Cavalry Training

[Benjamin Parker]

I've know that horses won't charge what they perceive to be a solid object so how did people in the middle ages and in ancient times remedy that so that they could make a good charge? can anyone tell me anything? if so please go into detail and use valid reliable sources please

Thanks

[Jay Vail]

I've know that horses won't charge what they perceive to be a solid object so how did people in the middle ages and in ancient times remedy that so that they could make a good charge? can anyone tell me anything? if so please go into detail and use valid reliable sources please

Thanks

I think it's fair to say that nobody knows.

[Sal Bertucci]

HELLO!!! Have you never heard of the Andalusian horses. I have seen several that have been specifically trained with combat techniquies. With enogh training you can get any creature to do things that aren't natural. They talk a little about it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhorse#T ... deployment

Besides, ones the horse runs over the object it is decidedly less solid.

You ask many questions, that can be found with a little personal research. I think that this is one topic you should look into and report back to us your findings.

[s_taillebois]

And natural aggression/defensive actions by the horse could be reinforced by training. The tendency under stress to find an opening and pass through it would be one. Another would be the ability to rear up and flail with the feet. Kicking horses, either front or back, can be to say the least painful and if that ability is reinforced lethal.

Going to the more traditional rodeos one could see rough broke horses doing just such things on their own initiative.

In all probability there were areas where the horse itself was trained as a form of weapon and simply not the logistic to bring the lance to the line. And the type of weapon probably also had a bearing on the horses training or even the selection of the horse itself. Crusade era Europeans did tend to use Stallions, and their Islamic rivals often used mares...the differences in gender apparently suited their tactics and weapons.

Because we have no need to train horses to behave in such manners often there's a perception that they cannot do so but any stock man (or quite a few people in rural areas) could easily tell of the more obnoxious tendencies inherent in horses.

[Will Adamson]

Because we have no need to train horses to behave in such manners often there's a perception that they cannot do so but any stock man (or quite a few people in rural areas) could easily tell of the more obnoxious tendencies inherent in horses.

I grew up on a farm and I can tell you for a fact that every living thing has obnoxious tendencies.

[s_taillebois]

Quite true, as horses have tendancies good and ill. But given the changes in our society many people have little to do with horses...

The Renaissance and Medieval however likely treated them much worse, churchmen sometimes preached about the misuse of animals. Although the armor plated aristocracy valued horses, it may have been as much for status and practical needs as affection for them. No doubt losing one in battle was a trouble on any number of levels...but it would have been unfortunately common. Perhaps that's another one of the reasons the English archers were so hated. In addition to killing nobles, they aimed for their horses. So the nobility who did survive an arrow fusillade may have lost a expensive symbol of status, a tool which took a long time to train, and a animal which they may have had genuine affection.

But dogs (coursers and etc) and falcons seemed to be the animals they really got infatuated with, to the extent the church more or less gave up on trying to keep them out. To the extent that certain days were reserved for the blessings of the nobles animal entourages. The churchman may have tolerated the falcons better as these were a form of good conduct pass. Someone who went to a gathering with a falcon was supposed to be exempt from attack. To attack such was considered dishonorable.
Perhaps that's why some of the higher level church officials also kept them...

[RayMcCullough]

Good horsemanship has always impressed me. Probably because I did not grow up around them and cannot handle them.

Look up Mexican bull fighting. Their Matadors usually stay on their horses and play with the bulls from there. It is an awesome example of horsemanship. Riding inches from a charging bull at break neck speeds.

Watch The Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa. It is a good movie but long. Watch for the fight scenes from horse. Watch how aggressive the horseman are and imagine how hard it would be to get at them. I know it is a movie, but it is a small example of how horses can be so usefull in a fight.

It is safe to say that taking down a well trained man on horse is not an easy task. The horses will run you over, kick you, bump you, and stomp you all the while the man on the horse will try to hack you or stab you at great speed and reach.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

I've know that horses won't charge what they perceive to be a solid object so how did people in the middle ages and in ancient times remedy that so that they could make a good charge? can anyone tell me anything? if so please go into detail and use valid reliable sources please

Thanks

The medieval warhorse was not a timid beast. It was trained to head-butt (even less pretty, when you consider some chamfrons were equipped with a long, reinforced spike), lash out with it's forehooves (wreching shields, spears, and other weapons out of foot soldiers hands, as well as smashing in a few skulls), bite (yes...BITE), wheel around and kick with its hind legs, amongst other unpleasant things. There's survivinbg manuscript evidence detailing their training. I know I have a pic...somewhere...so hard to keep track of all this stuff.

Then there's the rider. He's got a long lance. He doesn't even have to thrust out with it, the sheer, raw power of the animal does that for him. There is the popular image of knightys bashing through a line of infantry on horseback. The reality, however...the knights charge, the first line is dedcimated by their lances, the knights veer off to the side a bit, wheel around, come back again. Of course, a really good charge can completely break a line of infantry (even simply out of intimidation alone). The object is not to collide with the foot soldiers, though. Instead, "skim" them and do lots of damage. If that works, YOUR infantry move in and mop up the remaining lot, while the knights run down those that are fleeing for their wretched lives.

Ugly.

But very effective.

-B.

