A place for horse related questions
- Thread starter Kylara
- Start date
MistingWolf
The writing wolf ^,^
How accurate is Racing Stripes? Can a zebra actually keep up with thoroughbreds? Not related to writing, but I'd really love to know!
Just finished the third of the Paksennarion books - more horse info in that. There is a military column travelling a long distance - mounted infantry on endurance type horses, who are famous for covering long distances at speed. Then they have to travel with a cohort of heavy cavalry - the heavy horses can do either bursts of speed for a short time, or long distances slowly. The column has to march to suit those horses - slower and more breaks.
Kissmequick
loony
Highly unlikely! Racehorses are a) bred for speed and b) trained to be at peak fitness. (I think I'm right in saying that a racehorse's top speed is around 45mph. I think a zebra's is around 40 but they probably can't keep that speed for long)
Also racehorse's legs are longer (There's some whole study into leg length and speed -- hence why many plains animals have long legs. They don't have as flexible a spine as say the big cats, which is what gives those predators their extra speed. And you'll note that racehorses have longer legs v body than many other horses. Zebras are built more like ponies)
I suppose a zebra might be as quick over very short distances (ie the amount needed to outrun a cheetah who can only keep up their speed for short bursts, though iirc most prey animals don't just run in a straight line, they zig and zag as the best way to avoid being eaten). But it'd be unlikely, and even if so, not for as long as a race.
MistingWolf
The writing wolf ^,^
Makes sense to me! Thanks for the answer. ^^
A mounting question, folks.
I've got my ladies sitting pillion behind men. At that time, the pillion was a bit like a padded seat with a foot rest -- http://georgialadiesaside.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Spanishss2.jpg although this is described as being a side-saddle (Spanish, 14th-15th century according to the site) and therefore possibly larger, I think it's of similar construction.
Now, I know there were mounting blocks, but the ones I've googled all look only about 2-3ft tall. And if I've got my men on goodly sized horses, I reckon there's a big gap between the top of the steps and the pillion seat.
My first thought was -- as it's effectively a seat -- the women just turned at the top of the mounting block and sat down, then put their feet on the planchette. But then I started to wonder whether that's physically possible, since to sit down comfortably, a chair has to come at about knee level -- if a seat it too high off the ground (eg like a table or a wall), you have to hotch yourself up. Which obviously my well-bred ladies can't do.
So, does it seem feasible that instead they step on the planchette itself, effectively using it as another step, and then sit? Or have I got myself bewildered by the heights and I was right the first time?
I've got my ladies sitting pillion behind men. At that time, the pillion was a bit like a padded seat with a foot rest -- http://georgialadiesaside.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Spanishss2.jpg although this is described as being a side-saddle (Spanish, 14th-15th century according to the site) and therefore possibly larger, I think it's of similar construction.
Now, I know there were mounting blocks, but the ones I've googled all look only about 2-3ft tall. And if I've got my men on goodly sized horses, I reckon there's a big gap between the top of the steps and the pillion seat.
My first thought was -- as it's effectively a seat -- the women just turned at the top of the mounting block and sat down, then put their feet on the planchette. But then I started to wonder whether that's physically possible, since to sit down comfortably, a chair has to come at about knee level -- if a seat it too high off the ground (eg like a table or a wall), you have to hotch yourself up. Which obviously my well-bred ladies can't do.
So, does it seem feasible that instead they step on the planchette itself, effectively using it as another step, and then sit? Or have I got myself bewildered by the heights and I was right the first time?
Ta, Kylara. I was having visions of them putting a foot on the step and the whole thing tilting alarmingly forward! (I know there would be all kinds of straps in reality to prevent that. Poor horses would be trussed up like turkeys!)
Yes, and yes. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...d-185-for-being-drunk-in-charge-of-horse.html (though I imagine the drunker someone is, the more he's reliant on the horse knowing what it's doing...)
On related four legged accessories not to have when intoxicated, I believe you can also be charged for being drunk and in charge of pigs, sheep and cattle (in the UK).
Although it would be interesting to know if anyone recently has in fact been charged for this particular misdemenour.
Ok, so what about horses charging into lines of spears? How does that work? I assume it depends on training. How much training will it take to get them to charge straight in, or is it impossible? Great thread btw
I am no expert, but first I'd ask the question - would you charge willy-nilly into a line of sharp spears. No? Well I'd guess horses are just as sensible and would generally refuse to do that too.
