Category Archives: Uncategorized

Chariots in Warfare (Part 1/3)

Somebodycallixii and beholdaman:

Even though we completed a project we have elected to split our blog post into three for ease of reading. This first section is about the process we used to build our model chariot.

Supplies

Supplies for building the model chariot

We wanted to imitate the actual methods the Egyptians used to build their chariots as closely as we could.  We referenced several of the chariots discovered in the tomb of King Tut to build our replica. These chariots are some of the best examples we have of an Egyptian chariots, they would have been built around 1350 BC, and detailed drawings were made when the tomb was discovered that we used for further reference beyond the photos. The chariot we chose to build our model of would have been more of a parade chariot than a war chariot, the only major difference is the covering on the front of the chariot. A war chariot would have had a leather covering to reduce weight rather that the metal plated wood we replicated on our model.

process3

Wood bending

process1

Difficulty with the wheels

They used steam to bend their wood, we actually submerged our wood in hot water because it was faster, but it produced the same result. We did not have the means to build several miniature jigs to hold our pieces at the proper angles, so we settled for using binder clips to clamp the pieces to whatever we could find that looked like the correct angle. This worked for most of the bend pieces, but the bend required for the wheel spokes proved too much for the low quality wood we had to work with, most of the pieces broke enough that they would not have been stable. Eventually we had to give up on making the spokes authentically and used single pieces to represent the six spokes.  

The Egyptians bound their wood with strips of rawhide or leather, which we represented at some points with white string. We decided to use hot glue for our model because we did not have the patience to wrap and tie that much string, though we did imitate the appearance of rawhide on some joints of our model. The pharaoh’s chariot would have been finely carved and decorated with metal leaf, we are poor college students, so we opted for metallic sharpie on paper instead.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Bayeux Tapestry Recreation Project

The Bayeux Tapestry is a recording of the Battle of Hastings, and was probably made in the 1000s and commissioned by Odo of Bayeux, half-brother to William the Conqueror. It’s over 70 meters long and was embroidered over a period of 10 years by multiple nuns. There is a replica in England, while the original is displayed in Normandy, France. The Tapestry depicts the invasion of England by William the Conqueror, who led his Norman tribes against the Saxons, who were led by Harold, Earl of Wessex. William’s victory against Harold in the Battle of Hastings was a key part in the Norman invasion of England.

King Edward had offered William the throne of Britain in 1051, and died in 1066 of illness, leaving the throne to Harold. The Normans claimed that William had prior claim to the throne, and so William prepared for invasion while Harold prepared to fight back, while also fighting off other petitioners to the throne. Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, but it took William until 1070 to completely appease the region. He built many castles and other fortified buildings in order to maintain the peace. The Battle of Hastings was the last successful invasion of Britain. The Norman cavalry consisted of mercenaries and nobles, and bows and crossbows were used. The British army consisted of only infantry who used battleaxes and shieldwalls.

There is debate over whether the Tapestry is an accurate record of the Norman invasion and the Battle of Hastings. While some things may be accurate, others may have been altered or exaggerated. Because we don’t know for sure who created it, we can’t be sure any of the information is correct unless confirmed through other sources. The Tapestry has been repaired or altered in places over time as well, and because embroidery is not accurate to details, we can assume that the armies were not set up the way they are in the tapestry. Each scene in the tapestry is separate, although the scenes are connected, so the linear timeline is probably accurate enough granted that we take into consideration the odd layout of the figures within the tapestry itself. The Norman and British soldiers are also dressed the same way, and so the only differentiation is whether they are on horseback or not.

The Tapestry consists of English style embroidery and was likely made to fit a traditional European rectangular building. The art and language used is similar to other Anglo-Saxon art of the time and is told from the point of view of the Normans (depicting several Norman soldiers by name), and so was likely made in England after William took over.

I wasn’t able to completely finish the section, but I got just over half of it done. When I finish it I can upload a picture here.

