3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoOh 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 agoafter 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.