Off hand I can't think of a battle where a cavalry charge actually broke a determined line of foot soldiers - face to face so to speak.
However, they might go through a mass of disorganised men if they were all over the place i.e. using Alexander the Greats 'Hammer and Anvil' tactics: pin the enemy formation to a face to face fight with your phalanx - the anvil, then try and smash into the much looser flanks and back of their formation with your horsemen - the hammer. When they break, then soliders riding a horse is great for cutting down loads of fleeing men on foot.
Terrifying the men at the back is actually a brilliant way of breaking the morale of the enemies - their best fighters tend to be up front, but even they will start to question their position if everyone behind them has started to run away.
Sapheron
Making no sense.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 850
As I understand things, even elephants are pretty against running into a wall of spears, and horses are a lot less ambitious than elephants. In fact, it seems to be an action that only something truly demented will go through with willingly. So... wolverines, honey badgers and human beings. That said, historically, people have run horses into spears, pikes, lines of bayonets and god knows what else.
During the napoleonic war a square of british infantry failed because a single frenchman managed to get his horse to run suicidally onto the bayonets. It died (as, I don't doubt, did he), but it ploughed right through the formation in the process of dying and let the cavalry behind it get in amongst the redcoats.
Which leads on to a line of thought. Horses won't generally run onto spears that are held level in a wall; even the dullest animal can understand that running onto pointy things is a bad idea. On the other hand, watching a thousand tons of horse, man, armour and flailing pointy/blunt objects racing across a field at you is clearly also something that even the dullest spearman doesn't want to stand in front of. Doesn't it come down to a big game of chicken?
The cavalryman (and his horse) are thinking that they'll die if they get there and no one has moved. Perhaps they should stop. But if the enemy breaks, they're in the clear. But they might hold. Those speartips do look sharp...
On the other hand, the spearman can't help but wonder what will happen if he stands still. If those cavalry don't stop... well then that spear might kill them but it certainly isn't going to stop them. Will being run over by a dead horse hurt less than being run over by a live one? What if that screaming lunatic on the horse decided to just carry on? Perhaps it'd be a better idea to run now...
As a prime example of this problem, I present the orcs at the battle for minas tirith in the lotr films. They made a spearwall, but hesitation and fear meant it was a mess before the rohirrim even arrived. No doubt a contributing factor to the way the cavalry rode over them so easily.
During the napoleonic war a square of british infantry failed because a single frenchman managed to get his horse to run suicidally onto the bayonets. It died (as, I don't doubt, did he), but it ploughed right through the formation in the process of dying and let the cavalry behind it get in amongst the redcoats.
Which leads on to a line of thought. Horses won't generally run onto spears that are held level in a wall; even the dullest animal can understand that running onto pointy things is a bad idea. On the other hand, watching a thousand tons of horse, man, armour and flailing pointy/blunt objects racing across a field at you is clearly also something that even the dullest spearman doesn't want to stand in front of. Doesn't it come down to a big game of chicken?
The cavalryman (and his horse) are thinking that they'll die if they get there and no one has moved. Perhaps they should stop. But if the enemy breaks, they're in the clear. But they might hold. Those speartips do look sharp...
On the other hand, the spearman can't help but wonder what will happen if he stands still. If those cavalry don't stop... well then that spear might kill them but it certainly isn't going to stop them. Will being run over by a dead horse hurt less than being run over by a live one? What if that screaming lunatic on the horse decided to just carry on? Perhaps it'd be a better idea to run now...
As a prime example of this problem, I present the orcs at the battle for minas tirith in the lotr films. They made a spearwall, but hesitation and fear meant it was a mess before the rohirrim even arrived. No doubt a contributing factor to the way the cavalry rode over them so easily.
Kissmequick
loony
To be fair, unless they have experience in spears, most horses aren't seeing a spear, with a fatally pointy thing on the end. They are seeing some wood/shouty people they need to jump/avoid
A lot will depend on the training. Police horses* -- and war horses trained as such -- won't spook for (almost) anything. If you don't overface a horse, he'll do anything you ask, he'll trust you because he's always been able to do what you ask up till now.
A trained horse (esp a warhorse trained as such) will do a lot a normal horse won't. It's like the difference between me and a ninja ETA: If horses were inherently afraid of spears, jousts would have turned out very differently.
*I've worked with them. It takes a heck of a lot to stop them/spook them.
