The original version of this page can be found at : http://forum.sfreader.com/default.aspx?f=19&m=62082
| Posted By : Keralen - 12/10/2007 9:16 PM | |
In a fight, how much of an advantage does a swordsman on a horse have over one on foot? Given six or so mounted bad guys, is my protag dead meat? The scene is a level valley with a small river, say 2 to 4 feet deep and full of loose rocks, and fairly dense woods close by to duck into. Medieval longswords, no armor. What strategies would you recommend other than "run like hell"? |
| Posted By : Dave Hardy - 12/10/2007 9:34 PM | Six? That's a heavy load. There are ways to even up the odds. Spears for one. You only need to poke a horse a bit to make it shy. Hence the popularity of the shield wall and pike phalanx against horsemen.
In a melee it gets more tricky. Hippies on foot seldom win vs mounted riot police. The dervishes would lay down and use their broadswords to hamstring the English cavalry as they rode over. Since the horsemen are using swords they can't easily reach an opponent on the ground. Lancers practiced "pegging", spearing a tent peg with the tip of their lance. Six lancers would pretty much pincushion your protag, I fear.
If the protag has time he can prepare devilishly clever deadfalls and hidden punji sticks int he water. Or he could just get lucky and a horse might trip on a gopher hole and throw the rider.
Dave Hardy
Fire & Sword
Fire & Sword Blog
Joy Girl Commando |
| Posted By : MichaelEhart - 12/10/2007 9:49 PM | "Hippies on foot seldom win vs mounted riot police"
True, but Sweet Mother of Pearl, which decade are you living in? When, besides in the fevered imagination of Rush Limbaugh, was the last time a group of any size that could be safely labeled Hippies chanting "Hell, no I won't go!" and "Clean for Gene!" clashed with riot police? :)
Six to one, even on foot, is pretty steep. Six mounted, especially post-stirrup? Your boy is in serious trouble.
Buy my book!
The Servant of the Manthycore available Nov. 17th from DEP
Illustrated by Rachel Marks, with an introduction by Michael Moorcock
Read me in 2007!
"The View From the Shotglass Floor" Ray Gun Revival, Feb 2007
"Voice of the Spoiler" The Sword Review, June 2007
"Servant of the Manthycore" The Sword Review, July 2007
"Darkling I Listen; and for Many a Time" Fear and Trembling, coming soon!
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, August 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, Summer 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Night of Shadows, Night of Knives" Magic and Mechanica, Fall 2007
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, October 2007
"The Stars by Law, Forbidden" Unparalleled Journeys II, November 2007
"Who Comes for the Mother's Fruit" Every Day Fiction, November 2007
"Stand, Stand, Shall They Cry" Flashing Swords, November 2007
|
| Posted By : Dave Hardy - 12/10/2007 10:25 PM | Michael, I don't think we run in the same crowd! Just 'cause it ain't happened lately, don't mean can't... 
Actually, the only "clash" we've had in Austin lately dates back a few years when they used the horse fairly aggressively at some anti-Bush demo. I recall that during the Fortune 500 protests, they laid out a path that brought us all down to a barricade facing the 4 Seasons hotel so the anarchists could shout & wave signs. The crowd lined up at the fence in between a parking garage and something else. Then they quietly brought the horse into the nearest alley behind the crowd. Ready to shut the back door when they were ready. Nobody else was too concerned so I didn't get all sweaty.
Mostly in Austin the cops prefer to avoid confrontations at demos. Shooting people in the back had certain popularity with APD, until the new chief decided that was grounds for dismissal.
Now the Black Bloc used to put on a good show at IMF conferences and such. Didn't they have a catapult in action at Quebec?
My wife says technically the protesters were anarchists, not hippies, but they smell the same!
Yours for the Constitution & Freedom to stink,
Dave, the Patriot who bathes & dreams of '68
Dave Hardy
Fire & Sword
Fire & Sword Blog
Joy Girl Commando |
| Posted By : darkbow - 12/10/2007 11:05 PM | Maybe Hippies need spears.
Of course spears probably wouldn't do much good against a SWAT team ...
www.tyjohnston.blogspot.com
"Hot Off the Press" available in Ray Gun Revival #25.
"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." |
| Posted By : Dragon Angel - 12/10/2007 11:07 PM | If the guys on horses are reasonably well trained, then the dude on the ground is dead. I don't care if he has the skills of Conan.
However, in a lot of books, for some reason, in Epic fantasy the hero can always learn more about sword play in 1 month of training and become a master swordsman. Somehow they gain more skills than people who trained from childhood. If that is the story world you live in, and the guy on foot is the 1 month training guy, then the standard cliche is that he'd kill all of them through some cheap trick that would never really work.
If the people on horseback arre total idiots with no training and the guy on the ground is the equivalent of a Navy seal, maybe it would be even.
If the guy on the ground is Bruce Lee, the guys on horseback have no chance at all...
read free fiction and poetry at http://www.geocities.com/davidolson22/index.html
Part dark, part light. And gooey in the middle. |
| Posted By : nathan - 12/10/2007 11:15 PM | This is a gruesome bit 'o trivia.
