3 ms·

I always wonder how much a liability a horse was during medieval combat. Sure speed and maneuverability are great but up close it seems that horse is quite vuln

I always wonder how much a liability a horse was during medieval combat. Sure speed and maneuverability are great but up close it seems that horse is quite vulnerable to attacks on the legs for example with long bladed weapons. You can’t really protect horse’s legs with armor

varjag 6y ago
Horse is a large animal IRL, killing it or even seriously injuring with a blade is not trivial. And when there's a knight with a lance or a longsword on top, you might not even get one shot at it.
watwut 6y ago
You can leave the horse behind and continue by walk if you think it gives you advantage. The speed and maneuverability here is not just about during combat, but mostly about ability to do long term plan and maneuver.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Sander_Marechal 6y ago
Being the target of a cavalry charge is absolutely terrifying even for hardened soldiers. There is very little chance of fighting effectively when everyone around you is fleeing or being pressed together. And you're being charged by a 2-ton armored war machine. Or dozens of them. I'm a reenactor. It's even terrifying when you know it's fake and you know you're safe. Knights did loose horses though. They all took multiple war horses with them to battle (a "lance" usually consisted of one knight, multiple warhorses and a regular horse for travel/supplies and several servants). When they lost their horse, they fought their way back to their own side and got on the next horse.
- questionfor 6y ago
  > When they lost their horse, they fought their way back to their own side and got on the next horse. Oh interesting, so it was basically expected? Not a force majeure? I always thought losing a horse back then was a really big event for the knight, borderline tragic - a big financial loss, a highly increased likelihood of dying (getting stuck under the horse etc etc)
  - Sander_Marechal 6y ago
    Oh it is, a warhorse is very expensive. But they were still expected to take multiple warhorses into a battle in case one of them got killed. And fighting your way back is easier said than done. The most common reason for loosing a warhorse is probably not that it was killed. It was that it was wounded by archers. In that case you can ride back, swap horses and join the cavalry again. And tend to the wounded horse after the battle.
    - questionfor 6y ago
      after reading about some feats of strength exhibited by knights, I assume carrying your precious war horse back to safety wasn't completely out of the picture.
  - mdiesel 6y ago
    "My kingdom for a horse" being the famous cry of Richard III, though he carried on fighting on foot in the play before being killed by Richmond. When they found his body a few years ago he'd died of head wounds implying that he'd ended the battle on foot.
- lonesword 6y ago
  > I'm a reenactor Oh please do tell us more. How and where do you do the re-enactments? I'd love to visit (once the pandemic is over)
inglor_cz 6y ago
In the right circumstances, yes, it could be a liability. Here in Late Medieval Czechia we had a militant reformation movement called the Hussites. Of course, the rest of Catholic Europe sent in several crusades to crush the heretics, without much success. One of the many reasons why the crusaders failed were so-called Wagenburgs [0]. Basically, the Hussite army would be underway with very heavy wagons and, if the scouts brought back information about an approaching enemy, would build a provisional fort out of them fairly quickly. Such a fort could not be swept away by a cavalry attack and if the defenders had enough guns (and by that time early firearms were already used in Europe), the knights tightly packed around the wagenburg would present a perfect target. Plus, there were kids under the wagons with very sharp scythes, hacking at the unprotected horses' legs just in front of them, just as you mention. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon_fort#Czechs_and_Hussites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon_fort#Czechs_and_Hussites
- tenpies 6y ago
  That is so cool to learn about. My first exposure to war wagons was in AoE 3 [1] and I always wondered how a fortified wagon drawn by horse was somehow a counter to cavalry when you would theoretically just kill the horse and render the wagon useless (a mobility kill). Makes much more sense when you consider that a bunch of them are essentially a portable fort. --- [1] https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/War_Wagon_(Age_of_Empires_III) https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/War_Wagon_(Age_of_Empir...
gadders 6y ago
You need to remember that the horses were warhorses, and were taught to "fight" as well - they would bite, rear up and hit with their hooves etc. So they would be vulnerable, but the horse itself has a vote.

varjag 6y ago

Horse is a large animal IRL, killing it or even seriously injuring with a blade is not trivial. And when there's a knight with a lance or a longsword on top, you might not even get one shot at it.

watwut 6y ago

You can leave the horse behind and continue by walk if you think it gives you advantage. The speed and maneuverability here is not just about during combat, but mostly about ability to do long term plan and maneuver.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Sander_Marechal 6y ago

Being the target of a cavalry charge is absolutely terrifying even for hardened soldiers. There is very little chance of fighting effectively when everyone around you is fleeing or being pressed together. And you're being charged by a 2-ton armored war machine. Or dozens of them. I'm a reenactor. It's even terrifying when you know it's fake and you know you're safe. Knights did loose horses though. They all took multiple war horses with them to battle (a "lance" usually consisted of one knight, multiple warhorses and a regular horse for travel/supplies and several servants). When they lost their horse, they fought their way back to their own side and got on the next horse.

questionfor 6y ago
> When they lost their horse, they fought their way back to their own side and got on the next horse. Oh interesting, so it was basically expected? Not a force majeure? I always thought losing a horse back then was a really big event for the knight, borderline tragic - a big financial loss, a highly increased likelihood of dying (getting stuck under the horse etc etc)
- Sander_Marechal 6y ago
  Oh it is, a warhorse is very expensive. But they were still expected to take multiple warhorses into a battle in case one of them got killed. And fighting your way back is easier said than done. The most common reason for loosing a warhorse is probably not that it was killed. It was that it was wounded by archers. In that case you can ride back, swap horses and join the cavalry again. And tend to the wounded horse after the battle.
  - questionfor 6y ago
    after reading about some feats of strength exhibited by knights, I assume carrying your precious war horse back to safety wasn't completely out of the picture.
- mdiesel 6y ago
  "My kingdom for a horse" being the famous cry of Richard III, though he carried on fighting on foot in the play before being killed by Richmond. When they found his body a few years ago he'd died of head wounds implying that he'd ended the battle on foot.
lonesword 6y ago
> I'm a reenactor Oh please do tell us more. How and where do you do the re-enactments? I'd love to visit (once the pandemic is over)

inglor_cz 6y ago

In the right circumstances, yes, it could be a liability. Here in Late Medieval Czechia we had a militant reformation movement called the Hussites. Of course, the rest of Catholic Europe sent in several crusades to crush the heretics, without much success. One of the many reasons why the crusaders failed were so-called Wagenburgs [0]. Basically, the Hussite army would be underway with very heavy wagons and, if the scouts brought back information about an approaching enemy, would build a provisional fort out of them fairly quickly. Such a fort could not be swept away by a cavalry attack and if the defenders had enough guns (and by that time early firearms were already used in Europe), the knights tightly packed around the wagenburg would present a perfect target. Plus, there were kids under the wagons with very sharp scythes, hacking at the unprotected horses' legs just in front of them, just as you mention. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon_fort#Czechs_and_Hussites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon_fort#Czechs_and_Hussites

tenpies 6y ago
That is so cool to learn about. My first exposure to war wagons was in AoE 3 [1] and I always wondered how a fortified wagon drawn by horse was somehow a counter to cavalry when you would theoretically just kill the horse and render the wagon useless (a mobility kill). Makes much more sense when you consider that a bunch of them are essentially a portable fort. --- [1] https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/War_Wagon_(Age_of_Empires_III) https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/War_Wagon_(Age_of_Empir...

gadders 6y ago

You need to remember that the horses were warhorses, and were taught to "fight" as well - they would bite, rear up and hit with their hooves etc. So they would be vulnerable, but the horse itself has a vote.