Talk:Destrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class) 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500) WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-Class) Middle Ages Portal Destrier is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Middle Ages To do: WikiProject Equine (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn. B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale

[edit] Comments on the article

20 to 24 hands tall? Isn't that just a little bit questionable?

Based on general observations of medieval art, the success of the Arab and the Spanish Barb, the conflicts between the Crusading knights and the Muslims, and some reading, I'm thinking the trained warhorse was probably somwhere in the vicinity of 14.5 to 16 hands max, with a bias to the lower end.

Who knows, though? I for one would like to see some archeological evidence and scholarly studies on the matter.

Should articles relating to knights include a few lines to help fight the image of the knight being lifted onto their horse with a crane? The heavy end of armours starts to top out around 80lbs, and throw in that most knights often rode one horse to a battlefield, and mounted another (this is not true for all warriors that fought from horseback, but seems to be common. A massive plow horse aren't needed, the issue of a horses strength being more important for quickly changing direction, shouldering against other horses, and trampling foot soldiers. The amount of force from the horse itself put into the lance in a charge is actually rather minor, (Charging someone while riding a light horse isn't much different in force than from a large one at the same speed, the issue of height however is a factor)--Talroth 02:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Horses back in those times were typically small, probably ranging from about 14 to 16 hands, as was said earlier. The reason for being called "great horses" refers to their powerful athletic build rather than their height. I highly doubt that they were much over 16 hands. A reason thaT these horses were typically small was due to the fact that in those times, feed was harder to come by. But, who really knows? I'm sure that there were large horses as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.0.140 (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read the article, you would see that we settled this particular issue about 9 months ago. And yes, you basically are on the right track, we found source material. Sorry to be a bit terse, but this was a long, tough round of reviewing research to figure it out, especially the problem of separating rumor and myth from what is acually verifiable... Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's okay! I can imagine that it would take a long time, I had just wanted to throw that in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taliesin2 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the article

As pointed out above, this article is in need of some work. I will weed out the inaccuracies and uncited POV comments, etc, and try and organise some framework. We've got more information across at Talk:Horses in warfare#sandbox for revisions, some of which might be brought across. I hope no one is offended if I seem a bit ruthless in my reoganisation, but even accurate stuff lacks coherency, perhaps because there have been so many editors. Gwinva 12:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been reorganised and (hopefully) corrected now. Other than formatting, I have done nothing with the discussion on cost; I assume it is accurate. Gwinva 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)