|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > SFReader > Ask The Expert > swords on horseback vs foot? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Rob Mancebo
Adept
      
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 891
| Posted 1/8/2008 11:39 PM (GMT -4) |   |
muskrat said...
I'm new here, but have had horses most of my life, have trained horses to bow and rear and have worked with some great trainers. I would fear more six guys on the ground than on horse back. . .
. . . I say, if he's quick and smart, he can get out of it.
- I understand that you're speaking from your experience here, Muskrat, and I hate to argue, but I must mention that there's nothing you can think up that someone hasn't tried over the last 5,000 years. Just remember, mounted warriors were masters of the battlefield for more than a thousand years. From the time horses were so small that the men had to ride in chariots, to the massive war-horses of the 1500's +.
- As Bruce Lee is often quoted as saying, 'Boards don't hit back.' It's one thing to try and take a horse out in a fight if it's just a saddle pony VS you. An angry mustang is another matter, and a horse topped by a man who is also trying to kill you multiplies the equation.
- See Rob Santa's excellent story in the middle of this thread for an idea about taking down a man on a horse.
- So, you can easily take down a horse by tugging upon the bit? Look through history at all the men killed by horses who take the bit in their teeth and run despite everything the trained horsemen upon their back can do. These aren't weenies, these are men raised with horses.
- There were always men trying to come up with new and more dangerous ways to take out mounted warriors. The English had 'The guild of horse butchers', knights who specifically targeted horses. It's not a new idea at all, it's just hard to do in a battle.
- Typically the Polish Hussars would lose twice as many horses as men in a battle, but after they won--and they always won--they would just collect up horses from the fallen enemy.
Adventure-History-Fantasy-Folklore
www.geocities.com/robmancebo/
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Nik
Adept
Date Joined Feb 2007
Total Posts : 761
| Posted 1/8/2008 11:56 PM (GMT -4) | | It's hard to argue with history. But aren't we talking about two different things: large-scale battles versus small skirmishes? While a hundred footmen will no doubt be demolished by half that many mounted warriors, perhaps there's some advantage to be had by the lone fellow on foot against six mounted enemies? Maybe I'm wrong (it's happened many, many times before), but I doubt there are many documented historical cases of such a situation, so how could we really know? Or maybe I'm just in denial because I want that poor guy on foot to win (in a realistic fashion).
Nicholas Ian Hawkins
Forthcoming
"Knowledge and Dust," in Magic & Mechanica, from Ricasso Press, Winter 2008
Published
"Relativity," in FLASHSHOT, September 28, 2007
Visit my website, Trampler of Beautiful Phrases, at nihawkins.wordpress.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
darkbow
Rabbit lord
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 1583
| Posted 1/9/2008 12:45 AM (GMT -4) | | What's the lone guy going to do? Run? Not likely. Fight? Again, not likely. He might get lucky and take out the first horse and rider, but the other five are going to mow him down.
The only available option I see for our lone footman is to have a bit of luck, and the surrounding terrain, on his side. If in mountains or steep hills, he would stand a better chance of escape. Even in dense woods, unless our lone footman is a skilled and experienced guerrilla fighter, his best chance is to run or hide. Even if he is skilled at skirmish tactics, he's still facing six men. Mel Gibson might have looked pretty impressive in "The Patriot," but it was pretty unrealistic for him to single-handedly take on and beat trained troops by himself (yeah, yeah, he had some help from the kids). Yes, it is possible an experienced combatant MIGHT be able to come out on top in a situation like that, but the odds are going to be against him.
www.tyjohnston.blogspot.com
"Hot Off the Press" Ray Gun Revival #25, 2007.
"Deep in the Land of the Ice and Snow" upcoming in the Flashing Swords anthology, "The Return of the Sword: A New Age of Heroic Adventure." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nik
Adept
Date Joined Feb 2007
Total Posts : 761
| Posted 1/9/2008 12:49 AM (GMT -4) | | darkbow said...
Mel Gibson might have looked pretty impressive in "The Patriot," but it was pretty unrealistic for him to single-handedly take on and beat trained troops by himself (yeah, yeah, he had some help from the kids).
I just want to go on record right now by saying that I have never and will never use a Mel Gibson movie as the historical background or basis for any of my stories or fight scenes. Rest assured!
