the rest of the article, the Polish used mounted cavalry, horses and mules were used in Italy and Africa by both sides, and the web article sources here goes into considerable additional detail. I busted my butt sourcing this article and worked very hard to get it GA status (note talk here, we obviously had a lot of editing disputes). Be so gracious to do your research and read carefully. Montanabw 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read the webpage the footnote links to, and my reading of it is different from yours. I think this hinges on two points of language: one, what exactly "mounted fighting units" mean, and two, the difference between "most units were phased out (in the US Army)" and "most armies (in industrialised nations) phased out (all or most of) their units". I'll tackle these separately.
I am in no way an expert on the military or horses; rather, I try to represent the intelligent lay reader. To me, the phrase "mounted cavalry" suggests soldiers on horseback (or mules or other animals), actually fighting. This need not be sabres flashing a la Charge of the Light Brigade, but some shooting or other direct combat, or laying of explosives or behind the scenes ambushes, would seem to be a necessary part of their actual or potential role. If the phrase used is not "fighting units" but "reconnaissance units", that is a different kettle of fish, as, of course, are pack animals. My understanding is that the use of horses and mules in Africa and India was overwhelmingly as pack animals, not to harry troops or engage in direct combat. Likewise, Poles dragging equipment around by horse is using them for draft power, not fighting. From my reading, most armies in the developed world started phasing out their "mounted fighting units" from not long into World War I, although they kept horse units for reconnaissance and other purposes. Those nations that were fortunate enough not to be dragged into that unholy mess watched the triumph of the tanks from afar, and learned their lessons.
Second point: the phrase in the article "most mounted fighting units were phased out during or immediately after" WWII appears to refer only to the United States army. This sort of geographic bias in the presentation of information is so systemic within Wikipedia that it merits its own page to attempt to counter the problem Wikipedia:Countering_systemic_bias. So if we know that countries A,B,C,D,E.....P took the plunge towards decommissioning horses from WW1 onwards, while countries Q,R,S...Z kept theirs till WWII (the list needn't go in the article), then it follows that most mounted fighting units were phased out during or after WWI.("Most" referring to a majority of the nations under consideration.) Logically, if all or most armies in developed nations started to phase out their mounted fighting units as a result of the carnage of WWI, then there would be very few left, relative to a generation before, by the start of WWII.
Therefore I respectfully submit that the wording should be changed. I suggest something along the following lines: Change
Though most formal mounted cavalry units were phased out as fighting forces during or immediately after World War II,[38] horses still had military uses.

for

Though most formal mounted cavalry units were phased out as fighting forces during or immediately after World War I,[38] horses still had military uses.
By the way, Montanabw, I responded to your comments on my talkpage. Not sure if you saw them there.BrainyBabe 13:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I will check my talk page, sometimes if there are multiple messages there I don't always spot things...

I will think about your comments, as there is a legitimate debate as to what "cavalry" means. (Just like there was endless debate here for a while about what a "war horse" was...) As for WWI versus WWII, by the criteria I think you are using, horse units were arguably becoming a thing of the past after the Spanish-American war and things like Teddy Roosevelt's famous charge up San Juan hill. I can't think of much in the way of light horse charges in WWI, even by then horses were used more for communication and reconnaissance with mechanization taking over a lot of field duties. But, the bottom line is that mounted Polish Cavalry unquestionably was in the field at the start of the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, and succeeded in repelling some initial infantry attacks until they were run off by oncoming Panzer units. Further, the US and other armies still had units with horses that were labeled "cavalry" whatever they did with them. The Cavalry remount programs were not phased out until after the end of WWII. I guess I am using "cavalry" in the sense it was used by the US Government and going by when they stopped using horses, making "cavalry" a term for tank-based units. Now off to my talk page... Montanabw 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Many good edits, but made a few revisions:

  1. Removed definition of cavalry in intro--for one thing, there were/are many different kinds of mounted units, heavy cavalry, light cavalry, chariots, infantry, etc...this generalized of a statement will draw the wrath of the military historians. We either have to define all of them or none of them, I vote for none, this article focuses on horses, we can wikilink to definitions of cavalry, etc...
  2. Removed reference to Donkeys as food. ALL equids were eaten in extremis by all military units--or by those who defeated them. That is a can of worms I think we need not open here--horsemeat references start edit wars. Made rest of statement more general. Though info is correct, naming specific modern units when they have been used this way for 2000 years invites others to create laundry lists of their favorite specific mounted units. Once that starts, it never ends. (sigh) (If you found a PHOTO of donkeys as pack animals, that would be cool though, and you could credit the unit in the caption, as was done with the 1st Cavalry unit photos...)
  3. Removed reference to bicycle infantry. It's unsourced and actually tanks succeeded horses more than bicycles did. Arguably, there IS a possible place for a section discussing ALL the successors to the cavalry, including bicycles, tanks and helicopters. On the other hand, the article is already a bit long, so maybe we need to find a good link to modern "cavalry" units with helicopters and tanks, one with a good history section, and just link to it not a bad notion to insert a wikilink to these related articles, just not in a sentence hanging out there all by itself just for the sake of a wikilink, I expanded the see also section...
  4. Cut the laundry list of nations with horse units down to continents. Once these lists start, they get endless. We could have 30 countries listed here, and "listy" sections could cost this piece its GA status.
  5. I finally figured out a way to clarify that WWI vesus WWII issue--I did make the WWI change, but added new language to clarify that cavalry did exist in WWII.

