07-30-2008, 01:14 AM
Agreed with Aryaman here. Horses are fragile, and they tend to be worked to death on campaign ... especially by modern cavalrymen who hadn't been raised from boyhood as horsemen, and who had to campaign for months on end. The medieval solution was to have one horse for the march and one for battle, but that gets expensive and failed on long campaigns (see the First Crusade). Battle losses were always far less than those from accidents, overwork, and diseases, and I'm sure the same was as true for horses as for men. This has only changed with the advent of modern medicine in the World Wars.
Cavalry had a bad reputation for being able to run away and leave the infantry to suffer. For a general to send away his horse and fight on foot was often a sign that he would fight to the bitter end (see eg. Spartacus' last battle or Courtrai). I don't know of a systematic study of relative loss rates, though.
Cavalry had a bad reputation for being able to run away and leave the infantry to suffer. For a general to send away his horse and fight on foot was often a sign that he would fight to the bitter end (see eg. Spartacus' last battle or Courtrai). I don't know of a systematic study of relative loss rates, though.
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