And even if the lone guy can't win, it doesn't detract from the hilarity of Rob Santa wearing a bicycle helmet while swiping at his mounted friend with a bamboo stick.
Nicholas Ian Hawkins
Forthcoming
"Knowledge and Dust," in Magic & Mechanica, from Ricasso Press, Winter 2008
Published
"Relativity," in FLASHSHOT, September 28, 2007
Visit my website, Trampler of Beautiful Phrases, at nihawkins.wordpress.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
darkbow
Rabbit lord
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 1583
| Posted 1/9/2008 12:57 AM (GMT -4) | | | | |
|
Keralen
Adept
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 511
| Posted 1/9/2008 11:15 AM (GMT -4) | | My money's on Rob, too, bamboo stick and all.
Muskrat, excellent explanation. Stick around, we need horse experts.
Now the decision is whether to have the guy show up in time to run into the riders, or click him back enough to miss them and wait for later. Ain't it great to be master of your universe? To paraphrase something I read recently, if you met your hero on the street and his first response wasn't to slug you in the nose for causing him so much grief, you're not an author. | | Back to Top | | |
|
H.P. Lovesauce
Necronomicondiment
Date Joined Jul 2007
Total Posts : 575
| Posted 1/9/2008 4:22 PM (GMT -4) | | My vote is to have him appear in time to see the perpetrators, but being unable to do anything to get vengeance at that point.
Oh, and I read the first page of a Raymond Feist novel at B&N this morning to see if he's gotten any better. The first scene? A dude on foot facing off against six mounted warriors. | | Back to Top | | |
|
muskrat
Humble Creator
Date Joined Jan 2008
Total Posts : 26
| Posted 1/9/2008 6:19 PM (GMT -4) | |
muskrat said...
I'm new here, but have had horses most of my life, have trained horses to bow and rear and have worked with some great trainers. I would fear more six guys on the ground than on horse back. . .
. . . I say, if he's quick and smart, he can get out of it. Rob--
I will respectfully have to disagree with you on a few points. First of all, for many reasons, horses are primarily trained riderless on a line, especially wild horses, it is part of the "breaking" process, though we don't use that word anymore, we call it "starting" a horse. And having horses up to and over 17 hands high (a hand is four inches-taken from the width of your hand), warhorses primarily and having been trained by ex-cavalry and had horses trained by ex-cavalry, and my horses were German in origin, you have much more control over a horse on the ground than you do on its back. Do you ride? Can you perform high school movements of classical dressage, one of the oldest forms of riding still in existence today? Are you familiar with Baucher (18th century)?
There is a reason that the Lippazaners (spelling?) train with a rider on back and another off the horse holding the reins. There is a reason all riders learn to lunge their horses on a lunge line with a long whip before riding.
- As Bruce Lee is often quoted as saying, 'Boards don't hit back.' It's one thing to try and take a horse out in a fight if it's just a saddle pony VS you. An angry mustang is another matter, and a horse topped by a man who is also trying to kill you multiplies the equation. said...
(replace this text with what was said)
Well, Bruce Lee would probably agree that he is not an expert horseman, maybe doesn't even like horses. But a kick from a horse would have to be particularly well aimed to kill you and don't even hurt that bad, unless you are a weenie whose horse takes its bit in its teeth and runs away with you.  Horses do not like the smell of blood, things being slung over their head, being blindfolded, and an assortment of other things, and have to be trained rigorously to be war horses.
If you are afraid of a "saddle pony" whatever that is --the regulation size of a pony ranges up to the size of many of the horses you are talking about, many mustangs are pony size. Actually, I'd be more afriad of a guy lower to the ground than on a larger horse. A big sword is heavy to swing, so the higher the rider, the longer the sword. First off, mustangs are not ferocious, they are more like deer, they flee, they are herd animals that protect themselves by fleeing. A grown mustang is very hard to start under saddle, or even on a line as it has been raised in the wild. Haltering it can be a challenge, unless you're Monty Roberts. If a horse is angry about anything, it is that someone is on its back and forcing it to do something other than grazing in a field. Such a horse would be difficult to control. Once they are started under saddle, they tend to be rather docile and of ordinary temperment (unless abused) and really not the best horses for war. The horses I raised came from calvarly stock, Arabs were very successful, being the original horse of the Egyptians and the foundation for almost all breeds. There is a wild Magyar horse the Mongols used that they bred with some Arab horses, Arab horses were long prized and traded extensively and bred into many of the other breeds, including the original horses brought to America by the Spaniards, the Mustang.