Overall, good ideas, most rephrasing of different sections was an improvement and thank you for the info on donkeys as pack animals. Montanabw 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a response to this, but the system swallowed it; most frustrating. I will now withdraw from editing on this article for an indeterminate time. I will point out here the errors I see remaining in the article and leave you or other editors to make those changes as you see fit.
  1. Cavalry -- as I said, I am neither a military nor a horse expert. One of my target readers is the intelligent and curious 12 year old. The article should make it plain from the outset that "cavalry" refers to soldiers on horseback (and their modern descendants), and thus that anyone looking for information about horses in warfare would be well advised to look there too. There is a 90% overlap in the material covered, and the main word, cavalry, should be flagged up -- the subsidiary divisions don't have that urgency, and can be defined or linked to later in the article, or not at all, because the curious can find, e.g., light cavalry via cavalry.
  2. Horsemeat -- one of the functions of horses during times of war was as sources of protein. This has been true throughout history, as you acknowledge. Sometimes this was planned for (cf Roald Amundsen eating his dogs on the way to the South Pole), sometimes in extremis. To fail to acknowledge this in an article that is supposed to cover the whole subject of horses in warfare seems rather a lacuna.
  3. Bicycle infantry -- as that article explains, bicycles began to be used from the turn of the 19/20 century, to carry messages, to scout, and later to carry supplies. All of these were functions previously carried out on horseback. All it needs is a brief mention and a link to the aforementioned article. The "see also" section is all very well, but integration into the text is preferable: more readers see it, and it tells the story better. By all means include tanks and helicopters as well, as mechanised performers of some of the horse's functions.
  4. I agree with you about laundry lists, but here you have substituted the names of five continents for a list of dozens of countries. Why not just say "around the world"?
  5. Thank you for agreeing to reword the WW1/WW11 section.
  6. The rewording of the disambig page for warhorse has introduced certain difficulties; namely, the wording that follows "cavalry" may well be a dictionary definition, but it does not accurately reflect the content of that article, which in fact devotes screenfuls of information to what we might call post-horse cavalry.
  7. I never came across this article under what I believe was its previous name, warhorse. It seems to me that the phrase "horses in warfare" is rather broader than "warhorse". The introduction refers three times to "warhorse", which skews the perspective.

I wish you luck with this article. BrainyBabe 11:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually DO appreciate your comments. Sometimes it just takes a little time for them to percolate. I will think about the cavalry matter, it is a good point...I just got swatted bad about it from the other side and am trying to figure out how to walk the tightrope. I also don't want to touch the cavalry article with a 10-foot pole unless I have to. (Try some edits over there and see that those editors say...?) The old War Horse article was the original, we moved all the text over here, but the history is probably still buried on the redirect page, another small issue that probably needs to be addressed...sigh. Anyway, feel free to comment any time. Montanabw 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knights