The calvary saber in Napoleanonic-ish conflicts was curved--as you all know. Apperantly as musket lines and canon got better mounted calvary charges became less effective. But once infantry broke and ran the horsemen would be unleashed.
However since the backpacks were so high and heavy riding them down was hard so a technique was perfected.
The tennis backhand.
Ride the man down, pass him and catch him in the face (to avoid leather coat & collar) with a backswing.
I would think a nimble guy with a "reach" weapon and no qualms about doging the rider and hurting the horse might surprise people as a rearing horse or a charging horse is very scary but not turning left and right that agily.
Past that? Ride the man down must have entered the lexicon for some reason...
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." |
| Posted By : Swashbuckler - 12/10/2007 11:24 PM | Even the run-like-Hell tactic isn't going to save your hero's bacon, unless your hero can outrun six horses.
One possibility would be to go where horses can't or won't, or somehere to neutralize the horsemen's advantage. A thick, thorny forest would do nicely. Horses can't run efficiently there, and there is plenty of cover. The horsemen would have to dismount, likely, just to avoid being clobbered by low branches. Your hero could use the time they spend doing that to get further under cover. Then the hunters spread out to search, and your hero picks them off one at a time using really cool ninja-like skills ...
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. |
| Posted By : MichaelEhart - 12/11/2007 12:11 AM | I love this forum.
Just saying.
Buy my book!
The Servant of the Manthycore available Nov. 17th from DEP
Illustrated by Rachel Marks, with an introduction by Michael Moorcock
Read me in 2007!
"The View From the Shotglass Floor" Ray Gun Revival, Feb 2007
"Voice of the Spoiler" The Sword Review, June 2007
"Servant of the Manthycore" The Sword Review, July 2007
"Darkling I Listen; and for Many a Time" Fear and Trembling, coming soon!
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, August 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, Summer 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Night of Shadows, Night of Knives" Magic and Mechanica, Fall 2007
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, October 2007
"The Stars by Law, Forbidden" Unparalleled Journeys II, November 2007
"Who Comes for the Mother's Fruit" Every Day Fiction, November 2007
"Stand, Stand, Shall They Cry" Flashing Swords, November 2007
|
| Posted By : Rob Mancebo - 12/11/2007 12:24 AM |
Keralen said...
In a fight, how much of an advantage does a swordsman on a horse have over one on foot? Given six or so mounted bad guys, is my protag dead meat? The scene is a level valley with a small river, say 2 to 4 feet deep and full of loose rocks, and fairly dense woods close by to duck into. Medieval longswords, no armor. What strategies would you recommend other than "run like hell"?
- Like the guys are saying, much will depend upon the details.
- Remember though, the greatest and most feared of all warriors since somewhere around BC 300 or earlier have been mounted warriors. Up until WWII horse cavalry was still devistating. [The last great US Cavalry battle was the Philippine Scouts (I believe the 42nd US Cavalry ) VS the Imperial Japanese army. They raised havoc with the invading Japanese and fought a rearguard action against overwhelming odds that allowed the American army to retreat, although it later surrendered. ]
- Weapons make a great difference. Give your infantry long spears and they have a chance to hold off a sword charge. However, if the cavalry has spears, it can simply sashay around the infantry's defensive line and hit them from the sides or rear. Only superbly trained infantry can withstand a charge of cavalry with lances.
- Six riders against a man on foot? Do they like to play?  To ride around him sticking swords into him from both front & rear? Of course if they're 'men on horses' he can poke their horses and make them shy. However if they're knights with fighting horses--which cost as much as armor--any poking he does with a sword is going to get him an enraged 1,200 pound animal with iron-shod hooves trying to kick his brains out! Horses naturally run from fighting, but when they're trained, they're as dangerous as their armored riders. I knew a horse trainer who was kicked in the thigh and was almost crippled --and that was by a 'saddle pony'.
- There are always ways to write your hero out of such a situation, but not by having him face horsemen in the open. He'd just be the target of an entertaining game for them.
Rob (Formerly of the 2nd Armored Cavalry)
|
| Posted By : Rob Mancebo - 12/11/2007 12:30 AM |
nathan said...
This is a gruesome bit 'o trivia.
The calvary saber in Napoleanonic-ish conflicts was curved--as you all know. Apperantly as musket lines and canon got better mounted calvary charges became less effective. But once infantry broke and ran the horsemen would be unleashed.
However since the backpacks were so high and heavy riding them down was hard so a technique was perfected.
The tennis backhand.
Ride the man down, pass him and catch him in the face (to avoid leather coat & collar) with a backswing.
- Yes and a Blucher saber has a sharpened reverse-edge to cut well in both directions. If you don't cut one way you just slash with a back-hand to catch them as you pass . . . The French really hated that!
Adventure-History-Fantasy-Folklore
www.geocities.com/robmancebo/
|
| Posted By : crystalwizard - 12/11/2007 1:50 AM | Keralen said...