- So, you can easily take down a horse by tugging upon the bit? Look through history at all the men killed by horses who take the bit in their teeth and run despite everything the trained horsemen upon their back can do. These aren't weenies, these are men raised with horses. said...
These aren't weenies, these are men raised with horses.
Sorry hpl, they are BIG weenies if they claim that and can't control their horses and they would definitely be laughed at by any true horseperson.  Now next time quote me, you didn't summarize correctly.  I said you can grab anything, even the bit. It stiil has nothing to do with your obvious lack of info. It is a well-known fact that a horse is incapable of literally taking the bit in his teeth because the bit rests in a large toothless part of the horses mouth. A horse with too loose or too tight a bit would surely object and probably not make it far from the stable and anyone who knows anything about horses at all knows where the bit will rest. The excuse that a horse "took the bit in its teeth" usually followed by "and ran" is simply a layman's way of explaining that they lost control of the horse and it became above the bit, or in rare cases "behind the bit" and ran. A horse is not stopped with a bit, it is connected through the spine with the bit. A horse is stopped by the rider's seat and weight dispersement. Horses that move under a rider's weight will stop when the rider ceases moving with the horse, and after riding all your life, as most ancient horse peoples would have, riding is not even thought about. You can ride bitless, or with a silk ribbon, I rode my horses bareback with no bit. Some early peoples rode horses with a rope tied around the lower jaw. Others used a hackamore--a bitless bridle. If your trainer can't handle a horse and uses that stupid lie to excuse their incompetence you need another trainer. I have never heard a reputable trainer or horseperson ever use that excuse. Next time you need horse info, ask me or someone like me that really knows about horses.
Now, you figure a horse in the old days may have had the some of the same blood lines as mine, but would have been smaller since mine were bred in the last century for Olympic standards, lower to the ground, stocky, probably with a strong neck, thick legs, big hard hooves like a mustang, and spirited. Even though they were lower to the ground, people were shorter, for the most part. You would want to have the biggest horse to protect you from attacks from the ground, this is where horses are of benefit. You must bend to swipe with a sword, spears are better and archery on horseback is good but very difficult. A horse can be wounded easily by a man on the ground and I'm sure many have been, as you yourself attest to. There are the obvious vulnerable areas  and other moves and maneuvers.
As for not being able to take a horse down because of a bit in the teeth. Taking a horse down has nothing to do with a bit in the teeth, but has to do with the fact that if you pull a horse's head around to the side, using anything, even your bare hands, when a foreleg is raised or not bearing weight (its a quick and easy thing if you know how) the whole horse comes down. Heck I can lean on a little horse (14 hands) the right way and lay them down. Check out Blazing Saddles where the horse gets punched in the head and drops down. You can also stand in a horse's blind spot right in front of their face and if the rider doesn't try to run you over, which you can stop easily enough, horses don't like running over people unless they are stampeding in a herd and will not step on a person intentionally--aside from the ill mannered toe stepping in the stable while grooming, you can konk a horse right in the head--they have a soft spot. All of this is gruesome and cruel, but it is probably the kinds of things that did happen in reality.
The scenario put forth is a single protagonist with six mounted guys with swords. I'd rather have to dodge them as they awkwardly swung from above than be on the same level as them. In reality, I'm sure the six guys would've circled and dismounted to take out the protagonist. Also, if you are running and want to avoid horses, you can climb a tree or something high, enter rough water, go down a very very steep slope, hide etc.
I find a lot horse battles to interesting for the stunts, but not very well researched. I did like the Curse of the Golden Flower for good use of cavalry. There's been some others. But all end in hand to hand, I wonder why.  Because its hard as crap to kill someone on the ground while you're on a horse. Your sword has to be long and heavy, your weight shifts, your horse dances and you have to protect yourself and your horse.
