Quote:But 10 horses out of 1,000 is exactly a proportion of trained combat horses to all horses.
Because - you know - elite heavy cavalry formations did not fight on "any horse they could find".
There is a reason why for example in 1302 Robert II, count of Artois, bought 5 "great combat horses" for 280 livres each (on average), 2 "cart-horses" for 50 livres each, one "fast horse" for 60 livres, 14 "nags" for 34 livres each and 3 "small horses" for 12 livres each. As you can see one "great combat horse" was worth as much as 5 "fast horses", 6 "cart-horses", 8 "nags" and 23 "small horses".
But among horses physically fit and trained for combat there was still a considerable variety of quality.
In 1628 prices of combat horses used by Polish army varied from 200 to 1000 - 1500 ducats.
By comparison in the same time price of one ox in the city of Lvov was 3,5 ducats.
This means you could buy between ca. 60 and ca. 430 oxen for 1 combat horse. And each soldier of husaria (Polish-Lithuanian elite heavy cavalry) needed to have several combat horses. This is why only very rich people (and their retinues) could afford military service in this formation.
Horse was the single most expensive part of accountrements of Polish-Lithuanian so called "Winged" Hussars. A horse could be more expensive than all other parts of the accountrements altogether.
And people who had their private stud farms and inbreedings of good quality horses - were equivalents of modern Bill Gates. There were many private stud farms and inbreedings of horses in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - and they "produced" some of the finest horses in Europe (they were known as the Polish breed - a nowadays extinct breed of horses).
Many of other Medieval and Early Modern Era horse breeds are also extinct nowadays - one example is the original Friesian horse (modern so called Friesian horses are not really the original Medieval breed, but rather a result of "genetic reconstruction" and an "imitation").
==================================================
Edit:
Quote:this specific argument has to do with special horse personalities rather than training.
Selection of horses to breeding, training - and then to combat - was based on their personalities, genes (although knowledge of genes was unknown back then, they knew about inheritance of features by progeny of particular stallion and mare - this was used in selective breeding) and physical features.
Nobody would even bother to train a horse that was visibly a "coward". Intensive and extensive artificial selection (selective breeding) was applied to produce horses with desired features.
Quote:Whether a horse could/can be trained to smash into a solid obstacle still remains to see.
There are accounts of horses smashing into and ramming solid obstacles such as:
- wooden fences
- wooden palisades
- wooden chevaux-de-frise (kind of anti-cavalry obstacle - see photo*)
- enemy infantry
- allied infantry (by panicked or mad with pain horses)
Horses mad with pain also often behave in an extremely suicidal way (like smashing into brick wall, etc.). The above mentioned examples are not suicidal - because horses can successfully smash through, for example, a wooden fence. Also smashing and ramming infantry is usually not suicidal for a horse (unless infantry has a lot of pointy and sharp, long sticks - to confront the charge).
Combat horses of heavy cavalry were not fragile, contrary to some myths. They were muscular, large animals, selected to this role basing on their physical features (strong bones, muscles, etc.).
*
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Cheval..._02598.jpg
Perhaps it was the matter of both training and inheriting "proper" genes as the result of selective breeding (i.e. choosing a particularly "brave" stallion to impregnate also rather "brave" mares).
When desired features were noticed in behaviour of a particular horse, it was used for reproduction.
By the way - according to Vegetius:
"Few men are born brave, but many can become so through training and force of discipline."
I suppose the same can be applied to horses (with one exception - through artificial selection and selective breeding, people could cause bigger percentage of horses to be born brave).
========================================================
Something about High Medieval (13th century / times of Crusades) combat horses:
Quote:Albertus Magnus in his 13th century work "Animalibus" ("About animals") distinguished 4 types of horses: combat (dextrarii or bellici), to riding (palefridi), to fast riding (curiles equi) and workehorses (runcini). A rich knight had at least several horses: for travelling, for carrying luggage and for combat. A combat horse, especially courser, differed from other horses in strength, stamina, speed, manoeuvrability and quick reaction to orders as well as fiery temperament (combat horses were usually stallions, which explains their fiery temperament). What decided about price of a combat horse, were its combat values: size, tallness, wide and muscular chest, hard and short back, wide and convex rump, strong legs with hard knees and short fetlocks, proper temperament and confident moves, nimbleness, lightness of moves. Also its look was important. Apart from this, a trained horse was not afraid, of course, of combat turmoil, smell of blood, etc., etc.