In a fight, how much of an advantage does a swordsman on a horse have over one on foot? Given six or so mounted bad guys, is my protag dead meat? The scene is a level valley with a small river, say 2 to 4 feet deep and full of loose rocks, and fairly dense woods close by to duck into. Medieval longswords, no armor. What strategies would you recommend other than "run like hell"?
run like hell, throw rocks and get out of the way. get into those woods and stay there. Avoid that river, you'll be bogged down and the horses won't even notice. Even if the guys on horseback can't reach him with the swords, they can trample him far too easy.
Footmen vrs horsemen is not an even match. |
| Posted By : crystalwizard - 12/11/2007 1:55 AM | Rob Mancebo said...
Horses naturally run from fighting, but when they're trained, they're as dangerous as their armored riders.
more dangerous, because they are an animal and while a man might back off because of some moral sense, a maddened horse is going for the kill. And no one but an idiot rides an untrained horse into battle.
Okay, so... the guys on the horses... are they warriors or bandits or a bunch of farmers on plow horses? |
| Posted By : Keralen - 12/11/2007 9:28 AM |
MichaelEhart said...I love this forum. Just saying.
CW, they're undisciplined but bloodthirsty bandits who have just massacred an innocent family. They have only swords. Oh, one had a hunting spear but it's still stuck in his victim. The protag has longsword and dagger and 10 years' fighting experience.
I was trying to figure out a good time for him to arrive on the scene. Looks like maybe *after* would be good.
Thanks, people! Knew I could depend on you.
|
| Posted By : Rob Mancebo - 12/11/2007 9:55 AM |
crystalwizard said...
Rob Mancebo said...
Horses naturally run from fighting, but when they're trained, they're as dangerous as their armored riders. more dangerous, because they are an animal and while a man might back off because of some moral sense, a maddened horse is going for the kill. And no one but an idiot rides an untrained horse into battle. Okay, so... the guys on the horses... are they warriors or bandits or a bunch of farmers on plow horses? - I'll have to dissagree. The whole 'more dangerous' thing is a modern concept. Now-a-days a police horse or dog is more dangerous than it's handler--and more effective because of it. However, 'back in the day', there was nothing nastier or less controllable than a soldier. This is why warrior bands and mercenary armies were generally replaced by somewhat more controllable national armies around the 1700s. They were still violent, pillaging maniacs, but they were a little more under control (Although still kept under their officer's control with the threat of the lash and the hangman's noose.)
- As for riding an un-trained horse into battle, as I said, a trained warhorse cost as much as a suit of armor. If your horse was killed, you might have to take pot-luck. Not a good thing, but it might be needed in the face of coming battle.
- Also, a new force was created around the mid 1500's-- Dragoons. These are 'Mounted Infantry'. Although they might be called to charge into battle while mounted--like the cavalry--they generally fought on foot and with arquibus' rather than lance. This made them a great power in both the offence and defence. It also made them cheap. No expensive full-body armor and no expensive war horse. Without the added 70+ pounds of plate, they could just use any confiscated plow horse as a mount. They were also not nobles. Without all that outlay for horse, armor, and a lifetime of training, commoners could become mounted warriors.
- No lances for most Dragoons. Opposing cavalry was dispatched with carbine or pistol and charges were made with longsword(later with saber). (You will see exceptions to this throughout the centuries as the line between Cavalry and Dragoon is flexable.)
|
| Posted By : Rob Mancebo - 12/11/2007 10:02 AM |
Keralen said...
CW, they're undisciplined but bloodthirsty bandits who have just massacred an innocent family. They have only swords. Oh, one had a hunting spear but it's still stuck in his victim. The protag has longsword and dagger and 10 years' fighting experience.
I was trying to figure out a good time for him to arrive on the scene. Looks like maybe *after* would be good.
Thanks, people! Knew I could depend on you.
- If there's a dwelling, the hero can arrive after and use the building(s) and construction to negate the speed advantage of horses.
- If it's a camp, the hero might use the fire to start a grass fire to drive them off.
- Or, if he surprises them, he could unhorse one and fight them from the saddle. Most bandit's are there for the money. If he kills a couple they probably won't wait around to see how many more it will cost them to kill him.
- Whatever he does, he has to keep them from racing around and hitting him from multiple sides.
|
| Posted By : erazmus - 12/11/2007 12:40 PM | Be of good cheer, all is not lost.
Bandits without armor, armed with swords and on horseback does not bespeak of Calvary. Even if they are experienced horse soldiers taken to banditry, that does not imply trained steeds. While bandits would tend to be very skilled and experienced in ambush tactics, the terrain you mention works against them a little.
If your hero intends to fight and kill them, he better make peace with his maker. If they are skilled horsemen, with decent mounts and used to working together, he is pretty much toast. However, you are the author, and you controll most of those factors.