I understand that you're speaking from your experience here, Muskrat, and I hate to argue, but I must mention that there's nothing you can think up that someone hasn't tried over the last 5,000 years. Just remember, mounted warriors were masters of the battlefield for more than a thousand years. From the time horses were so small that the men had to ride in chariots, to the massive war-horses of the 1500's +. said...
(replace this text with what was said)
Muskrat knows more about horses than you could hope to learn, honey. Horses are popular in battle because they get you quickly from here to there and protect you from men on the ground, and you can flee faster. I haven't thought up anything, these ARE the things that people have done, taking down a horse with a single rein is as old as the hills. And you may argue that warriors with horses dominated the battlefield, but it's a logical fallacy to assume that it is solely due to the fact they are on horseback. The best warriors got horses, to protect them.
Horse size thing had me cracking up. The size of the basic breeds haven't changed much since the horse evolved in prehistoric times. Are you talking about homo erectus on horseback?  As for Arab horses, they are notably smaller up to 15 hands in many cases than the other breeds and are very easily spooked, are swifter and more agile, which makes up for it. The European horses might have Arab blood but would be probably a little larger and stockier. Mustangs range from small to almost 16 hands, the average being around 15 hands or a little smaller. They also have Arab blood and have extremely hard hooves. They are not easy to train, if they are truly wild, and not the most comfortable ride--I used to ride and train one. Are you sure chariots where used because the horses were to small? Where did you get that from?
- There were always men trying to come up with new and more dangerous ways to take out mounted warriors. The English had 'The guild of horse butchers', knights who specifically targeted horses. It's not a new idea at all, it's just hard to do in a battle. said...
(replace this text with what was said)
Sounds like it proves my point more than yours. Anyway, were the horse butchers mounted or on foot? What kind of battle? You're comparing apples to oranges, we aren't talking a battle, we are talking six bulky warriors that could be almost three feet above their quarry against a single smart agile protagonist.
Fun sparring though, and hopefully this info will be helpful to others. If anyone needs info about classical dressage of the 1700s and more modern cavalry, I can direct you and give some help.
Thanks for your kind welcome and look forward to hearing more from you and hope you feel the same despite the fact Im just a lowly little muskrat who doesn't know much.
Muskrat
"Brain? What is brain?" --Kara, giver of pain and delight, Spock's Brain episode 61
I'm not a trekkie but I love this episode | | Back to Top | | |
|
H.P. Lovesauce
Necronomicondiment
Date Joined Jul 2007
Total Posts : 575
| Posted 1/10/2008 2:07 PM (GMT -4) | | From a brief look at Amazon, I figured it's Exile's Return (Conclave of Shadows, Book 3).
I think I'll ask myself when writing, WWRFD? (What Would Raymond Feist Do?) then tell myself, FCSDDI! (For Christ's Sake, Don't Do It!). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rob Mancebo
Adept
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 891
| Posted 1/10/2008 5:33 PM (GMT -4) | | | Muskrat-
- Do I ride? Not anymore. I rode growing up. My family owned a horse. My Mother's family still owns two ranches in the Dakotas which I've visited periodically. I grew up talking to people who 'lived horses'. But time and raising a family have a way of distancing you from things that are not needful for modern living. So no, I don't ride anymore.
- Be careful when arguing about history from a modern perspective. A master of modern fencing is not a master of actual sword combat. There are so many facets and variables that they fill many volumes of history.
- I could argue that 10,000 men with muskets would wipe out 3,000 charging horsemen. This is from my experience shooting for more than 40 years. Yet that would be wrong. Actual history shows that there were times when 10,000 musketeers might make only 200 hits against charging cavalry. To me that's hard to believe, but it's true.
- I believe that if you study actual accounts of horsemen in battle--which are copiously available--you will add historical perspective to your wide range of experience.
"But a kick from a horse would have to be particularly well aimed to kill you and don't even hurt that bad, unless you are a weenie whose horse takes its bit in its teeth and runs away with you."
- I'm glad you've never been badly kicked. I know people who have and were just about killed. (Including a professional trainer)
"Actually, I'd be more afriad of a guy lower to the ground than on a larger horse. A big sword is heavy to swing, so the higher the rider, the longer the sword."