Bayeux Tapestry. Romanesque Europe (English or Norman). c. 1066-1080 C.E. Wool embroidery on linen.

Wilson, David. The Bayeux Tapestry: The Complete Tapestry in Color. 1985.

Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry at Reading Museum http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/

Dodwell, C. R. “The Bayeux Tapestry and the French Secular Epic.” The Burlington Magazine, vol. 108, no. 764, 1966, pp. 549–560. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/875133.

Bayeux Tapestry Creation http://www.bayeux-tapestry.org.uk/whomadethetapestry.htm

bayeux9bayeux8bayeux7bayeux6bayeux5bayeux4bayeux3.jpgbayeux2.jpgbayeux1

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Siege of Jerusalem in the first Crusade

Here we will talk about two things regarding the Siege of Jerusalem. I will mention why the 1st Crusade started in the first place, and then I will move on to what the actual battle was like.

There are two main reasons why the 1st crusade started. The first reason being that Hakim, part of the Fatmid caliph, ordered the Holy Sepulchre to be destroyed, and they leveled most of it -leaving mostly just the first floor-. The second reason being that the Crusaders were responding to the preaching of Urban II.” the turks had in their frenzy invaded and ravaged the churches of God in the east and seized the Holy City.” Urban had proposed that people should go on a religious conquest to Jerusalem to liberate the Pagans and Muslims of their sins at Clermont cathedral in Auverne on Tuesday, November 27th 1095. (Tyerman. p27&p58) These two factors caused a wave of a Crusading spirit in Europe. Some would compare this situation to a more recent event; Osama Bin Laden’s attack on the Twin Towers and President Bush’s call to battle.

The crusaders marched mostly unopposed into Palestine in May of 1099, reaching Jerusalem on June 7th. Pressured by the Egyptian army coming to help the defenders of Jerusalem, the crusaders started siege on Jerusalem right away (Tyerman pg. 60). Jerusalem fell in 5 weeks, in which the Crusaders were able to turn around and defend their occupation of Jerusalem against the Egyptians.

143834-004-3CC122BE

Depiction of what a typical battering ram would have looked like during the Siege of Jerusalem in 1099.  “Battering Ram.” Encyclopedia Brittanica. Accessed December 3, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/technology/battering-ram/media/56117/147525

One major thing that affected the strategy of the crusaders was that the city was big enough that the city could not be entirely surrounded by the Crusading armies. The crusaders originally started by attacking only the west wall, but then split the army in half and attacked the west section of the north wall (Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders, Godfrey of Bouillon, Tancred) and the south wall (Raymond of St. Gilles) simultaneously. On the 8th of July, the crusaders walked around the city of Jerusalem, expecting similar results of what had happened at Jericho (Riley-Smith). Between July 9th and 10th of 1099, The Crusaders built siege equipment -including a siege tower and a battering ram- close to the quadrangular tower. They then disassembled the equipment and reassembled it on the northeastern side of the city. The reasoning behind that is because that part of the city was not only less fortified, but also had flatter ground for the equipment to rest on. (France).

20181128_151119

The arrangement of the Crusading armies in relation to Jerusalem from July 7th to July 12th. France, John. Victory in the East: A Military history of the First Crusade. Cambridge University Press. 1994. pp. 339. Figure 17b.

The 14th was spent filling in a ditch to get the siege tower across.  Once the equipment was across the ditch, the equipment was slowly inched closer to the outside wall. In an attempt to stop the crusaders from advancing, the defenders attempted unsuccessfully to light the two structures on fire, in which the Crusaders used precious water to put out. (France).

