3 ms·

One thing I haven't heard in discussions is whether these things could have been meant to spook the horse that the opponent was mounted on. I can see the flail

One thing I haven't heard in discussions is whether these things could have been meant to spook the horse that the opponent was mounted on. I can see the flail being an unpredictable weapon that would smash down on the opponent, or failing that, his horse, which would spook the horse and potentially toss him off it. Come to think of it, how is there not a whole class of medieval weapons that were focused on taking out the horse rather than the rider? The only one I've heard of is the caltrop.

douche 10y ago
> how is there not a whole class of medieval weapons that were focused on taking out the horse rather than the rider? Spears, pikes, halberds - the best way of countering cavalry was a thick hedge of pokey sticks, deep and massy enough to counter the shock of the charge. A big part of the effectiveness of longbowmen was not through directly killing knights and men-at-arms with their arrows, but injuring and killing their horses out from underneath them - then wading in with mauls and axes to beat on the bogged down chivalry. A maul swung by a man trained to draw an English longbow would make a head, even in a helmet, look like a watermelon that Gallagher got into. Other anti-cavalry methods were decidedly unsexy and low-tech. Form up at the top of a hill, or behind a swampy, wet muddy area. Prepare the battle site by digging potholes for a horse to step in and break a leg, scatter caltrops, sharpened stakes, logs and rocks to injure the horses and disrupt formations.