If your hero just wants to live to fight another day, escape and evasion is in order. If he must fight, he first must rearm himself with a better weapon than a sword. Better for this situation at least. I'd reccomend an improvised staff, around eight feet long and about two inches thick. A ponty end, turning it into an improvised spear, is even better. But before he goes cutting on a near-by tree, he better get where they can't ride him down.
A handy stand of birch, aspen or like trees, thin and straight, growing close together, is the most likely shelter. Such a thicket on a hill side even better. Not only are they impossible to ride through, they are difficult to see through, even in winter. Get inside one, and then wack down a sapling to make your weapon.
Most likely, with six men after one, most of the bandits will dismount and persue, eliminating the problems of fighting men and horses together. Four or more opponents in a thicket is marginally better than six on horseback in the open. Or, once they are approaching the thicket, he can exit on the uphill side and try to evade.
If he had a longbow, this would be a different story. If they had one, this would be flash fiction.
Mike
Michael D. Turner
"Psyched Up" in _Turn the other Chick_-ed. E. Friesner-Baen books
www.baen.com
"Dutchman Rescue"in Continuum SF #6
www.continuumsciencefiction.com/orders.htm
"An Incident at Black Tongue Tavern" in _Bash Down the Door and Slice Open the Badguy_ from Fantasist Enterprises:
www.fantasistent.com/books/anthologies/BASH.php
"Stains" in Tales of the Talisman 3-1 www.zianet.com/hadrosaur/index.html
"Slushpiles" in Between the Kisses
www.samsdotpublishing.com/betweenkisses/TurnerSlushPileS.htm |
| Posted By : Hermit - 12/11/2007 1:20 PM | | In a rock-bedded stream, he could improvise a sling fairly easily and use that to unhorse a couple before they reach threat range. Then he takes to the higher rocks and or to the trees and deals with them one by one. How is the current? Maybe there's white water he can run toward - or a sinkhole in the rockiest part. He knocks one in the water who is ripped away in the current and shows up later looking for revenge . . .
BTW: earlier swords, especially calvary blades, were curved for tensil strength as much as anything. This is part of what made the Egyptians so superior when they switched from stone maces to the kopesh (I think that's what it's called), which is shaped somewhat like a question mark. The curve was the only way to get enough strength into the metal to make it strong enough to operate as a weapon. Long and straight swords tend to be so heavy partly because of the width and thickness of the metal necessary to maintain integrity.
Literarily speaking: More prolific than sin! |
| Posted By : RHFay - 12/11/2007 1:50 PM | |
If the woods are close enough that the hero can make it to the woods before he gets cut down by the horsemen, then I would say "head for the woods" would be his best bet.
Even the "make a spear" isn't going to work too well if he's being actively persued. Would these nasty rogues sit back and wait while he fashioned a spear to even the odds? It just might occur in a chivalric situation, knight versus knight, if honour came into play, but I think bandits would just ambush him while he was fashioning his spear.
If the hero has any sort of woodcraft, he may be able to avoid the bandits until the odds a bit more even.
I wouldn't put my chances on being able to use the stream. If a man can wade into it, I would bet a horse can, too. And again, would the bandits give him a chance to search for a sinkhole or white water? Even if he discovered one by chance, would he make it there in time?
There are plenty of medieval examples of fights occurring actually at or even in fords in rivers. There was a cavalry skirmish in the Blanchetaque ford in the Somme River prior to the battle of Crecy in 1346.
Maybe pulling one bandit off his horse would work for your hero, if he could avoid getting killed first, but only if the bandits are widely separated. If not, the others could swarm in and overwhelm him. Five to one is still pretty bad odds, even for a trained warrior. And the bandits are unlikely to fight fair.
I would definitely opt for the woods.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!" Andrew of Armar.
|
| Posted By : Hermit - 12/12/2007 2:37 PM | Correction: I meant "khopesh", the Sumerian/Egyptian sickle-sword
Literarily speaking: More prolific than sin! |
| Posted By : T A Markitan - 12/12/2007 4:29 PM | If the bandits are riding pilfered plow horses, the river could really help you out. Horses have personality quirks just like everybody else.
I have an old mare that hates water, when she was young she would balk, sidestep, crow-hop, rear, and sometimes try to jump even the smallest stream.
Rushing water with all kinds of loose, jagged rocks shifting under their feet is going to slow down even a brave horse, of course it will also slow down your protag.
Two horses balk, one gets halfway into the stream and panics, that gets you down to three mounted riders, at least for a few moments.
Being on the back of a panicked horse in the water is no place you want to be.
I do horrible things to punctuation. |
| Posted By : Hamstersbane - 12/12/2007 4:37 PM | He pulls out his +12 Wand of Oh No You Din't from his Bag of Keeping Stuff In and turns them all in to bunnies!
Sorry, I know it doesn't help, but I was inspired by the other post about RPG fiction.
Jeff Parish
Jennings Grove, an online horror serial novel
|
| Posted By : MattDempsey - 12/12/2007 8:44 PM | If they are ill disciplined bandits then its not 6 vs 1.