The Crusaders had their battering ram leading the charge, with the siege tower following close behind it. The battering ram got up to the outside wall and was successful in forming a breach in the outside wall; there was a problem, however. The inside wall of the city was much more fortified and the crusaders knew that the battering ram would not suffice. It is a good thing that they thought to build a siege tower, but the battering ram was in the way of it. The ram could not go backwards because the siege tower was in the way, and the ram could not be moved forward and then turned to the side because of the proximity of the two walls. So, the Crusaders lit it on fire. The Defenders saw this and counteracted by trying to dump water off the wall on to the battering ram. They were unsuccessful and the ram burned to the ground. Afterwards, the crusaders were allowed to move their siege tower forward (France). In a final attempt to keep the siege tower away from the wall, the defenders strung a chain between the wall and the siege tower and attacked a flaming log onto it. This would have worked to burn down the siege tower, except the crusaders were smart enough to have soaked the tower in vinegar to make it fire resistant.  The Crusaders eventually got a hold of the log and ended up pulling it down and out of the way (France). After fighting the defenders off the wall, two knights from Tournai were the first to cross, followed by the Lorrainers. (Riley-Smith).

On the south side of the city, the crusaders were not doing so well.  The crusaders had a vicious time trying to fill in the moat that the defenders had built so that they could get their siege engines across, and even when that was completed, the battle got even tougher. The defenders made use of their wooden mallets by sticking a nail through it, and then lighting the mallet on fire, making a perfect fire starter for any object that the mallet gets stuck to. The crusaders also had to content with a machine called the noviter adinvento machinamento. This machine was used to launch flaming balls of resin, pitch, and hair into the crusader’s camps, causing hard to quench fires; and it was padded to the extent that the crusaders could not destroy it with it’s missiles. To counteract the machine, the crusaders launched a beam with a grappling hook on the end that grabbed the padding, in which the crusaders were able to pull the padding away from the machine and destroy it with missiles. Even with that small victory, the Crusaders were considering surrender. The main thing that stopped them was hearing that the north had breached through, so it was only a matter of time before the defenders were sandwiched in. Upon hearing the news, the crusaders made an advance (France).

*It is also important to mention that part of the reason why the Southern front was having so much trouble is that the Crusader’s camp was within bow shot of the wall.

Once the Northern front had gotten through, the defenders got sandwiched into the citadel, where the defenders made a truce with the Crusaders. The army would be spared, in exchange that the Citadel would surrender. Both sides agreed. However, a few days later, the Crusaders realized that there was a problem with keeping the people of Jerusalem alive. The Egyptian army was on their way to take back Jerusalem and the Crusaders did not want to have to deal with a rebellion within the city while trying to defend Jerusalem against the Egyptians, so the Crusaders massacred everyone (France). That marks the end of the Jerusalem Siege during the First Crusade.

Citations:

Riley-Smith, Johnathan. The Crusades: A History. Bloomsbury Academic. 3rd edition. 2014. pp. 64-65.

Tyerman, Christopher. God’s War: A New History of the Crusades. Belknap Press. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2006. pp. 27,58,& 60.

France, John. Victory in the East: A Military history of the First Crusade. Cambridge University Press. 1994. pp. 348, 350

“Battering Ram.” Encyclopedia Brittanica. Acessed December 3, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/technology/battering-ram/media/56117/147525

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Breeding Medieval Horses: Then And Now (Blog 6)

Leading up to the Middle Ages, a great deal of quality breeding horses had been lost due to a lack of need for well-bred riding horses and uncontrolled breeding. This was a significant factor in the way horses were bred during this time: based much more on size and ability than whether they shared bloodlines or defining features with the stock they were bred from. The Spanish were an exception: having already developed a reputation as a horse breeding land, they maintained several significant bloodlines and “Spanish horses” were renowned throughout Europe as the highest quality, and most expensive, horses.