- Pick up an old Colt .45--either a cowboy Colt or a 1911 autoloader--that's the full weight of a broadsword or saber, 3 lbs. It's only heavy if you're Antonio Banderes in 13th Warrior. They are fast and deadly.
"Sorry hpl, they are BIG weenies if they claim that and can't control their horses and they would definitely be laughed at by any true horseperson."
- "A Pole without a horse is like a man without a soul" --Old saying.
- So you think people who lived and breathed horses were weenies? Do you really think that ancient warriors spent their days watching TV and only grabbed a horse to go into battle? These are people who spent their time either riding or taking care of their horses. And yet you can still read of instances when their horses ran them out of control, into the enemy formations and got them killed.
"Next time you need horse info, ask me or someone like me that really knows about horses."
- Ummm, no. Sorry. I use multiple references from people who actually fought with swords from horseback.
"Check out Blazing Saddles where the horse gets punched in the head and drops down."
- Yes, and did you see the same guy break the iron chains tying him up like they were paper . . . ooops, they were, sorry. 
"The scenario put forth is a single protagonist with six mounted guys with swords. I'd rather have to dodge them as they awkwardly swung from above than be on the same level as them."
- Please contact your local SCA and offer your services as a pell to a near-by mounted group. I would love to hear that you did so much better than Rob S. who has experience and yet had trouble with a single rider.
"I find a lot horse battles to interesting for the stunts, but not very well researched."
- I certainly wouldn't take hollywood's advice on either relationships or cavalry battles. It's fantasy. Enjoy the fantasy, but don't imagine it's anything else.
"Muskrat knows more about horses than you could hope to learn, honey. "
- Ah, condescension. And here I thought you were "respectfully dissagreeing" with me. Well, you certainly know more about cavalry battles than all the horsemen of the past 5,000 years so I'll just quit reading about their experience in battle and take your dressage course at the local YMCA. That will teach me all about mounted combat.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
muskrat
Humble Creator
Date Joined Jan 2008
Total Posts : 26
| Posted 1/10/2008 8:02 PM (GMT -4) | | First off Rob, I'm so so sorry your horse "took the bit in his teeth" and ran away with you. It must have been very frightening and humiliating. ROFL
Next, all western riding, the type of riding your buddies do, typically done on ranches in the west, is based on classical dressage. Classical dressage is the oldest form of riding still practiced today. It was the only way anyone rode in Europe.
All of the moves a dressage rider asks his horse to do, any horse does naturally in nature, including lying down. Horses are very willing creatures when asked properly, even when injured or sore. A skilled trainer in classical dressage can approach a horse and perform various feats with very little preparation. When this is done on the ground, it is called "Work in Hand". Many moves are done with the rider on the ground before they are done in the saddle and a whip is used in this process as an aid, you tickle with it or touch lightly. There are methods for getting a horse to "come quickly off the whip" or the leg later that involves using the lightest touch to produce the maximum response. This is common sense. You want your horse to naturally move with you as you fight or do whatever, otherwise everyone would be falling off.
I suggest you find yourself a "saddle pony" that won't "take the bit in his teeth" and try swinging around a properly weighted instrument that mimics a sword and you will see how untrained your horse and rider really were, even in the lowest of regiments. Training doesn't take long, it just has to be right.
As for your friends who nearly died from being kicked, I know plenty of people who call themselves professional trainers, but few who meet the bill. Yes, they can teach a person to stay on a dead horse, to ride a lame one with no spirit, they may even be adept at beating a horse into submission or "bucking them out" to start them, which only teaches them to buck. To avoid being hurt from a kick, every horseman know you stay close to the horse. Breaking the habit of kicking is easy and done usually with a single proper correction. If you are alpha to the horse, they tend not to mess with you.
BTW, mares are the alphas in horse herds, not the stallion. He is allowed around during times when the females are in season, but is usually kept to the edge of the herd.