Its 6 individuals against 1 man.
I say let them close a little and do a little trash talk. When one plucks up the courage to have a go at your hero he can dispatch this single rider with the aplomb of a seasoned warrior.
What would the bandits do then? I think they might call it quits and back off. There's no reason for them to stay and risk being hurt for little reward.
That gives you the option of using them again later.
If it was me I think I would give the hero a bit of a wound because I am a great believer in cruelty to my characters. |
| Posted By : Dragon Angel - 12/12/2007 11:13 PM |
Hamstersbane said...He pulls out his +12 Wand of Oh No You Din't from his Bag of Keeping Stuff In and turns them all in to bunnies! Sorry, I know it doesn't help, but I was inspired by the other post about RPG fiction.
I'm a little behind in the rules, but I thought the pluses were only supposed to go up to 5.
read free fiction and poetry at http://www.geocities.com/davidolson22/index.html
Part dark, part light. And gooey in the middle. |
| Posted By : Hearthweru - 12/13/2007 8:43 AM |
Dragon Angel said...
Hamstersbane said...He pulls out his +12 Wand of Oh No You Din't from his Bag of Keeping Stuff In and turns them all in to bunnies! Sorry, I know it doesn't help, but I was inspired by the other post about RPG fiction.
I'm a little behind in the rules, but I thought the pluses were only supposed to go up to 5.
Must be a houserule or an invocation of Rule 0
'Haiku Short' at Liar's League...
'Grimble' at Southern Ocean Review...
|
| Posted By : Hermit - 12/13/2007 10:32 AM |
MattDempsey said...
If they are ill disciplined bandits then its not 6 vs 1.
Its 6 individuals against 1 man.
I say let them close a little and do a little trash talk. When one plucks up the courage to have a go at your hero he can dispatch this single rider with the aplomb of a seasoned warrior.
What would the bandits do then? I think they might call it quits and back off. There's no reason for them to stay and risk being hurt for little reward.
That gives you the option of using them again later.
If it was me I think I would give the hero a bit of a wound because I am a great believer in cruelty to my characters.
By way of agreeing on this point - which others have covered as well - I'd like to add here that this points to a huge differentiation: brawl or battle? In a street fight against more than one person, you pick the baddest looking baddie and whack his so impressively that he begs mercy or drops like a stone; seeing this, his lackies jeer at either him or you and back off. In a professional battle . . . very different. But then the character of the group and its leader (or lack thereof) comes into play as well. If there is a bully strong-arming them into doing his will, your hero need only throw a rock hard enough to knock him from his horse and then push his head under water until he's either dead or senseless - better senseless as killing him might provoke an urge for revenge by the other five.
And then whip out your lute and play them a song so tearful they go blind, rob them, steal their horses, and have a very merry Yule!
Literarily speaking: More prolific than sin!
|
| Posted By : RHFay - 12/13/2007 5:35 PM | It seems to be taking an awful risk, hoping that the others won't cut you down while your taking care of the biggest baddie. Might work, but then again, it might not.
I, for one, wouldn't rely on that strategy. They might be six individuals, but all it takes is one well-placed blow to end it all.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!" Andrew of Armar.
|
| Posted By : Dragon Angel - 12/13/2007 10:38 PM | They don't even need to hit you, just run you over with the horse.
read free fiction and poetry at http://www.geocities.com/davidolson22/index.html
Part dark, part light. And gooey in the middle. |
| Posted By : Keralen - 12/14/2007 9:45 AM | |
I really do love this forum.
Let's make it interesting. He misses the bad guys at the massacre site, but later finds out where they live. By now he has four good fighters with him. The bad guys have kidnapped his little sister. Hero wouldn't mind slicing off a couple of pieces'a villain, but finding her is his fixation; he's willing to die to save her. The baddies' place is a normal, unfortified farm on a fjord. Hero doesn't even know for sure the sister is there. 11th century Europe; no military or military weapons. The baddies are sadistic raiders: one of them is a berserker, the rest just fight dirty.
Strategies? I do have a kind of complex idea, but just wanna see what you all come up with.  |
| Posted By : Rob Mancebo - 12/14/2007 12:07 PM |
Keralen said...
I really do love this forum.
Let's make it interesting. He misses the bad guys at the massacre site, but later finds out where they live. By now he has four good fighters with him. The bad guys have kidnapped his little sister. Hero wouldn't mind slicing off a couple of pieces'a villain, but finding her is his fixation; he's willing to die to save her. The baddies' place is a normal, unfortified farm on a fjord. Hero doesn't even know for sure the sister is there. 11th century Europe; no military or military weapons. The baddies are sadistic raiders: one of them is a berserker, the rest just fight dirty.
Strategies? I do have a kind of complex idea, but just wanna see what you all come up with. - Egil would have just tossed burning brush onto the roof when they were having supper and killed whoever rushed out that wasn't his sister. (Remembering that dwellings weren't big on windows or multiple doors.)