Since the medieval war horse didn’t belong to any particular breed, nor do we have records of any of these horses’ bloodlines, it is unclear exactly what breeds it originated from. Popular theory usually suggests that the Spanish Jennet, a type of draft horse that was an ancestor to modern Andalusian and Friesian horses, was also the principle ancestor of the medieval warhorse. Another breed, known as the Nisaean breed (now extinct, but may be akin to the modern Turkmen horse or Akhal-Teke), is thought to have contributed to medieval breeding stock as many of these horses were brought back to Europe from the Crusades. Some sources from Germany also allude to quality horses from Scandinavia, though what breeds they are referring to is unknown.

caparison2.png

Depiction of destriers with light feathering on the legs, similar to modern draft breeds such as the Belgian and Percheron

Selective horse breeding became more common once the people realized how important good warhorses were to success in battle. The implementation of these practices was due in large part to the influence of Islamic culture both through the Crusades and the Moors’ invasion of Spain. Many of these cultures, especially the Arabs, kept detailed pedigrees of their horses through oral tradition. We have a very thorough knowledge of modern Barb and Arabian breeds as a result, and many breeders can trace their horses’ ancestry back almost a thousand years.

While most Europeans didn’t start keeping record of their horses’ pedigrees until the 13th century, the Spanish kept some of the earliest records of horse breeding on the continent. These were written mostly by Carthusian monks who, since they had the ability to read and write, were tasked with keeping records of breeding horses by the Spanish nobility. Hundreds of years of careful breeding resulted in what was known in Medieval times simply as the Spanish horse. Conversely, the English and French obtained much of their breeding stock by rounding up wild moor ponies.

fell pony

This is a Fell Pony, a small, stocky breed with feathered legs. The medieval destrier may have looked something like this.

The medieval warhorse is considered an extinct breed today. As the use of horses changed over time, so did the way people bred them and selected for traits. Horses have become gradually larger over time, small, stocky ponies were replaced by taller and lighter horses for riding, and huge, heavy draft breeds for farm work. The specific type of horse known as the destrier disappears from record around the 17th century, making it difficult to trace exactly what breeds evolved from it. Many modern draft breeds claim connection to the famed medieval warhorse, including the Percheron, Suffolk Punch, and Belgian. Some historians think this is likely, while others contend that the destrier would have been much smaller and somewhat lighter than the draft breeds, as well as being known for its “hot-blooded” nature. A suggested solution is that the destriers were crossed with more “cold-blooded” draft breeds as the use of horses shifted to farming, and the modern draft breeds evolved from there. The Friesian is often claimed to be a direct descendant of medieval French warhorses, though, again, the modern version of this breed must have evolved to some degree. Proponents of this theory often point to the previously mentioned practice in England and France of rounding up wild ponies to use for breeding. The Fell pony, a small, hardy breed found in the mountains between England and Scotland, is known to share ancestry with the Friesian. Many therefore argue that the breed has at least some relation to the medieval warhorse.

Works Cited:

“Horses in the Middle Ages.” Wikipedia. November 21, 2018. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_Middle_Ages.

Bennett, Matthew. The Medieval Warhorse: Origin, Development, and Redevelopment. Wiley Blackwell.

Hyland, Ann. The Medieval Warhorse from Byzantium to the Crusades. Royal Asiatic Society, 1994.

Bennett, Matthew. “The medieval warhorse reconsidered.” In Medieval Knighthood, 5. Papers from the Sixth Strawberry Hill Conference 1994, pp. 19-40. 1994.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Warhorses in Europe and the Middle East (Blog 5)

Middle Eastern, or “Oriental” horses, were bred with much more precision than European horses. Breeds such as the Arabian, Akhal-Teke, and Barb developed in this region and are all considered to be among the oldest horse breeds on the planet due to their long history of selective breeding practices and careful pedigree records. People in the Middle East also bred for different characteristics than Europeans. Part of this was due to climate—Europeans tended to favor the shaggy highland ponies that could withstand cold temperatures as well as breeds with feather around their feet that protected their legs while traveling difficult terrain. Middle Eastern horses on the other hand were thin skinned and much lighter and slimmer in build.

arabian.png

An Arabian horse in the desert. Antoine-Jean Gros, c. 1810

Both regions used their horses for war as well as for ceremony and sport. As previously noted, European cavalry orchestrated its offense by charging enemy lines, using the strength and numbers of their horses to overpower their opponents. Middle Eastern people on the other hand often raided enemy settlements and needed a fast, agile horse to do so. Often very lightly armored, these horses were also characterized by extreme endurance and hardiness, with some legends saying they could run for fifty miles without slowing. While these claims may have been exaggerated somewhat, modern Arabian horses are the undisputed champions of endurance races and are one of the hardiest breeds in existence today. The breed is also characterized by having greater bone density than other horses along with lean muscle, giving them a strength not often attributed to their relatively small size (14.1—15.1 hands is the modern breed standard height).