Contrary to popular belief, destriers, 'chargers' and other horses ridden by knights were not the forerunners of draft horses. Your reference is, unfortunately, wrong. I refer you instead to: Ewart Oakeshott, A Knight and his Horse, Dufour Editions 1962 & 1998, and Michael Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, Yale, 1996, amongst many. Knight's horses were middle-weight horses, similar to modern-day hunters. Your photograph at the top of the page is unfortunate: draft horses might be used by some modern reenactors, but you would do better to refer to the interpreters at, eg, the Royal Armouries who 'interpret' early documents rather than 'reenact'. The interpreters joust regularly, using middleweight horses. The medieval war-saddle on display in the museum fits one of their smaller horses perfectly. The speed, acceleration and agility required of a war horse should indicate a middle-weight horse. The only use for a draft horse in an army would be to pull the baggage train, although bullocks were far more common. Please don't take my comments as criticism of your fine article; I merely want to aid you in developing it. By the way, don't look to Destrier for accuracy, either! Gwinva 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to fix Destrier, go for it! I didn't write it and it appears to be abandoned. If you can find a better historical reenactment photo, please add it (we have trouble finding public domain images of horses that are appropriate...we need help!)
If you want to help with this article in the section on knights, use this talk page as a sandbox (I've created a new section for this, below), copying and pasting the relevant section here and working on it, we must keep everything meticulously footnoted to keep the article in GA status, and if you have these reference works, they sound terrific1 Just plug them into footnotes with the <ref> and </ref> tags . Then once we have the section polished up and footnoted, we can replace the existing material in the main article.
That said, for a middle weight, agile, ARMOUR CARRYING war horse, a better example that a "hunter" (modern hunters are largely Thoroughbred) is probably the Andalusian horse or other "baroque" breeds like the Friesian. Also, the people who breed Shire horses and other draft breeds like the Percheron and particularly the Friesian horse DO claim ancestry from the Great Horse, so keep that in mind. Lastly, keep in mind the balance between the weight of armor with the "speed, acceleration and agility required of a war horse" A horse can only carry 25% of its weight (maybe a bit more for short periods). Hence, a 1000 lb horse can carry about 250 lbs. While indeed, a middle-weight horse probably could easily carry armor of the 11th century (William the Conquerer was said to have ridden an Andalusian, in fact), by the time you get to heavy plate armour, well, figure out what it weighed, that's the horse you have to ride. The Laws of physics dicatate this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the reply and information. I must state that I don't really know much about horses: I come to this area through my interest in medieval warfare. I understand what you say about hunters -I think the reference I read likened them in size and strength rather than breeding (as the modern Andalusian breeds etc have moved on from the medieval ones). I think it is accepted that Andalusian and Arab stock were most prized for war horses. Of course, destriers were not that common: most warhorses were the more generic courser or rouncey, which probably differed in breeding, but could still carry an armed knight or man-at-arms. As I understand it, full plate armour rarely weighed more than 80lb. Horse armour intially comprised hardened leather with straw padding; after 1400 plate became more common for the chanfron, but the full plate sometimes seen in 16th century was extremely rare, and it is doubtful if it was more than ceremonial (ie not used in battle). As for speed: in a joust a horse was expected to get from standing to approx 30 mph at point of impact. When I get time, I'll collect all my books together and confirm all the references. By the way, I checked the Royal Armouries for confirmation of the horse size but all I could discover was a general statement: [1]. On that subject, I really don't know much about the use of photos, copyright, fairuse, etc, but it might be worth someone who knows what they're talking about contacting the armouries to see if there are any free-use resources: [2]. Gwinva 10:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to say: I realise many do claim that the draft breeds came from the great horses, and I have no intention to spark an edit war, especially as the assumption is so well-established that anyone could produce hundreds of references to back it up. The issue is best dealt with by saying something like: 'It is traditionally thought that destriers and other great horses were the ancestors of the modern draft horse, but current research suggests an alternative theory... (etc etc)'. I've got a book that includes the research on horse skeletons, and other archeological evidence. I'll hunt it out. Gwinva 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The section on the medieval knight sure needs some of this work done. Your access to reference sources could be quite valuable, which is why I have created a sandbox...one thing to look at are the CHANGES in armour from, say the 11th through the 15th centuries...and how horses would have had to change with them.

As for weight, in addition to plate armour, you must consider the weight of the rider (even if people then were smaller, we're looking at 150 pounds minimum, I suspect), the weight of a saddle (a modern western saddle with a simple wood tree and leather coverings can weigh up to 50 pounds) plus the weight of weapons, shields, and other equipment in addition to armor. Also, even if late medieval armor was mostly ceremonial, you still would need a big enough horse to carry it for any period of time, even a couple of hours. Additionally, do not underestimate the abilities of a very large horse; the Percheron (which has some Arabian blood) and the Clydesdale both are ridden under saddle today and are remarkably agile.

I welcome anything you want to put in. If I think the info on horses is incorrect or defies the known laws of physics, we can work on that...sadly, a lot of historians know squat about horses.