- Others, less huge and violent, would've probably used the old stand-by of waiting till they were drunk and went to bed. After a successful raid, a celibration was in order. Lots of Iron Age folks hit after hours when no one was prepared. It made for a very simple raid. I know it seems simple and you'd think they'd be ready for it, but history says not. The Apache were counter-attacked in the same manner numerous times. Everyone's got to have a party when they get back from a raid. It makes following them closely a wise tactic.
|
| Posted By : MattDempsey - 12/14/2007 1:39 PM | If the primary concern is the sister then the attack has to be quick enough so she cannot be killed or used as a hostage and capture at least one of the baddies to interrogate in case the sister is elsewhere.
A secondary goal would be to remove the mobility of the nasty folk by denying them their horses either by stealing or killing them.
One problem with waiting until those inside the farm are drunk is the potential for harm to any innocents inside, the longer she is in the clutches of savage villans and all that that might entail. Perhaps an attack as soon as the farm comes into view is appropriate?
If the plan was mine to make, I would wait until dark. The enemy would not be wearing its heavy armour and tend not to have weapons to hand. At some point in the evening, someone is bound to leave the farm, to check on the horses or to empty a bladder. This would be my target for the prisoner. With someone from the inside leaving the farm door would probably be unlocked. Once one of my comrades takes the weak bladdered baddie in hand I, with the rest of my merry band would storm in and kill as quickly as possible.
Assuming the farmhouse is small then how many people can realistically fight inside it. I might send another of my helpers to do the horses. That would leave 2 well armed and ready warriors against 5 ill prepared, drunken bandits without weapons instantly to hand within a confined space.
Just a few thoughts anyway.
:) |
| Posted By : Jaqhama - 12/17/2007 8:53 AM |
crystalwizard said...How about giving him a crossbow and a couple of bolts?
A long bow, some distance, shoot the guy on the last horse first.
So the ones in front don't know they're numbers are being depleted.
As the lead horse approaches, shoot it, and any remaning horses.
Now either shoot the riders on foot, or hack and slash with your sword.
An Uzi and a dirt bike would probably not go astray either?
You can read some of my stories here: Swamp Story. Down South. Florida Haze.Wild Justice...
|
| Posted By : cussedness - 12/17/2007 2:14 PM | One of my characters, Darcy MacIver always stealing the horses and then fires the barn to get the attention of the nasties inside.
Janrae Frank
I have no skeletons in my closet, they are all hanging from the yardarm.
Once there were three brothers, Brandrahoon the vampire, Isranon called the Dawnhand, speaker to spirits, and Waejonan the Accursed, first of sa’necari. Isranon defied his brothers and was destroyed, his descendants forced into the darkness.
Blood Rites
www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook29989.htm
website
www.janraefrank.com
Darkzone
www.janraefrank.com/Vanilla.1.0.1/ |
| Posted By : Steven the Git - 12/17/2007 3:30 PM | | One versus several is bad enough, but one versus sevral horseman is asking for it.
Still, if the terrain is a problem then the horses could be trouble for the riders. You also have the fact riders will have to reach out and down for you, if all anyone has are longswords. Best bet would be keep low, get under the horses, cut them down if you ahve to.
The woods would be the best bet, if dense enough horsemen would be in real trouble.
In any confrontation between one and several is whether the several can act as a unit or get in each other's way. So much depends on the quality of the lone fighter and those he faces. |
| Posted By : Daniel - 12/17/2007 6:59 PM | A rider -- with stirrups --and a long lance or even a heavy sword could take out several guys on foot.
It would be like nuking just one guy on foot. The horse alone -- if it was a trained war-horse -- could just stomp his brains out.
And would.
Six mounted against one on foot -- that one guy better be Kane or Conan -- and even then, I ain't likin' his odds.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Rob Santa - 12/17/2007 9:42 PM | Your guy is screwed, glued and tatooed. Really, if you assume your riders have any mounted training whatsoever, there's no contest. Speaking of Bruce Lee earlier, I'm reminded of a few scenes where he's standing in a circle fighting dozens of men. It's impressive, but he's fighting them one at a time. Had two gone it at the same time, he's toast. One need only bear hug him and drag him down (that's how it's taught to teachers in schools, by the way) and wait for someone else to jump in.
So your first mounted soldier runs him down; it's what horses do best. If the first horse doesn't succeed, the second guy is right there to finish the job (with that oh-so-effective backhand passing strong with the saber). And there's still four more horses behind him.
For laughs, about three years ago, I asked my cowboy buddy (well, as much of a cowboy as you can have in Rhode Island) to let me use him for mounted target practice. I was armed with a simple staff, about a six foot length of bamboo. He had a three foot length. Of the few dozen shots I took at him (and I've got some skills, mind you) I hit him maybe three or four times. He easily landed blows to my shoulders and head (hooray, Bell bicycle helmets!). And the horse pushed me around and stomped me twice; nothing serious, just on the top of the foot. A trained horse would have bit me, knocked me down, and so on. I'll never try it again, but I'm glad I have the personal experience to use in my writing. And all for the price of a bottle of Jim Beam. Go figure.