I like your quote about the pole, unfortunately you may be misunderstanding its meaning. The pole was used in classical dressage, probably back to the middle ages, as a method of training a horse. Also, you need to understand that for a skilled rider, a whip is not for punishment, as some riders may use it, but is an aid to tap your horse in certain areas to perform certain moves. These moves any plough horse from a field can and will perform if asked correctly, including lying down, bowing, camel stretching, spanish walk, piaffe and passage, and the corbette. These are ancient traditions in horsemanship which have died with the rise of hunt seat, eventing, and western riding, which require less skill. The Lipazzans still perform them and their trainers and their horses used to stay with my trainer when they came to town. Another similar more modern Cavalry based group of horseman were the Cadre Noire of Saumer, whose method of horsemanship I learned from my trainer and her trainer. I was trained in French classical dressage and studied regularly under trainers who were the students of American calvalry officers, the Cadre Noir and other noteables of the international dressage community. My trainers students frequently compete gran prix. I myself have worked with many of my horses to perform high school movements, have jumped over 5ft personally, have ridden trail on a four yr old green horse just started under saddle, have trained horses at other stables. I have also read the old and salient works on horsemanship that you should be reading, there are translations available.
"Dressage is the art of horsemanship and riding. The origins of which can be traced back to the fifth century BC., when the Greek general Xenophone wrote the first book on Equitation. During the sixteenth century, horse training was refined to an art in Italy and France,where it later spread thoughout the courts of Europe....
In 1680 the French King Louis XIV, moved the royal stables to Versailles. It became a model for other courts. The art of horsemanship improved under the guidance of two great masters, Francois de la Gueriniere, the director of the school at the Tuileries, and Francois de Lubersac at Versailles.
Saumur , located in the Loire Valley, had a prestigious cavalry school. With the French Revolution, and disappearance of the school of Versailles, Saumur remained the only school to keep the French equestrian traditions alive....
Over the years Saumur has been graced with many exceptional horsemen. General L'Hotte, head of the Cadre Noir from 1864-1870, had the fortunate experience of training with and combining the philosophies of two great ecuyers of his time, Mr. Baucher (1796-1873), and the Comte d'Aure (1799-1863).
The high school work of Baucher which L'Hotte saved for his own personal use, and exterior work of Comte d'Aure, which he used to instruct the military gave him a varied background. A quote of General L'Hotte states " In place of playing with fear to obtain submission it's better to capture the horse's confidence to obtain his consent".
I picked this long quote from this site: http://www.favierdressage.com/
I'm sorry I poked some fun, but I have to deal with a lot of cowboyed up people who think they know horses and don't. It's sad and cruel, because they fight with their horses instead of partnering with them, which has led alot of people to want to ban the riding of horses completely. I understand you simply are going by what you read, its just that others may have a different opinion based on the knowledge they have.
And BTW, you started it hpl, so you got as you gave so quit your crying, I didn't see you giving anyone else a hard time. I don't like being assumed to be an idiot from someone who has gotten bad info secondhand and doesn't even know how to ride and had one horse once.
You cannot read quotes from horsemen without understanding horses and how they rode. Classical dressage (dressage means training) is an ancient and dying tradition, being replaced by your cowboys and hunter jumpers who might as well be riding dirtbikes.
I'm not surprised you know nothing about it, nor do your accomplished horseman. We have several horrible farms here where the cowboys have won pickup trucks and everything else for roping and team penning and barrel racing and they treat their horses like crap and the horses have alot of problems and they go through them quickly.
You are going to have different types of horseman in any calvalry or group, some will care about their horse, for others its just a way to get from here to there and any old horse will do and they will run them into the ground. That is true today among horsepeople. And everyone's an expert.
BTW I brought up the Blazing Saddles reference because you can see the man on horseback downing his horse by pulling the rein to the side and weight displacement, which is why the horse's head turns to the side when hit, it's not a special effect, its a stunt. They may have speeded it up a little, but its real.
I hope the info I gave you helps you some. I feel fortunate to have learned techniques that very few people know, and have been blessed with the best of trainers, of course I sought them out. What are some of your sources for medieval horsemanship or calvalry? I would be interested in reading them.
You've made your opinion clear, as have I and I've taken the time to try to educate you but you obviously would prefer to remain ignorant. Now lets stop wasting disk space on someone else's post. This discussion between us is over.
Muskrat
"Brain? What is brain?" --Kara, giver of pain and delight, Spock's Brain episode 61
I'm not a trekkie but I love this episode | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rob Mancebo
Adept
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 891
| Posted 1/11/2008 9:16 AM (GMT -4) | |
muskrat said...