I'm still gathering my references together, then I'll get going in the sandbox as suggested. Investigating the Royal Armouries further, I've found the following:
'The popular picture of a knight's horse is either a cart or shire horse. This is not the case. A destrier was about the size of a modern 'heavy hunter' but not as tall. Around 15 to 16 hands. Henry VIII stipulated in 1540 that his stallions should be no less than 15 hands.' [3]
I've emailed the Armouries, trying to discover the breed used, plus information about weight of rider, armour, saddle etc, so hopefully some information will be forthcoming. Many thanks for your help and interest: my knowledge of horses has been gleaned from books on armour, tournaments etc and, as you point out, historians don't always know much about horses themselves! However, their archeology is good... I can probably reference other things for you like saddles, bits etc (I see you've been working on those). Gwinva 14:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. Look forward to seeing what you have! The "modern heavy hunter" in the reference books is probably referring to a draft horse/Thoroughbred cross, which is real common in the UK and Ireland. (Look at the article in here on the Irish Draught, that is a classic example) In other words, a light draft horse or really, really heavy warmblood... Keep in mind that NONE of the modern breeds existed by name as such in, say, AD 1300, with the exception of the Arabian and the Andalusian. So if someone says it was a "Shire," they are wrong...they may be referring to one of the ancestors of the Shire, or a horse bred in the region, but not the modern breed. Some breeds then are extinct today, though perhaps provided original bloodstock for modern breeds.

The other thing to be careful about is that the modern 17 to 18 hand monster Shire horse is much larger than its counterpart in the middle ages. Back then, many light horses would qualify as ponies (under 14.2 hands) today. In reality, many horses, even today, are under 15 hands (the breed standard for the Arabian, for example, is 14.1 to 15.1 hands) 15 hands is 60 inches at the withers. Henry VIII's little decree resulted in the slaughter of many, many horses that became worthless with a stroke of the pen -- it would be like a decree that anyone under 5'7" couldn't get a job! A 16 hand horse is not actually a small animal and many modern draft horse breeds, including Belgians and Percherons, are usually still under 17 hands.

Probably the way to handle all of this is to focus on weight and "phenotype." Andalusian horses and Friesian horses are undoubtably the closest modern representatives, but I am quite interested in geting the feel for the evolution of the knight as an ever heavier-armoured fighter, and thus how the horse evolved to fit the need. If you skim the article's earlier sections where we discuss light, medium and heavyweight horse, you will see that the cutoff line between "medium" and "heavy" is kind of vague...basically within the Friesian breed, there is actually still a split between a lighter, more agile riding type and a heavier carriage driving type.

Also, we had quite a discussion earlier on this page (now archived) about how late medieval plate armour may have never been used in warfare, only for ceremonial purposes? If you can get any info on that...perhaps the highly stylized designs DID in fact weigh so much they needed to go on a draft type horse, who didn't have to do too much actual fighting... Do you know or can you find out??? Montanabw 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knights and horses: weights and measures

ok, here are some figures to get us going (using heaviest examples)
knight's armour: 14th C mail hauberk 30 lb, with bascinet 12 lb
15th C field armour 57 lb
16th C tournament armour 90 lb
17th C musket-proof armour 70 lb
horse armour: 16th C (Henry VIII) 70 lb
I haven't yet referenced the earlier mail barding, but it was expensive and heavy, and very rare. I don't think any exists: mainly referenced in paintings and sculptures. Most commonly used was hardened leather and padded linen caparisons (with perhaps a plate chanfron0. yet to reference.
weapons One carried, perhaps another attached to saddle.
bastard sword (can't use two handed on horseback) max 3 lb
battle axe max 2 lb
mace 4 lb
lance 10 lb
data taken from A Knight and his Horse Ewart Oakeshott and Medieval History Magazine. can provide full title and publication details if figures used later.
saddle ?
knight: men weren't significantly smaller in middle ages: we're talking well-fed, well-conditioned, athletic men here. Edward I was over 6'. Henry VIII was a big man, too (especially in late years!!).
As for change in horse size over time: I have a book analysing German literary sources, which indicates horses did get bigger with change in armour. I'll save this (lost it once already) then check the bookshelf. Gwinva 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages Joachim Bumke, trans by Thomas Dunlap; New York: Overlook Duckworth, 2000 (German edition 1986) pp 176-178

"Historical documentation for horse armour from late 12th C...'iron horse blankets' 1200...'shoulder blankets' and chamfrons later...heavy horses cannot be validated 12th and 13th C...latin dextarius is not a breed...illustrations from 15th and 16th show larger horses...textual suggestions mares were sometimes used...epics speak of horses from Spain...also Scandinavian horses for combat... Hungarian horses for riding..."

Bumke also suggests late medieval armour weighed over 250 lb, which is patently incorrect. Hope he's right about the rest...

Does horse feeding tell you anything? Accounts kept by a keeper of horses in England, 1350, show each horse had an allowance of 1/2 bushel of oats and 3 loaves horsebread (from beans, peas and oatmeal) every 24 hours (Michael Prestwich: Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages., p 33) Gwinva 21:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Nice info!