[s_taillebois]

M. Helsop,
Ugly but effective, quite true.

Under certain conditions however the horses themselves became a liability for the people who rode them up to the line.
At Crecy for example, the archers stopped the initial charges and as a result there was a bulwark in front of the English line consisting of downed, wounded and panicked horses and their downed riders. Which succeeding charges could not successfully break through...walking around or over dead and wounded knights is one problem, but getting over or around panicked, wounded and dead horses had to have been much, much worse...especially when done under fire.

And quite apt observation about the intimidation factor of the war horse. For the archers and their supporting foot infantry, if that intimidation did take hold they were often lost. And knights running down the fleeing (or killing prisoners who were not worth ransoming) could account for the form of wounds of many of the dead recently found at Towton.

[Jay Vail]

I've know that horses won't charge what they perceive to be a solid object so how did people in the middle ages and in ancient times remedy that so that they could make a good charge? can anyone tell me anything? if so please go into detail and use valid reliable sources please

Thanks

The medieval warhorse was not a timid beast. It was trained to head-butt (even less pretty, when you consider some chamfrons were equipped with a long, reinforced spike), lash out with it's forehooves (wreching shields, spears, and other weapons out of foot soldiers hands, as well as smashing in a few skulls), bite (yes...BITE), wheel around and kick with its hind legs, amongst other unpleasant things. There's survivinbg manuscript evidence detailing their training. I know I have a pic...somewhere...so hard to keep track of all this stuff.

Then there's the rider. He's got a long lance. He doesn't even have to thrust out with it, the sheer, raw power of the animal does that for him. There is the popular image of knightys bashing through a line of infantry on horseback. The reality, however...the knights charge, the first line is dedcimated by their lances, the knights veer off to the side a bit, wheel around, come back again. Of course, a really good charge can completely break a line of infantry (even simply out of intimidation alone). The object is not to collide with the foot soldiers, though. Instead, "skim" them and do lots of damage. If that works, YOUR infantry move in and mop up the remaining lot, while the knights run down those that are fleeing for their wretched lives.

Ugly.

But very effective.

-B.

Brendon, what are your sources for each of these statements?

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

M. Helsop,
Ugly but effective, quite true.

Under certain conditions however the horses themselves became a liability for the people who rode them up to the line.
At Crecy for example, the archers stopped the initial charges and as a result there was a bulwark in front of the English line consisting of downed, wounded and panicked horses and their downed riders. Which succeeding charges could not successfully break through...walking around or over dead and wounded knights is one problem, but getting over or around panicked, wounded and dead horses had to have been much, much worse...especially when done under fire.

And quite apt observation about the intimidation factor of the war horse. For the archers and their supporting foot infantry, if that intimidation did take hold they were often lost. And knights running down the fleeing (or killing prisoners who were not worth ransoming) could account for the form of wounds of many of the dead recently found at Towton.

Well, yes. Admittedly, I was describing the effects of the knightly charge under optimal conditions. The English longbowman sure was a royal pain in the backside for the flower of French chivalry. Which, no doubt, is why the nobility had something of a love-hate relationship with archers, (and handgunners). Too effective to ignore, but it was that same effectiveness that caused the warrior aristocracy to hate the archer, (in the end, he was simply too effective for his own good). Valueable but despised. Effective but "cowardly." Quite a dichotomy. Ha ha.

Yes, the intimidation factor would be enormous. I've read a lovely little book (I think it's called "Blood Red Roses," or something...so far my books), and the wounds described immediately brought to mind f=getting run down by chasing knights.

-B.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Brandon, what are your sources for each of these statements?

That's good question. I really wish I could remember! I've read so many text books, translated historical accounts, done so much internet research, that it all unfortunately gets tangled up into one big morass of information in the end.

Some of it is theory. The knights "skimming" the infantry line, for example. That should just be common sense. Even if you could get a horse to ram into a b7unch of tightly-packed indiduals, all bristling with pointy weapons, it would almost certainly kill a horse (and horses were not as well armoured as the knights who rode them). No knight is going to risk his warhorse that way, as it would undoubtedly die. We know that the medieval warhorse was incredibly maneuverable, (I can't remember where I gleaned this in book form, but if you watch Terry Jones' Medieval Lives, there's an episode on Knighthood, in which they talk about this). I know I have a couple of pics from a medieval manual on training warhorses...I'll look through my files.

In the end...you have to remember the Western way of war. In the East, you whittle them down, whittle them down, whittle them down, and then finally devistate them with your "super weapon," whatever that may be. Which takes a long time, and rarely turns out to be decisive. In the West, the "super weapon" is brought to bear first. Then you whittle away the rest with your less powerful weapons. For a long time, thye mounted knight, and the knightly charge, was Europe's "super weapon." The "super weapon" devistates the nervous center of the opposing force, crippling it. After that, you send in the foot, and they hack the luimbs to pieces.

To borrow a JC phrase: Make sense?

-B.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Which brings to mind those pesky archers. After Crecy, knighthood was in decline (albeit a very slow decline). Knights had effectively transitioned from being the "super weapon," to simply another (though still useful and effective) weapon in the arsenal. The new "super weapon" was the archer, (and later the gunner).

-B.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... note-Bumke

See under "Types of Medieval warhorses"

-B.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... %26hl%3Den[/img]

You can see some sword and buckler stuff further down, with some familiar guards...