Both Middle Eastern and European warhorses were considered to be “hot-blooded” breeds. This trait, broadly defined as being spirited, quick to learn, and generally more suited to speed and agility than strength, was an important characteristic for a warhorse to have. The horses from both cultures displayed this trait very differently however: many sources point to European warhorses as being fierce and difficult to handle, while the Arabian horse in particular traveled with nomadic groups and was prized for its cooperative and good-natured disposition. Middle Eastern people also rode mares into battle almost exclusively, which could have been a contributing factor in their horses’ friendliness and how easy they were to control. Mares could also be kept close together without fighting, while the stallions favored by Europeans sometimes turned on one another during battle. Additionally, mares tended to be much quieter (stallions often neigh to establish dominance), and the nighttime raids the warhorses were most often used for required stealth.

arabian warhorse.png

“Mameluck en Attaque” 18th-century painting by Carle Vernet depicting an Arabian warhorse

Additionally, Middle Eastern cultures such as the Bedouin people prized their horses much more highly than Europeans, who saw them more as a commodity that could be easily replaced. To protect their horses from theft, the Bedouin often allowed them to stay inside the family tent at night. As only the horses with a good temperament were used for breeding, the Arabian horse has evolved over time to have a good relationship with people. The draft breeds that (may or may not have) descended from the European warhorse can be quite friendly, but no other breed of horse has had quite the same long-term partnership with humans as the Arabian. This partnership was important because humans were the only source of food and water in the desert, and both the nomadic people and the horses had to learn to work together to survive.

Works Cited:

Głażewska, Iwona. “Speculations on the origin of the Arabian horse breed.” Livestock Science 129, no. 1-3 (2010): 49-55.

An Arabian horse in the desert. Antoine-Jean Gros, c. 1810

Raber, Karen, and Treva Tucker, eds. The culture of the horse: Status, discipline, and identity in the early modern world. Springer, 2016.

Bennett, Matthew. The Medieval Warhorse: Origin, Development, and Redevelopment. Wiley Blackwell.

Hyland, Ann. The Medieval Warhorse from Byzantium to the Crusades. Royal Asiatic Society, 1994.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Horse Armor (Blog 4)

Horse armor, known as “barding,” was as important to the success of an army as the armor that knights wore. As armor technology became better and better, opposing armies began to target the knights’ more vulnerable horses, unseating the riders and making them easy prey for heavy infantry. The idea of putting armor on horses was not a new one, but prior to the middle ages it was made primarily of hardened leather (or metal scales in the case of the Byzantines) rather than chain mail and metal plating.

There were many different pieces of armor that horses could wear, but the amount of armoring they needed varied depending on the way a particular army used their cavalry. Some only wore chest and head pieces, while others were almost completely covered by armor.

chanfron.png

Open chanfron with rondel

A chanfron (or “shaffron”) was made of interlocking metal plates and was designed to protect a horse’s face. The size of these pieces varied, with some chanfrons covering only the forehead and top of the nose and others with hinged cheek plates that went down to the jowls and covers for the ears and eyes. Chanfrons often had a rounded spike in the center of the forehead called a rondel which, despite looking like a weapon, was purely decorative. The chanfron was known to be used by cavalry in ancient Greece, but wasn’t seen in Europe until the 12th century when metal armor began to be used for horses rather than hardened leather.