1. Define "armour" Human only, horse protective mateial too, horse saddle AND protective material??

2. I am not sure the weight of a bushel of oats, will have to check. However, that diet alone would kill a horse, they also need grass and hay. Formula is that a horse can eat a MAXIMUM of 2.5% of its body weight per day, (including grass or hay) and probably maintain on 1.5 to 2%. i.e 1000 lb horse will eat 15 to 25 pounds of food per day, depending on work performed.

3. Good to know the human side...a modern-sized guy who does team roping likes a 1,200 pound horse to carry the man, a heavyweight western saddle and drag around a steer... Montanabw 02:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply:
1. 'armour' refers to knight's -I've edited above to make it more obvious. Do the armour categories include the padded protective gear worn with armour? I wish I knew: the info didn't specify. The saddle is a good point: it certainly formed part of the protection for horse and rider. I'll have to keep digging.
2. Following links through bushel I've discovered the following. It is a volume measure, and a medieval English bushel of wheat weighed 64 tower pounds. A tower pound = approx 350g. Therefore a (medieval) bushel of wheat = 22.4 kg. Modern US bushel of wheat = 60 lb, where US bushel oats = 32 lb. Assuming the volume is constant, medieval bushel oats must be 11.98 kg. 1/2 bushel = 5.99 kg = 13.2 lb. Who knows how big a loaf was...
The figure came from accounts, so presumably grass isn't noted, since it wasn't paid for. Having said that, it was winter, and he kept between 50 and 60 horses. And "it does not seem that the horses were ever put out to graze." (Prestwich, p 33)
3. talking of knight's size...Henry VIII was pretty huge by the end of his life, yet had some pretty impressive decorative full armour, plus horse armour. He couldn't have ridden a small horse. That said, he was king: he could have jousted on a bullock as no one would dare knock him off!!
I haven't yet read through all my books, but here's a site you might be interested in. Includes articles on stirrups (interesting theory about development) saddles, riding techniques etc. [4]. Gwinva 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah -didn't see that link amongst the references. I guess you've read them. Gwinva 14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had a reply from the Royal Armouries, which was very informative. A few facts and figures:

man's armour (25 kg) plus mail and 'foundation garments' (7kg) = 32kg
weapons: sword and scabbard (3kg) plus lance (7kg) = 10kg
rider (5'8") = 70 kg
saddles (modern, based on British army SU02) = 14-19 kg (hard to determine what original weighed)
caparisons (horse barding) = 10 kg
total load approx = 71 kg

Compares that with 19th century cavalry horses expected to carry 28 stone (including rider) reduced to 21 stone in Boer war. Horses expected to carry that load for 25 miles a day. Other comments: variety of breeds used as warhorses during middle ages, some of which became draft breeds. Bayeaux tapestry shows horses of 12-14 hh; 15th century horses 14-15 hh. None of this can be classed as a citation, but bear in mind that this information is provided by those who work with the original artifacts, and interpret using modern replicas. Gwinva 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New information and pages

As discussed with User:Montanabw on our talk pages, I have copied the information I've collated about warhorses from my sandbox into the sandbox on this page for further editing. I have also reformatted Destrier (removing the obvious POV and inaccuracies), and created Courser (horse) and Rouncey, and improved links to those three and this page by a quick search through wikipedia. Some of the info below might be more suited to those pages. Gwinva 14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sandbox for Revisions

[edit] Horse in medieval warfare

[edit] Medieval battles

Despite the popular image of a European knight on horseback charging into battle, the heavy cavalry charge was not a common occurence.[citation needed] Pitched battles were avoided, if at all possible, with most offensive warfare in the early Middle Ages taking the form of sieges,[2]or swift mounted raids called chevauchées, with the warriors lightly armed on swift horses and their heavy war horses safely in the stable.[3] While pitched battle was sometimes unavoidable, it was rarely fought on land suitable for heavy cavalry. In the fourteenth century, while mounted riders were very effective for initial attack,[4] it was common for knights to dismount to fight. [5]

By theLate Middle Ages (approx 1300-1550), battles became more common, probably because of the success of infantry tactics.[2]

[edit] Tournaments

Tournaments began in the eleventh century as both a sport and training for war. Usually taking the form of a mêlée, the participants used the horses, armour and weapons of war.[6] The sport of jousting grew out of the tournament and, by the fifteenth century, the art of tilting became quite sophisticated.[7] IIn the process the pageantry and specialization became less war-like, perhaps because of the knight's changing role in war.[4]

Horses were specially breed for the joust, and heavier armour developed. However, this did not necessarily lead to significantly larger horses. Interpreters at the Royal Armouries, Leeds, have re-created the joust, using specially bred horses and replica armour.[8] Their horses are 15-16 hands, and approximately 1100 lb,[9] and perform well in the joust. The researchers also tested historic artifacts and found that the medieval war saddle within the armoury fit one of their smaller horses perfectly.[citation needed]

[edit] Types of medieval war horses

The most well known horse of the medieval era of Europe is the destrier, known for carrying knights into war. Most knights and mounted men-at-arms rode smaller horses known as coursers and rounceys.[7] (A generic name often used to describe medieval war horses is charger, which appears interchangeable with the other terms).