However, all that aside, this is a fantasy you're writing. You get to make up the rules. It doesn't have to be realistic; it only has to be believable. If thre average reader thinks a guy can take on several mounted soldiers with your tactics, then go for it.
Rob Santa
Hopelessly Addicted Writer of Speculative Fiction
and CEO of Ricasso Press |
| Posted By : Daniel - 12/17/2007 9:49 PM | Remember the "Draco Falcon" series anyone? The first book had a convincing example of Draco's sidekick Wulf dismounting on purpose to fight against dis-mounted enemies. Tricks he'd picked up from fighting the "Saracens" during the Crusades.
This was really cool, but it wouldn't work against multiple opponents who were mounted, I don't think.
I mean six horses themselves with no riders could probably take out a single armed man if they had a mind to do so...
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Rob Mancebo - 12/17/2007 10:57 PM |
Rob Santa said...
For laughs, about three years ago, I asked my cowboy buddy (well, as much of a cowboy as you can have in Rhode Island) to let me use him for mounted target practice. I was armed with a simple staff, about a six foot length of bamboo. He had a three foot length. Of the few dozen shots I took at him (and I've got some skills, mind you) I hit him maybe three or four times. He easily landed blows to my shoulders and head (hooray, Bell bicycle helmets!). And the horse pushed me around and stomped me twice; nothing serious, just on the top of the foot. A trained horse would have bit me, knocked me down, and so on. I'll never try it again, but I'm glad I have the personal experience to use in my writing. And all for the price of a bottle of Jim Beam. Go figure.
- For research purposes, that was an excellent drill. Good idea!
|
| Posted By : Charles Gramlich - 12/18/2007 1:50 PM | I think the hero needs to take out at least a couple of his foes at a distance, or make sure he takes the horsemen into the trees. The harder it is for him to defeat the enemy, the more thrilling it is for the reader. At least that's my policy.
Charles Gramlich
|
| Posted By : Daniel - 12/18/2007 3:29 PM | I'm a little behind in the rules, but I thought the pluses were only supposed to go up to 5.
***
"But these go to eleven...."
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 12/18/2007 3:31 PM | make sure he takes the horsemen into the trees
***
The old "rough terrain" equalizer, eh? That's not a bad idea. But horses can outrun a guy on foot -- so he better be really close to the trees!
That rough terrain thing does work, though -- just look at the battle of the Wilderness -- later one -- when a vastly outnumbered and under-equipped Lee ambushed Grant's army in the woods. Fought for months, non-plussed, draw. Demoralizing.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Dave Hardy - 12/18/2007 11:38 PM | I recall a story that might relevant. It's from Claudius Unimanus about a battle between the Romans and Spanish tribesmen. Unimanus' forces had been worsted, but the Spanish followed guerrilla tactics and withdrew. A lone Spaniard became separated and was surrounded by Roman horsemen. The lone warrior pierced a Roman's horse with a spear and then cut off the rider's head with a single blow of his sword. The other Romans fell back under the Spaniard's contemptuous gaze.
Did it really happen? Why would Unimanus lie about his men? Why did they fall back? Did they fear an ambush? Had they just had enough? Was it because no one told them to go forward? Was it simply that the lone warrior was ready to go farther than they dared?
You can fill in the blanks any way you wish.
Dave Hardy
Fire & Sword
Fire & Sword Blog
Joy Girl Commando |
| Posted By : erazmus - 1/2/2008 4:03 PM | Its the "balls" factor. Sure, they horseman know they can take him, eventually. Its the eventually that has to pause them.
The same theory applies to the lone lawman standing down an angry mob. Two rounds in the shotgun and six in the pistol, any descent sized mob can run him over, but who goes first?
Establishing that the next guy in line is toast, no matter what his buddies do afterward, can take the enthusiasm out of the group. So spectacularly slaughtering one, as in Unimanus's example, could work.
Or, in the other nine times out of ten, you get a couple and the others turn you into paste.
Mike
Michael D. Turner
"Psyched Up" in _Turn the other Chick_-ed. E. Friesner-Baen books
www.baen.com
"Dutchman Rescue"in Continuum SF #6
www.continuumsciencefiction.com/orders.htm
"An Incident at Black Tongue Tavern" in _Bash Down the Door and Slice Open the Badguy_ from Fantasist Enterprises:
www.fantasistent.com/books/anthologies/BASH.php
"Stains" in Tales of the Talisman 3-1 www.zianet.com/hadrosaur/index.html
"Slushpiles" in Between the Kisses
www.samsdotpublishing.com/betweenkisses/TurnerSlushPileS.htm |
| Posted By : Dave Hardy - 1/2/2008 8:23 PM | Erazmus said...
Or, in the other nine times out of ten, you get a couple and the others turn you into paste.