Compared to steppe horses of Mongols, or even Arab horses, coursers of European knights looked extremely impressively:
"A European horse, carrying a knight in armour, was like living tank - ferocious during charge, undefeated in battle (...)".
Just like today, most sought-after were horses of white and black colour. Also bucksins were valued. But the most important was combat usefulness of a particular horse - its individual features such as stamina, courage, intelligence. A horse of proper colour, with mentioned values, was enormously expensive. Such specimen were looked for among Norman horses. Danish horses were especially valued because of bravery. Monarchs of this state were keeping a herd numbering about 2000 of such horses in Fredericksburg. From neighbouring countries originated Frisian and Flamand horses. These last ones were valued by knights due to their great tallness. France by the end of Middle Ages was importing from Germany horses characterized by strong stature and great strength, which allowed to carry a rider in full plate armour. However, the most expensive were horses from Italy and Spain. The Moors, who captured the Iberian Peninsula (711 - 1492) came there riding on Middle Eastern and North African horses. These races of horses, thanks to interbreeding, added the Spanish so called berber race, used by knights, additional speed and stamina. Also in that region famous of their beauty and grace, jennet horses - were breeded. Jennets were a bit too delicate for heavy cavalry, but their further interbreeding with formerly used heavy races, added the destriers used by knights more beautiful look and elegance. Similar interbreeding between races of European and Middle Eastern horses took place during the Crusades - it led to creation of races more aggressive and brave in combat and more resistant to hardships of war.
===================================================
Thanks to the Italian Renaissance, we have some accurate sculptures of Late Medieval combat horses:
http://hipologia.pl/news/show/id/73/lang/pl/page/13
As you can see these horses are rather muscular and strong.
The first one looks a bit ponderous (but perhaps it is just an impression - like with Grizzly Bear - and in reality it could move fast). The second one has visibly strong legs. Strong legs was a desired feature for a combat horse that was meant to be used by heavy cavalry for direct, shock charges. That's because the easiest way to stop a charging horse, is to crush his leg bones. Horse's chest - with well-developed muscles (and often protected by armor) - was a much less vulnerable place than its legs.
====================================================
Edit:
The description below can give us some idea on the mechanics of a cavalry charge (of course each cavalry formation in each historical period, most likely had a different way of conducting a charge, or even several different methods depending on situation - this description is true when it comes to charge tactics of Polish-Lithuanian Winged Hussars in the 17th and early 18th century):
Quote:I quote below excerpts from such an interesting article (link) written by doctor Radosław Sikora:
http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/m...Liubar.pdf
How did hussars charge?
Aleksander Michał Lubomirski was a brother of the Hetman Jerzy Sebastian Lubomirski, while Stanisław Herakliusz Lubomirski was Hetman's son. Stanisław Herakliusz had a brother – a future Hetman (in the period of 1702 - 1706) Hieronim Augustyn Lubomirski. Hieronim Augustyn Lubomirski was the author of the earliest (that is known today) regulations documented for the Polish cavalry. It bears the date 1704. These regulations describe in detail how the hussars should charge. And what is particularly interesting, the manner of the charge in the regulations is almost identical with the description of the charge of Aleksander M. Lubomirski's hussars at Liubar in 1660.
The table below permits us a comparison of the regulations and the charge at Liubar:
And what about the concept that hussars could alter their formation, even during a charge? There is still some rather strong controversy over this issue.
6 Leszczyński's account translated by Dariusz Wielec.
7 Ibid.
Published in 2006, in his Osprey book 'Polish Winged Hussar 1576 – 1775', author Richard Brzezinski noted:
'A theory has developed in recent years that hussars conducted half the charge in loose formation, and closed up knee-to knee just before the final spurt, so minimizing missile casualties and allowing the charge to be aborted at the last moment. This theory, apparently introduced by the historian J. Teodorczyk in 1966, flies in the face of western cavalry doctrine. Western writers insist that the entire charge be conducted in tight order, as cavalry formations tend to spread out when horses gallop, with braver riders dashing ahead, and cautious or poorly mounted men falling behind.'
After the analysis of the Lubomirski's regulation, Brzezinski concludes:
'The idea that hussars could alter formation even during a charge is clearly a myth.'