Stallions were often used as war horses in Europe due to their natural agression and hot-blooded tendencies. A thirteenth century work describes destriers "biting and kicking" on the battlefield.[10] However, the use of mares by European warriors cannot be discounted from literary references.[10] Mares were the preferred war horse of the Moors, the Islamic invaders who attacked various European nations from A.D. 700 through the 15th Century. [11]

War horses were more expensive than normal riding horses, and destriers the most prized, but figures vary greatly from source to source. Destriers are given a values ranging from seven times the price of an ordinary horse[12] to 700 times.[13] The Bohemian king Wenzel II rode a horse "valued at one thousand marks" in 1298.[10] At the other extreme, a 1265 French ordinance ruled that a squire could not spend more than twenty marks on a rouncey.[7] Knights were expected to have at least one war horse (as well as riding horses and packhorses), with some records from the later Middle Ages showing knights bringing twenty-four horses on campaign.[14] Five horses was perhaps the standard.[12]

[edit] Breed and size of warhorses

There is little evidence for a controlled and consistent breeding of warhorses in Europe during the early Middle Ages, or a development of particular breeds or strains. uncontrolled breeding throughout Europe resulted in the loss of good warhorse stock, which had to be built up again over the following centuries.[15] However, there were exceptions; in the 7th century, a Merovingian kingdom still retained at least one active Roman horse breeding centres.[12]

It is also hard to trace what happened to the bloodlines of destriers when this type appears to disappear from record during the seventeenth century.[14] Other modern breeds, including the Shire and Frisian also claim such descent.[citation needed] However, other historians discount this theory. [16] Such a theory would suggest the war horses were crossed once again with the cold bloods, since war horses, and the destrier in particular, were renowned for their hot-blooded nature.[17]

The origins of the medieval war horse are equally obscure, although it is believed they had some Arabian blood, through the Spanish or Andalusian horse. It is also possible that other sources of oriental bloodstock came from what was called the Nisaean breed from Iran and Anatolia were brought back from the Crusades. [18] Spanish horses were the most expensive (although that refered to their origin, not their breeding). In Germany, spanjol became the word used to describe warhorses; German literary sources also refer to fine horses from Scandanavia. [19]Feudal France was also noted for its warhorses.[20]

There has also been some dispute, in medievalist circles, over the size of the warhorse, with some notable historians claiming a size of 17-18 hands (as large as a modern Shire or police horse).[21] However, there is little evidence for such a size. Analysis of existing horse armour located in the Royal Armouries indicates they were originally worn by horses of 15-16 hands[22], about the size and build of a modern hunter. [23] Research undertaken at the Museum of London, using literary, pictorial and archeological sources, supports military horses of 14-15 hands, distinguished from a riding horse by its strength and skill, rather than its size.[24]

Perhaps one reason the 'myth' of the giant warhorse was so persuasive is the assumption, still held by many, that medieval armour was heavy. In fact, even the heaviest tournment armour (for knights) weighed little more than 90 lb, and field (war) armour 40-70 lb; horse armour, more common in tournaments than war, rarely weighed more than 70lb.[25] Hardened leather, and padded bards would have been more common [26], and probably as effective.[27] Even allowing for the weight of the rider, such a load could easily be carried by 1200 lb horse.

Further evidence for a 14-16 hand warhorse is that it was a matter of pride to a knight to be able to vault onto his horse in full armour, without touching the stirrup. This arose not from vanity, but necessity: if unhorsed during battle, a knight would remain vulnerable if unable to mount by himself. In reality, of course, a wounded or weary knight might find it difficult, and rely on a vigilant squire to assist him. Incidentally, a knight's armour served in his favour in any fall. With his long hair twisted on his head to form a springy padding under his padded-linen hood, and his helm placed on top, he had head protection not dissimilar to a modern bike helmet.[28]

[edit] Destriers

Main article: Destrier

Destrier does not refer to a breed, but to a horse displaying certain characteristics: (be specific--powerful build, agility, whatever) . Also known as the 'Great Horse', the destrier was highly prized by knights and men-at-arms, but was actually not very common.[29] The word destrier comes from the latin dextarius, which means "right-sided" (the same root as our modern 'dexterous'). [30] It was described by contemporary sources as the "great horse" because of its size and reputation.[citation needed] This is, of course, a subjective term, and gives no firm information about its actual height or weight. The average horse of the time was 12-14 hands,[citation needed] thus a "great horse" by medieval standards might appear small to our modern eyes.