Sapheron
Making no sense.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 850
Although I bow to your knowledge of horses (I've never even sat on one) I can't help but think there's a big difference between say jousting, where you run near a spear, and running into a spearwall. Even if a horse isn't capable of understanding what a spear is, they are capable of understanding what pointy objects are, and can do. Otherwise they'd impale themselves on low lying branches.
Perhaps I just underestimate what training a horse can do. But then, if a man can be trained to run onto spears, why not a horse?
Perhaps I just underestimate what training a horse can do. But then, if a man can be trained to run onto spears, why not a horse?
A good example - of course I'm sure that it did happen that a brave (or mad) rush will destroy a formation, but during Waterloo, Marshall Ney repeatedly tried to break the Wellingtons army with cavalry charges and failed miserably. I think they only managed to break one square/regiment. Every other time the British and allies held quite contently.
But William the Conquerers knights did not break the Saxon shield wall at Hastings, nor did the English knights do much at all against William Wallaces pikes at Falkirk (English archers got that win...) and so on. I still can't think of any major battle where a calvalry charge actually did anything signficant to entrenched and determined infantry (But I'm sure there must be a few out there, just not many compared to all the failures...)
A reasonable way of putting it, but humans have the advantage in knowing that if they stand firm they have a very good chance of beating back an attack, and experience and common sense must apply - if you start running with an enemy on horse behind you, you are much more likely to get cut down.
The fear of the cavalryman as well should be thought of too - what if he knows that his side is not really putting their heart into it and it looks like his charge momentum is going to get him in the midst of a mass of enemy all alone and unsupported and likely to be pulled down and killed, then he'll probably not want to charge in as well!
The other horse tactic would be to ride up to the line, then throw something: axe, javelin, shoot an arrow etc... into the mass of men and then ride off, then wheel round and do it again and again. The psychological impact of charging your beast towards the line would also be a big thing to help frighten the enemy. These big animals can be very intimidating. The Sassanian Persians used this technique a lot, to soften up the enemy, with their formidable elite cavalry.
The only problem with this is that they were all holding 'baby' spears! No wonder they were s******* themselves
. Plus they didn't really have much in the way of good shields that could interlock. A Greek hoplite would have had a spear of up to 9 feet long, the re-emergence of heavy infantry in the medievel period to counter the armoured knights i.e. the Scottish schiltron or the later Landsknecht armies would have had significantly longer pikes - I believe anything up to 22 feet or so. A body of men with a forest of pikes that long would require a mad animal to charge into - I think!
The Uruk-hai were better adapted in the movie against Rohan, as they seemed to have loads of pikemen, but they still lost - well I suppose LotR is not meant to be realistic
.
Kissmequick
loony
Oh there certainly is. And maybe not al horses would do it. But it's not beyond the realms of believability is what I'm saying. There's a reason the heavy cavalry was feared. For a start, they have their own spears (lances)
Also,
for instance (from wiki, apologies):
Now I'm not sure about that, but pikemen on their own can be vulnerable.
Also, battles have been won with cavalry overcoming pikemen (Kirkholm, 1605 is an example, where they winners were also very much outnumbered - the losers had 9 times as many infantry, including pike men, as the winners, as well as twice as many cannon - but the superiority of their cavalry as they charged against men with spears won the day)
True, but they were vulnerable generally from missle attack of any sort. The bit you quote has at the end "especially if the opposing cavalry is armed with weapons with greater range or reach" i.e. bows or guns! Unsupported pikemen were always easy to break (See Falkirk!)
What I was arguing that face-to-face cavarly charges were usually never done, or just were not successful. In the case you give, the pikemen were attacked from three sides at the same time, and after their own cavalry were routed and hence they panicked - and the great mass of their casulties came when they ran away - which is to be expected if you are on foot and the enemy are galloping after you in horses!
Precisely the Alexander the Great 'Hammer and Anvil' tactics that I first said were pretty good! The flanks would be much more disordered and open and insecure and allow much better and safer penetration by horsemen.
Another good example of this sort of manouevre is Nasby in the English Civil war, when the royalist pike in the centre was denuded of it's support then attacked from the side and back by the parlimentry horse and dragoons - hence precipitating a rout.
Similar threads
-
-
What other books and shows have places Bigger On The Inside or tend to change locations?
- Started by DAgent
- Replies: 16
-
-
Is it viable to write a story taking place in four spatial dimensions?
- Started by SpeedOfLight6
- Replies: 62
-