An open chanfron was open around the horse’s eyes, with some believing that this was done to allow full range of vision. More common were chanfrons with flanges protecting the eyes. While this helped keep a vulnerable part of the horse safe (enemies would often aim for the eyes of horses to try and get them to throw their riders or crash into other horses), it acted like a set of blinders and prevented the horse from seeing very far to the sides or behind. This in turn could cause the horse to panic in battle if they were surrounded by loud noises that they couldn’t see.

The criniere (also called a manefaire) was a series of segmented metal plates called lames used to protect a horse’s neck. Each piece was held together by cloth laces or leather straps, allowing the horse to bend its head while still maintaining the protection of the armor. Heavy cavalry often wore two sets of lames, one over the mane and another around the front and sides of the neck. Light cavalry only covered the mane, with thin leather straps running across the horse’s chest to hold it on. The criniere was often buckled or strapped to the chanfron to keep it in place. Additionally, it was common for chain mail to be attached to the top row of lames and wrapped around the neck for extra protection.

full armor.png

Full set of armor with plate croupiere, criniere, and peytral (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria.)

A croupiere was used to protect a horse’s hindquarters. Since this area faced away from a charge and was not likely to be targeted to bring a horse down, horses typically wore less or lighter armor on their hind end. Croupieres could be made of any combination of plate armor, chain mail, or leather. Chain mail was the most common, usually attached to the back of the saddle and draped over the horse’s hindquarters like a blanket. Plate armor, while providing better protection, wasn’t flexible like leather or chain mail and often had to be made too large so that the movement of the horse’s hind legs was not impeded. Additionally, there was no one-size-fits-all design for these types of croupieres, since horses vary in size and build. When they were used, plate croupieres were attached to the back of the saddle either by leather straps or a molded metal front piece to the armor that fit over the rear cantle.

peytral.png

Peytral with decorative openings, early 16th century, Germany

The flanchard was used to protect the horse’s flanks. It could be made of riveted metal plates sewn on top of leather, or a type of hardened leather called cuir bouilli, which was boiled and sealed with beeswax. Flanchards were attached to the saddle and usually had a strap that wrapped around either the front or the rear of the horse to keep the armor from pulling the saddle to the sides. This strap often took the form of a peytral, a curved band of metal that protected the horse’s chest and sometimes stretched as far back as the saddle. The flanchard sometimes had small round or oblong openings that allowed the rider to use spurs. Another piece often added to horses’ armor ensemble was metal plates or chainmail links riveted to the reins so they couldn’t be cut.

caparison.png

Two knights jousting, with horses in full caparison

Perhaps one of the most recognizable parts of medieval horses’ armor is the caparison. These were cloth coverings, often bearing heraldry designs, that could range in size from what was essentially a large saddle covering to blankets that covered the horse from neck to tail and nearly to the ground. It is not known exactly how well they functioned as armor, but modern reenactments have shown that a loose covering made of relatively thick material is reasonably good for blocking arrows and other projectiles, or at least lessening their impact. Caparisons may have also had an undercloth layer called a gambeson. These were quilted from linen or wool, and partially stuffed with horse hair or straw to provide padding. The caparison could also have had an underlayer of chain mail or flexible riveted plates, though this likely would have been used only by heavy cavalry as the traditional armor beneath combined with the full-body protection of the caparison would have been more than enough to protect the horse by itself, not to mention the excess weight of a full coat of chain mail would add unnecessary weight.

Heraldry and the display of a rider’s coat of arms was very important both in battle and in tournaments such as jousting. The caparison worn by a knight’s horse in particular usually displayed colors and symbols unique to its rider. The main tincture of a knight’s coat of arms was usually the base color of the caparison, with charges (symbols located on the shield of a coat of arms, often animals, mythical creatures, or geometric designs) painted or embroidered along the sides. The color of these designs could have multiple meanings: sometimes it represented the tincture (secondary or “top” color on a coat of arms) and other times it represented the knight’s livery colors (indication of a noble’s status or wealth).

Works Cited:

Breiding, Dirk H. “Horse Armor in Europe.” The Met. March 2010. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/hors/hd_hors.htm.