The destrier appears to have been most suited to the joust; coursers seem to have been preferred for battle.[31]

[edit] Rounceys

Main article: Rouncey

The Rouncey was a general, all purpose horse.[citation needed] While some sources describe rounceys as indifferent horses, suitable only for poor squires, others describe them as good all-purpose horses. When a summons to war was sent out in England, in 1327, it expressly requested rounceys, for swift pursuit, rather than destriers. [32]

[edit] Coursers

Main article: Courser

Coursers were swift horses that seem to have been preferred for battle.[7] (Put a paragraph on coursers here with link to article)

[edit] Notes and references

  1. ^ Waller, Anna L. "Horses and Mules and National Defense" 1958, Office of the Quartermaster General
  2. ^ a b Bennet, Matthew; Bradbury, Jim; DeVries, Kelly; Dickie, Iain; Jestice, Phyllis G. Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World: AD 500-AD 1500, London: Amber Books, 2005.
  3. ^ Chevauchées were the preferred form of warfare for the English during the Hundred Years' War (see, amongst many, Barber, Richard. The Reign of Chivalry, 2nd Ed. UK: The Boydell Press, 2005, pp 34-38) and the Scots in the Wars of Independence (see Prestwich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996)
  4. ^ a b Barber, Richard. The Reign of Chivalry, 2nd Ed. UK: The Boydell Press, 2005
  5. ^ Prestwich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996, p 31
  6. ^ Barker, Juliet. The Tounament in England: 1100-1400, UK: The Boydell Press, 1986, pp 4-15
  7. ^ a b c d Oakeshott, Ewart, A Knight and his Horse, Rev. 2nd Ed. USA:Dufour Editions, 1998
  8. ^ Royal Armouries web site, accessed February ?, 2007
  9. ^ Royal Armouries web site, accessed February ?, 2007
  10. ^ a b c Bumke, Joachim. Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages, translated by Thomas Dunlap, USA: Overlook Duckworth, 2000, p 175-178 (First published in 1986 as Höfische Kultur: Literatur und Gesellschaft im holen Mittelalter by Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag)
  11. ^ Edwards, Gladys Brown. The Arabian: War Horse to Show Horse. Arabian Horse Association of Southern California, Revised Collector's Edition, Rich Publishing, 1973.
  12. ^ a b c Nicolle, David. Medieval Warfare Source Book: Warfare in Western Christendom, UK: Brockhampton Press, 1999
  13. ^ Carey, Brian Todd; Allfree, Joshua B; Cairns, John. Warfare in the Medieval World, UK: Pen & Sword Military, 2006, p112
  14. ^ a b Prestwich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996
  15. ^ Carey, Brian Todd; Allfree, Joshua B; Cairns, John. Warfare in the Medieval World, UK: Pen & Sword Military, 2006, p112
  16. ^ See e.g.: Clark, John (Ed). The Medieval Horse and its Equipment: c.1150-c.1450, Rev. 2nd Ed, UK: The Boydell Press, 2004, p 23; Prestwich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996, p 30
  17. ^ Carey, Brian Todd; Allfree, Joshua B; Cairns, John. Warfare in the Medieval World, UK: Pen & Sword Military, 2006, p113
  18. ^ Nicolle, David. Medieval Warfare Source Book: Warfare in Western Christendom, UK: Brockhampton Press, 1999, p267
  19. ^ Bumke, Joachim. Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages, translated by Thomas Dunlap, USA: Overlook Duckworth, 2000, pp 177-178 (First published in 1986 as Höfische Kultur: Literatur und Gesellschaft im holen Mittelalter by Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag)
  20. ^ Gies, Frances; Gies, Joseph. Daily Life in Medieval Times, UK: Grange Books, 2005, p 88 (originally published by Harper Collins in three volumes, 1969, 1974, 1990)
  21. ^ Including: Davis, R. The Medieval Warhorse, London:Thames and Hudson, 1989;
  22. ^ study by Ann Hyland, quoted in: Clark, John (Ed). The Medieval Horse and its Equipment: c.1150-c.1450, Rev. 2nd Ed, UK: The Boydell Press, 2004, p 23
  23. ^ Gravett, Christopher. English Medieval Knight 1300-1400, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2002, p 59
  24. ^ Clark, John (Ed). The Medieval Horse and its Equipment: c.1150-c.1450, Rev. 2nd Ed, UK: The Boydell Press, 2004, p 25
  25. ^ Oakeshott, Ewart. A Knight and his Horse, Rev. 2nd Ed. USA:Dufour Editions, 1998, pp 104-105
  26. ^ Barker, Juliet, The Tournament in England, 1100-1400, UK: Boydell Press, 1986, pp 175-6
  27. ^ Oakeshott, Ewart. A Knight and his Horse, Rev. 2nd Ed. USA:Dufour Editions, 1998, p 49
  28. ^ Oakeshott, Ewart. A Knight and His Armour, Rev. 2nd Ed. USA: Dufour Editions, 1999, p 92
  29. ^ Prestwich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996, p 30
  30. ^ Gravett, Christopher. English Medieval Knight 1300-1400, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2002, p 59
  31. ^ Oakeshott, Ewart. A Knight and his Horse, Rev. 2nd Ed. USA:Dufour Editions, 1998, p 11
  32. ^ Prestwich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996, p 318