You've made your opinion clear, as have I and I've taken the time to try to educate you but you obviously would prefer to remain ignorant. Now lets stop wasting disk space on someone else's post. This discussion between us is over. - Actually, flaming me for a whole page and then saying 'This discussion is over' is rather a low blow. So far the opinion you've given is: any professional I've talked to doesn't know anything, anyone hurt by a horse is a wimp, and you know more than anyone in any horse culture in the history of the world. That's quite an opinion from someone who's made their living as a Tech Writer for the last 20 years.
- As far as 'educating me', inbetween your insults you have actually brought out some interesting points and ideas that I would've been glad to have discussed if they weren't heavily peppered with having to hear you bluster about how great you are, yet without ever addressing any of my points.
- We were talking, I believe, about horse/sword combat. You made some comments that seemed to me to be contrary to both world history and my own experience.
- Your avoidence of simply answering/explaining your statements and attacking any source other than your own experience tends to cast doubts upon your actual claims of compatence.
- I didn't 'Start it', I dissagreed, I questioned. If you simply attack anyone who asks a question or gives an opinion on these boards, you might find that not many folks will talk with you.
- Didn't you come here to answer questions? Or do you expect only easy questions without ever being asked to explain your answers?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Rob Mancebo
Adept
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 891
| Posted 1/11/2008 9:21 AM (GMT -4) | | Since the puzzling idea has been put forward that a mounted man might have some trouble hitting something--especially a dismounted man--with a sword, these are some things said by men trained for mounted sword combat:
> >
> >
"The saber is solely a weapon of offense and is used in conjunction with the other offensive weapon, the horse. In all training, the idea of speed must be conserved. No direct parries are taught, because at the completion of a parry the enemy is already beyond the reach of attack. The surest parry is a disabled opponent." >>
G.S.Patton Jr lace>USlace> Cavalry
> >
> >
Q- In the horse cavalry, did you men prefer to use rifles or pistols when mounted?
> >
A- "Pistols? Rifles? No, we liked the saber! We'd run the combat course with melons mounted at different heights. You couldn't miss with a saber!"
H. Balster US Cavalry
> >
> >
Running at heads with a saber- "More spectacular than difficult".
Note: infantry target is easily reachable by cavalryman.
> >
http://www.2dragons.be/indexe.htm
> >
> >
If anyone has any information from mounted fighting men contrary to this I would be interested in reading it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Rob Mancebo
Adept
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 891
| Posted 1/11/2008 11:20 AM (GMT -4) | |
- Size matters -
> >
There's another variable to toss into the mix. For those who pay attention to equine history, horse types tended to be unique to areas.
> >
You never hear of ravaging 'Viking cavalry' because their northern breed was too small to make a good war horse. The bloodline has been retained in lace>Icelandlace> and you can see Gerald Butler looking like a giant riding one in 'Beowulf & Grendel'. The Norse rode in their homelands, but didn't bother to try and fight that way.
> >
The famous 'Mongol Hordes' didn't sweep down on Arabic stallions. They rode Mongolian ponies. They made good use of what they had.
> >
The fearsome Insular Celts actually built and maintained wooden roads because they used chariots for mounted battle. They were another people whose horses were too small to make a good war horse.
> >
Notice in 1066 William the Conqueror brought the lace>Normanlace> war horses over from lace>Francelace> in ships when he invaded lace>Englandlace>. Harald's men had to run from lace>Stamfordlace> bridge to lace>Hastingslace>.
> >
Yet, by the 1500's there was Arabic blood available throughout lace>Europelace>. (You can bet raiders and crusaders brought home more than oranges and silk!)
"The fairest horse areas are in the East and South. Especially in the South, horses stayed in a natural environment practically all the time, and were less often deliberately bred. There they experienced the natural selection of survival, especially, such as survived the many wars in good health. >>
The outstanding breeding achievement was the great hussar cavalry horse, primarily of eastern blood. These were mostly of what was called "Turkish" stock, which included Anatolian, Persian, Turkish, Kurdish, Crimean, Caucasian, and Arab." (1)>>
> >
For the 16th Century Polish soldier:
A good Hussar's horse was 800zl (+)
A retainer's horse about 500zl
A 'good riding horse', about 50zl | |
| | |