Mongol and European comparitive tactics?

[Mike Habib]

Just a few thoughts on mounts from the biologist's perspective that might be helpful...

First off, warhorses almost certainly could not obtain speeds of as high as 45 mph. Modern racehorses have enough trouble reaching such speeds, let alone a highly encumbered warhorse (which was much less specialized for sustained speed). Animal speeds are routinely exaggerated in the literature (for a discussion of this problem, and some more accurate rates, see papers by McNeil Alexander, or his recent 2003 book on animal locomotion, as a good start).

Most recorded speeds for modern horses are from thoroughbred racehorses, which are not a good comparison for a warhorse, as mentioned. Secretariat hit a speed of 37.6 mph in the 1973 Kentucky Derby. That's about as fast as horses get. Very short sprints might be a hair faster.

That being said, what makes an animal (or different types of horses, specifically) especially fast is somewhat complicated. Size does have an effect, but simply being big and strong does not make an animal fast. There are three speed issues to consider for medieval mounts:

1) Acceleration (including turning)
2) Sprint speed
3) Sustained speed

I do not know the specifics of these for Steppe horses and warhorse type breeds (though I could probably find out). Warhorses should have been bred to accelerate into a charge well under loads, and they probably did so admirably, all considered. Overall, however, they would have needed to exert tremendous power to accelerate to charge, to decelerate to stop, and most importantly for this discussion, to turn. The agility of a heavily weighted warhorse would have been pretty low compared to a Steppe pony/horse.

Sustained speed usually gets a boost from size (to a point) but I suspect, again, that additional weight would have made sustained runs more difficult.

We should try to find more specifics on how different horse breeds map out on the speed and agility spectrum. I have a few texts at work that may help...

Strength and Honor,
--Mike Habib

[James Hudec]

Thanks for the info Mike. That clears up a few questions for me.

[James Hudec]

The thing I have to keep in mind, I guess, is that I shouldn't compare the Mongols with knights solely, but with the basic medieval army as a whole. While the Mongols were basically a cavalry army, and their swooping archery seems to have served them for most occasions (at least from what I've read so far), European knights made up only a small part of medieval forces, and their shock charge had to be carefully held in reserve until such an opportunity arose for it to do the most damage.

[Casper Bradak]

Can you define "power"?
If you mean strength, of course they needed enough strength to carry a man and his combat load. Any full sized horse has that though (at most it would be like carrying a man and a smaller person). Their strength had little bearing on their abilities in combat, they weren't the ones fighting. I think they were bred and trained more for endurance and responsiveness. A horses strength certainly won't make the lance strike any harder, and it hardly has to trot to easily penetrate with a properly couched lance, which has excellent backup mass and bracing angle (a thrust from the knight alone could kill easily enough). It needs speed only for maneuvering and covering distance, not to kill.

[JeanryChandler]

Watch an authentic jousting match with horses picked for the job, on TV or in real life if you get the chance, and you will see exactly what I mean. Watch how fast that horse accelerates. The charge is what a European warhorse was bred for. Very rapid acceleration carrying a lot of weight into a relatively short sprint, then wheel about and charge again. Thats all they were for. As you and others pointed out, knights had other horses for for riding (travel), for carrying gear, for hunting etc. etc.. They weren't bred for long distance running, just that charge.

Jeanry

[Aaron Pynenberg]

I can speak to that, having witnessed first hand "The Kings Champions" jousting in New Glarus Wisconsin. These guys were in full tourney Armor with real lists, hitting each other in full on jousts. The ground was shaking you could feel it in your bones, reminded me of my time in the service when a tank would pass bye....it was an awesome display.

[Casper Bradak]

Not that any medieval combat horse breed still exists, but they didn't use war horses in joust if they could help it, but jousting horses. A tourney horse needs the attributes you described, and only specialised training. They carried a heavier load, and only charged, or moved around in a very compact list. If you're talking about a late medieval tourney destrier, it sounds right. If you're talking about an earlier medieval war horse, that's a different animal.

[JeanryChandler]

Thats a good point, but the most recent documentary I saw (weapons which saved England? something like that on the History International channel) on this claimed that the horse breed they were using in their joust was similar to an actual warhorse of the type used in the 14th century, from which they did specifically make the distinction from a later era tournament horse, which they pointed out would have been much larger.

Irregardless, I still contend that what broadly speaking might be considered a knnightly warhorse from say the 12th - 15th century would be more of the type described above, literally a "charger", than something like a quarterhorse or a long range runner, or a hunting or riding mount.

But again, other than working mucking stalls at a thoroughbread ranch for one summer when I was a kid, I really dont know much about horses. Fat as I am now they dont have one strong enough to carry me anyway.

Jeanry

[Casper Bradak]

Lol fair enough

[Mike Habib]

"If you mean strength, of course they needed enough strength to carry a man and his combat load. Any full sized horse has that though (at most it would be like carrying a man and a smaller person). Their strength had little bearing on their abilities in combat"

I understand the point you are making, but I would argue that strength mattered in the sense that a good warhouse had to be more than simply strong enough to carry a man and his equipment, they would have to be strong enough to accelerate quickly with this additional load. I can run carrying 60 pounds, but I can't run very fast that way. Someone twice my size, however, could run for a long time with that sort of weight. So size and strength would matter for a warhorse to the extent that it would need to reach high speeds quickly while carrying extra weight.

Also, while it is obviously true that speed is needed for covering distance, it does not improve manuverability in and of itself. An especially manuverable animal can turn quickly and sharply at high speeds, but not _because_ it is moving at high speeds. In fact, turning while you are moving quickly is much more difficult than turning at low speeds. Turning while loaded down and moving quickly is even harder still.

I might also speculate that a horse moving at high speeds in combat is much more dangerous because 1) it can literally run over/through opponents 2) the lance will strike harder if it is moving faster (though this may be overkill, as you outlined) and 3) it's harder to hit. Speed is related to strength in the sense that the strength of the muscles generating power for locomotion is important, so I am going to argue that strength does make a horse more dangerous in combat.

[JeanryChandler]

I'd have to get one of those big elephants from LOTR <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

DB

[Stacy Clifford]

I might also speculate that a horse moving at high speeds in combat is much more dangerous because 1) it can literally run over/through opponents

It's probably worth remembering that once the horse and rider smash into a cringing wall of humanity, unless it's a relatively thin line where they can crash through the other side and break free, the knight and horse need to be able to fight their way out of a crowd. Seems to me that a 2000 lb. horse would be much better at trampling, kicking, and bulling its way through a mass of people than a 1200 lb. horse.

I'm sure the intended battlefield tactics also affected the choice of mounts if there was time to plan for the day. (Hit and run - take the smaller, faster horse. Smash and destroy - saddle up Horsezilla).

[Casper Bradak]

Heh, good points, but it makes me think, would I rather be hit by a vw bug or by a heavy truck? Stabbed in the heart or through the heart? Or, more accurately, which would I rather do to my opponent?

[James Hudec]

As Ian Hogg said, would you rather be hit by a bowling ball moving at great speed, or a tennis ball moving at a slightly higher speed?

[Casper Bradak]

If each could easily crush/maim/kill me, it's still a moot point.