[edit] Wow! Double WOW!!

FANTASTIC EFFORT!! Decided this was too much good work to fit into Horses in Warfare, you are right, a new article is needed, so I created Medieval horses. Have fun, it's live! I'll have to figure out the really basic basics to add to the warfare article, but I think this hard work needs its own space! If the name "Medieval horses" is dumb, just move and change, whatever works for you. Montanabw 05:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for merging bits into the main article; I really wasn't sure what needed to go in. I think you present the different theories of size and breeding well. I just fiddled a bit with the definitions of courser, rouncey, and destrier. Reading through the article, two more points struck me. 1. ref to weight of heavy horses 'from middle ages on'. I haven't yet pulled the references together, but John Clark's Medieval Horse has the medieval draught horses as smaller than the war horses (ie 14 hands or so). I'll have to look that up. Also, ref to William the Conqueror's horse at Hastings at 15 hands. Royal Armouries research (as per email mentioned in talk a few sections up) puts Bayeaux tapestry horses (ie battle of Hastings) at 12-14hh. I'll have to try and find a citable reference for that theory. By the way, do we leave the sandbox on this page, or delete it now it's been copied to Medieval horses? Gwinva 22:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep it here for now, we may want to use the reference sources again, maybe archive it later -- there are a couple spots in the article that still need citations added. Thanks for your work clarifying the material I put in there. Tough to decide what to add when you can only add a little!
As for the height thing, never forget the other factor: WEIGHT. A 15.2 Belgian is pretty common and can weigh 1,500 pounds easily. On the other hand, 15.2 hand saddle horse may only weigh 1000 lbs. And skeletal structure matters too. Believe it or not, a 500 pound shetland pony can, pound for pound, pull practically as much as a Belgian that weighs three times as much! (Which is why they could use ponies in the mines) Keep in mind that a "lightweight" horse in the medieval period could be 13 hands and 800 lbs., a rouncey or courser might be 14 or 15 hands and 900 lbs, and a "heavy" or "great" horse could be 15.2 to 16 hands and 1300 lbs...we don't want to use the modern draft horse or warmblood as a real strong model, because I suspect horse breeds are all a bigger than they used to be...nutrition and selective breeding would both account for this. I liked the bit you put in about how we really can't use relative estimates to guess real sizes -- skeletons and, to a lesser extent, equipment size tells that tale. (FYI, measured my 14.3 hand Arabian today with a weight tape. She's fat, coming out of winter, and the tape estimates her at 960 pounds. If she were a medieval message horse, either half-starved or even just in fighting trim, she's probably be closer to 900 pounds) Montanabw 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have come across a reference which isn't appropriate for the Medieval horses page, but follows up discussion above, and applies to this page (eg. discussion of heavy horses; renaissance period): French artillery horses of 1697, harnessed in teams of four to two-wheeled carts, were in modern terms small ponies of 13-14 hands; 100 years later the minimum size of horses requisitioned for the French army was still only 13½ hands...[quoting a French 17th century writer]: four horses of 13-14 hands harnessed in file to a two-wheeled cart were expected to haul a load of 675kg (1400 lb) maximum -350lb per horse. Clark, John (Ed). The Medieval Horse and its Equipment: c.1150-c.1450, Rev. 2nd Ed, UK: The Boydell Press, 2004, pp27-28. Seems like the French, at least, were using medieval-type draught horses (see figures from this book at Medieval horses), not unwanted great horses, and certainly nothing like the modern heavy horse. (Bibliography credits study in Spruytte, J. Early Harness Systems, London, 1983)Gwinva 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/r/Talk%7EHorses_in_warfare_9ca8.html"