Hey, I never said I was eager to try it for real!
smilewinkgrin
It's a good lesson in psychology and dramatics though. You could think about whose pov you're using: the lone man or the riders? Do you give the lone guy a heart of ice or is he trembling inside. You don't have to end it the way a reader expects either: start off with he's doomed, then make it look like he drives off the baddies, then BAM, a baddie sucker punches him with a Parthian shot (the hero should never tackle that many Parthians!) 
Dave Hardy
Fire & Sword
Fire & Sword Blog
Joy Girl Commando |
| Posted By : Nik - 1/4/2008 1:18 AM | Rob Santa said...
For laughs, about three years ago, I asked my cowboy buddy (well, as much of a cowboy as you can have in Rhode Island) to let me use him for mounted target practice. I was armed with a simple staff, about a six foot length of bamboo. He had a three foot length. Of the few dozen shots I took at him (and I've got some skills, mind you) I hit him maybe three or four times. He easily landed blows to my shoulders and head (hooray, Bell bicycle helmets!). And the horse pushed me around and stomped me twice; nothing serious, just on the top of the foot. A trained horse would have bit me, knocked me down, and so on. I'll never try it again, but I'm glad I have the personal experience to use in my writing. And all for the price of a bottle of Jim Beam. Go figure.
Picturing this whole scenario is making me laugh.
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 |
| Posted By : muskrat - 1/8/2008 7:42 PM | 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. There is a white band near the top of the hoof called the coronary band, which is very sensitive, and stepping on that will definitely provoke a response. Also, downing a horse, with or without rider is not that hard, grabbing a rein and pulling back on it or even grabbing the bit and pulling on it in the right way will down a horse with one hand, rider and all and it would be difficult to defend against that from up top. You also have to bear in mind that swinging a sword, a big sword, on a horse is difficult, horses move where the weight moves (or away depending on how they are trained but I think it would be safe to say that a warhorse would move under weight). And six after one, would be easy to get them tangled up in each other while you scoot under and away. A horse coming down on a rider might injure a leg, if armored, then the armor would likely dent, and the injury be worse. Also, you never see it because its so cruel, but one guy could take down six horses fast with leg or other sword inflicted injuries, provided they are not barrelling down on him, they'd have to be circling. And it would be hard for more than one mounted person to charge a single person without running into each other. Maybe two could try to catch the guy in the middle, but even so, they'd have to make sure they didn't kill each other. I say, if he's quick and smart, he can get out of it.
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 |
| Posted By : Nik - 1/8/2008 10:18 PM | 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. There is a white band near the top of the hoof called the coronary band, which is very sensitive, and stepping on that will definitely provoke a response. Also, downing a horse, with or without rider is not that hard, grabbing a rein and pulling back on it or even grabbing the bit and pulling on it in the right way will down a horse with one hand, rider and all and it would be difficult to defend against that from up top. You also have to bear in mind that swinging a sword, a big sword, on a horse is difficult, horses move where the weight moves (or away depending on how they are trained but I think it would be safe to say that a warhorse would move under weight). And six after one, would be easy to get them tangled up in each other while you scoot under and away. A horse coming down on a rider might injure a leg, if armored, then the armor would likely dent, and the injury be worse. Also, you never see it because its so cruel, but one guy could take down six horses fast with leg or other sword inflicted injuries, provided they are not barrelling down on him, they'd have to be circling. And it would be hard for more than one mounted person to charge a single person without running into each other. Maybe two could try to catch the guy in the middle, but even so, they'd have to make sure they didn't kill each other. I say, if he's quick and smart, he can get out of it.
This definitely leaves room for heroism. Good to hear this from someone with experience with horses.
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 |
| Posted By : Rob Mancebo - 1/8/2008 10:39 PM |
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/
|
| Posted By : Nik - 1/8/2008 10:56 PM | 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 |
| Posted By : darkbow - 1/8/2008 11:45 PM | 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." |
| Posted By : Nik - 1/8/2008 11:49 PM | 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 |
| Posted By : Keralen - 1/9/2008 10:15 AM | 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. |
| Posted By : H.P. Lovesauce - 1/9/2008 3:22 PM | 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. |
| Posted By : muskrat - 1/9/2008 5:19 PM |
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 |
| Posted By : Keralen - 1/10/2008 9:24 AM |
H.P. Lovesauce said...
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.
Aiee, no!  Which book? Gettin' your idea swiped is bad, but having it done by a hack is just mean.
Muskrat, thanks for all the amazing info. I'm keeping a copy if you don't mind! It's great to get the two sides: your huge practical experience, and Rob's encyclopedic learning. You're new - you'll see soon that what Rob doesn't know about military history ain't worth looking for. |
| Posted By : H.P. Lovesauce - 1/10/2008 1:07 PM | 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!). |
| Posted By : Rob Mancebo - 1/10/2008 4:33 PM | | 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.
|
| Posted By : muskrat - 1/10/2008 7:02 PM | 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 |
| Posted By : Rob Mancebo - 1/11/2008 8:16 AM |
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?
|
| Posted By : Rob Mancebo - 1/11/2008 8:21 AM | 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." > |
|
| |