The example presented above, of the charge at Liubar however, says nothing about the cohesion of the hussar formation during the charge. The similarity between Lubomirski's regulations and the description of the charge would suggest (and directly imply) that the hussars at Liubar charged knee-to-knee the entire the time of the charge, and thusly, it would appear to support Brzezinski's generalized thesis.
As a matter of fact, this conclusion, among other highly debatable issues, is not such an easy one to arrive at. The hussars, in fact, could have altered and did alter their formation during a charge. But I should start from the very beginning of the story...
In 1966 Jerzy Teodorczyk published his article about the battle of Gniew (Mewe) 1626. This article caused enormous damage in the Polish historiography of this period, because of the fact that Teodorczyk's erroneous arguments were widely accepted in Poland after their presentation, and had remained undisputed until the publication of my book, 'Fenomen Husarii' in 2004.
As a personal note, allow me to clarify, that for nearly a decade, I have been a critic of J. Teodorczyk's hussar thesis work. Through my extensive research, I have detected and demonstrated flaws in his work. My first books and my PhD thesis demonstrate how my own findings have concluded in opposition to Jerzy Teodorczyk's thesis. That said, I would be the last person who would need to defend Jerzy Teodorczyk’s work. However, not everything in his article deserves a harsh critique...
Jerzy Teodorczyk indeed introduced the idea that hussars altered their formation during a charge. He based this on various sources and Polish regulations for cavalry from the 18-20th century. He also knew of Hieronim Augustyn Lubomirski's regulations from 1704. It is my conclusion, that most of these sources unfortunately were incorrectly interpreted by J. Teodorczyk, as I said most but not all of them.
Among other things, Teodorczyk provided a fragment of Bartosz Paprocki's recommendation for Polish cavalry from 1578. Paprocki wrote:
'Whereas the martial exercise is to train a soldier so he could orderly stand in formation, where they order him, quickly attack, and to spread/loosen [open ranks] and to come together [close ranks]'
This clearly indicates a concept and practice of altering the cohesion of a formation of the Polish cavalry. Paprocki wasn't alone in writing about this altering of cavalry formation during its movement. I submit that neither Teodorczyk, nor Brzezinski were aware that Marcin Bielski, in his book published in 1569, wrote in his description a passage very similar to Paprocki.
Bielski wrote that for 'knight people' it is useful very much to train often in the field. Among other things they should train 'spreading and cramming/crowding' (opening and closing ranks). Bielski’s account also described that there were various signals given by the trumpets to open and to close the ranks.
Did hussars open and close ranks in battles too? And, did they do it during a charge?
The simple answer is – yes. They did all these things. Fortunately, I was able to find a primary source, written by the Polish hussar Wespazjan Kochowski, who described the actual altering of formation during a charge. This occurred in the battle of Basya, the same fortunate year 1660 AD.
Kochowski wrote that, being under a fierce fire of some 40 Russian cannons, Polish cavalry (7 banners under Chalecki), in order to avoid casualties; 'spread their formations into a moon'. (Which, from most descriptions of cavalry formations, they describe that the center was slightly behind the wings of the formation, so, in this case, it could acceptably be interpreted more correctly as a ‘Crescent-moon’ shape). This happened after the trumpet had given a signal to begin their attack. So, as we can see by this example, the change of formations could and did happen during a charge.
What is the conclusion then? It is, therefore, my conviction that hussars usually charged in knee-to-knee formation that made perfect sense. This was the most typical manner to deliver a successful charge. Thus this manner or method was recommended either by the Lubomirski's regulation of 1704 or by Andrzej Maksymilian Fredro's military treaty of 1670 (publication date).
But sometimes, given the unusual circumstances of the battlefield, it was better to charge with open ranks. And therefore hussars also trained and charged this way as well, utilizing both techniques. And such trained they were also much better able to alter the formation density during their charge.
===========================================
And such an excerpt (not that it is particularly relevant - it just shows that even light, skirmish cavalry - such as Numidian skirmishers - sometimes practiced direct charges, to not so bad effect):
While describing the battle at the outskirts of Zama (a much later one, against Jugurtha) in 108 B.C., Sallustius (59.) writes:
"(...) during the fight Numidian cavalrymen, self-confident (...) contrary to the usually applied tactics consisting of attacking and retreating, were directly knocking against the enemy, breaking their battle array and sowing confusion into their ranks; hereby (...) almost achieving victory over Romans."
The cut parts - "(...)" - describe how cavalry was supported by light missile infantry in this fight.