Breiding, Dirk H. “Horse armor in medieval and Renaissance Europe: An overview.” The Armored Horse in Europe (2005): 1480-1620.

Clark, John, ed. The medieval horse and its equipment, c. 1150-c. 1450. Vol. 5. Boydell Press, 2004.

Bennett, Matthew. The Medieval Warhorse: Origin, Development, and Redevelopment. Wiley Blackwell.

Shaffron (Horse’s Head Defense). Timeline of Art History, Metropolitan Museum of Art. In The Met. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/14.25.1664/.

“Barding.” Wikipedia. August 12, 2018. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barding.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Medieval Horse Training (Blog 3)

Warhorses needed to be at least somewhat trained before they could be ridden in battle. They had to learn to respond to cues from their rider’s legs rather than the reins, as the knights needed their hands free to wield weapons. Horses were known to kick and bite at enemies in the heat of battle, though it is not known whether they were trained to do so or if it was simply a natural response to the chaotic situation. Europeans were known to prefer stallions as warhorses, as their natural aggressive tendencies made them useful in battle and less likely to be frightened, but it is not known whether a significant number of stallions were actually used. If a mare nearby was in heat, a stallion quickly became a liability for anyone trying to control it. In addition, stallions often become very aggressive with one another, which presented a significant danger to them and their handlers. It would have been impractical to expect a bunch of stallions to line up close together in any sort of cavalry formation. However, some sources report that warhorses frequently fought each other in the middle of battle, often after their riders had been unseated or killed and no one was around to restrain them. They were most useful when it came to charging enemy lines and taking down soldiers on foot, so perhaps their tactical advantage would have outweighed the difficulty of handling them.

Jousting was another important way that warhorses learned the skills they needed for battle. Jousting tournaments were held frequently throughout the Middle Ages, and allowed a horse to get used to potentially frightening sights and sounds of lances striking armor and riders falling off around them. It also taught them to charge straight and respond to their rider’s cues, two skills that were essential to any good warhorse. It allowed them to build up their strength and endurance as well as get used to carrying the weight of a knight and his armor. The tournaments also gave knights an opportunity to test out prospective war horses and see which ones would be best suited for riding in battle.

jousting2.png

Depiction of a joust

While warhorses would have to build up their strength to some extent to perform at the necessary level, most of this was manifested as endurance and speed rather than actual physical strength needed to carry an armored rider. A common misconception surrounding knights’ armor is that it was very heavy—this often leads to the additional assumption that warhorses had to have been huge and draft-like to carry so much weight. Tournament armor was significantly heavier than field, or battle, armor, and still only weighed around 90 pounds. Field armor could weigh anywhere from 40 to 70 pounds, depending on whether the knight was part of a heavy or light cavalry, and the armor worn by the horse rarely weighed more than 70 pounds. All together this added up to around 1,100 to 1,400 pounds for (fully armored) horses being ridden in battle. As horses can easily carry around 30% of their body weight, such a load would have been reasonable for a heavier built riding horse, and a large draft breed would not have been necessary. Also worth noting is the need for horses within the 14-16 hand range so that knights could mount without assistance. While this was likely due in some part to the pride of being able to leap onto a horse’s back while fully armored, it really came down to necessity. If a knight fell off his horse during a battle he was left very vulnerable if he couldn’t get back on without help.

Works Cited:

Bennett, Matthew. “The medieval warhorse reconsidered.” In Medieval Knighthood, 5. Papers from the Sixth Strawberry Hill Conference 1994, pp. 19-40. 1994.

Raber, Karen, and Treva Tucker, eds. The culture of the horse: Status, discipline, and identity in the early modern world. Springer, 2016.

“Horses in the Middle Ages.” Wikipedia. November 21, 2018. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_Middle_Ages.

Bennett, Matthew. The Medieval Warhorse: Origin, Development, and Redevelopment. Wiley Blackwell.

Codex Manesse, UB Heidelberg, Cod. Pal. germ. 848, fol. 52r: Walther von Klingen

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized