Horses

[Fade the Butcher]

Looking for some feedback here. Discuss the role of horses in the history of warfare. What use did the Romans make of calvary? This was more of a feature of the later Empire, right? Wasn't the mounted knight rendered obsolete in the Late Middle Ages by pikemen and longbowmen?

[Kodos]

Looking for some feedback here. Discuss the role of horses in the history of warfare. What use did the Romans make of calvary? This was more of a feature of the later Empire, right? Wasn't the mounted knight rendered obsolete in the Late Middle Ages by pikemen and longbowmen?

The Romans made heavy use of cavalry by the late Republic( battle of Pharsalus) except from the very beginning it was mainly auxillaries.

If mounted knights were not made obsolete by pikes and longbowmen the swiss combo of pikes and arquebuses definitely made them obsolete.

[Jonathan]

Discuss the role of horses in the history of warfare.
Different for different people. Anyone in particular (Romans I suppose)?

What use did the Romans make of calvary? This was more of a feature of the later Empire, right?
I would have thought that cavalry only became more useful as the forests were cleared away (hence more cavalry among the Huns and those of the Eastern Steps than in Germania).
Didn't the Romans get most of their cavalry from Gaul (the Roman God of Cavalry actually being a Gaulish God, and the Cavalry uniform including trousers, like the Gauls)?

Wasn't the mounted knight rendered obsolete in the Late Middle Ages by pikemen and longbowmen?
The position of "knight", in the strictest sense, became more a position of prestige as time went on. By the High Middle Ages, war was becoming such big business that it wasn't enough to round up the local knights. Peasants filled the ranks. I think what you mean is "cavalry" in general, rather than "knights". Cavalry wasn't done away with, although it was greatly reduced in importance (by the Pike and missile weapons, as you and Otto have mentioned, I pressume). It became more specialised - Light Cavarly, Heavy Cavalry, Dragoons etc. There was always a Class element to the Cavalry as well, so they were less likely to be thrown into the mess.

P.S. I suppose we shouldn't over look the contribution of Draught horses in War either. Where would the firts Artillery pieces be if it weren't for those horses?:p
My 2c for now.

[Gleb]

In Slavic languages the name for the ruler is "knyaz" or "konyaz" in old Slavic, which is derived from "kon" which means horse, the same thing with Scandinavian languages where it is "kun", I believe; the words like "konung" or "konig" therefore derieve from the same source and English "king" has the same origin. Horse was a sign of nobility.
I've also read that the domestication of the horse was a primary reason for the spread of IE culture all over Europe and NW Asia from the steppes of Southern Russia.

[Billy Score]

Well before you get into the history of cavalry, one must of course, get into the history of chariots and their rise in fall in ancient warfare.

Was the chariot destroyed by new infantry or archers, or did the introduction of cavalry play a role (i believe that the assyrians were one of the first players on the world stage that used cavalry often). Early cavalry to me seem absurdly inefficient, with two men riding a horse, one to steer and one to attack. Cavalry, even the companions or the sacred band were not really effective; no stirrup- no power charge. Most ancient cavalry were not shock forces anyway, they were skirmishers (far more effective than those on foot since skirmishing was based on one's ability to fight and withdraw rapidly) and missile troops.

I think that the smashing of Crassus at Carrhae probably was one of the big turning points in warfare involving cavalry as the parthians relied solely on their cavalry to crush the romans.

[Jonathan]

In Slavic languages the name for the ruler is "knyaz" or "konyaz" in old Slavic, which is derived from "kon" which means horse, the same thing with Scandinavian languages where it is "kun", I believe; the words like "konung" or "konig" therefore derieve from the same source and English "king" has the same origin. Horse was a sign of nobility.
I've also read that the domestication of the horse was a primary reason for the spread of IE culture all over Europe and NW Asia from the steppes of Southern Russia.
This may be the case, but we are dealing with the horse's position in warfare, and it is evident that the horse did not feature prominantly in original Scandinavian or Anglo-Saxon battles.

Furthermore, I thought that the Indo-European word for "king" was what gave rise to "Raj"(Sanskirt), "Rex"(Latin), and "Rí"(Gaelic). This word didn't have any conection with horse to the best of my knowledge.

P.S. The Gaelic for "hound" is Cú which becomes "Con"(like "Kun" as you mentioned) in certain contexts. Maybe there is a possible link?

[Jonathan]

Was the chariot destroyed by new infantry or archers, or did the introduction of cavalry play a role
Most chariots(as you've eluded to) were not very flexible.

[Gleb]

This may be the case, but we are dealing with the horse's position in warfare, and it is evident that the horse did not feature prominantly in original Scandinavian or Anglo-Saxon battles.


You are right, probably not.


Furthermore, I thought that the Indo-European word for "king" was what gave rise to "Raj"(Sanskirt), "Rex"(Latin), and "Rí"(Gaelic). This word didn't have any conection with horse to the best of my knowledge.


Sanskrit "Raj" would mean heaven or paradise I suppose? It is "rai" in Russian. I think that English "king" has the same origin as "konung", and I am fairly sure that the origin is "kon" or "kun" which means horse.


P.S. The Gaelic for "hound" is Cú which becomes "Con"(like "Kun" as you mentioned) in certain contexts. Maybe there is a possible link?

Could be, I guess.

[Jonathan]

Sanskrit "Raj" would mean heaven or paradise I suppose?
No, "Raj" comes from "Raja". The old Indo-European root word here is "reg-". I should also have mentioned that "Rí"(pronounced "Ree") originally comes from "Righ"(Pronounced "Rig") which would be closer to the original Indo-European.


I think that English "king" has the same origin as "konung", and I am fairly sure that the origin is "kon" or "kun" which means horse.
I'm not so sure that you're correct here. I think you'll find that the Indo-European root word for "horse" comes from "Ekwo-". This root word lends itself to words like "Equine" in English, and "Echos" old-Gaelic for "horse"(modern Gaelic has it as "Each"), and "Epos" in Welsh(P-Celtic).

Also, I've heard that the word king comes from the old-English "cyning" which comes from the Indo-European root "Gen-", though I don't know what it means.

[Atlas]

Hard to believe that Poles had the balls to attacks germans tank in 1939 on their horses.

[Gleb]

No, "Raj" comes from "Raja". The old Indo-European root word here is "reg-". I should also have mentioned that "Rí"(pronounced "Ree") originally comes from "Righ"(Pronounced "Rig") which would be closer to the original Indo-European.


Yep, I just found out, it means ruler, indeed.


I'm not so sure that you're correct here. I think you'll find that the Indo-European root word for "horse" comes from "Ekwo-". This root word lends itself to words like "Equine" in English, and "Echos" old-Gaelic for "horse"(modern Gaelic has it as "Each"), and "Epos" in Welsh(P-Celtic).

Also, I've heard that the word king comes from the old-English "cyning" which comes from the Indo-European root "Gen-", though I don't know what it means.

Interesting, I've just checked wikipedia and it doesn't say about any origin of king connected with the horse. However, it leasts "knyaz" as being of one origin with "king", and I am 100% sure that "knyaz" is derived from "kon" which means horse in Russian.


The name king is derived from the Anglo-Saxon cyning, which in turn is derived from the Proto-Germanic *kuningaz. The original meaning is contested. One theory is that the element *kun relates to the word kindred or that it originally meant descendant of a ruler. Another theory is that it is originally meant belonging to the woman, i.e. belonging to the mother goddess and referring to the king's role as a priest.

Modern forms of *kuningaz:

Dutch: koning
English: king
German: König
Icelandic: konungur
Norwegian/Danish: kong or konge
Swedish: kung or konung
The word *kuningaz was very early borrowed by non-Germanic languages (note that the slavic król and korol are not derived from this word, but from karl):

Finnish/Estonian: kuningas
Lithuanian: kunigaik-
Russian: knyaz
Saami: gonagas or konagas
Interestingly, the word differs from other Indo-European words for "king", most of which are clearly related (Latin rex, Sanskrit rājan and Irish rí, for example).

[Felix the Cat]

Note that the heavy warhorses of medieval Europe took centuries of selective breeding to produce, and were completely non-existant in early Roman times

The small pony-like things which constituted cavalry two millenia ago were completely inadequate to fight in the first line of battle

[Felix the Cat]

Hard to believe that Poles had the balls to attacks germans tank in 1939 on their horses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle of Krojanty#Aftermath and the myth

[Jonathan]

LOL, I just remembered an account I read before which had been written by one of the knights of Richard II during his first campaign in Ireland saying how Irish footsoldiers would out run English cavalry, jump up on the back of the horse, and pull the Englishman off!

[Felix the Cat]

Ireland is a wet country, not good ground for heavy cavalry. Horses can't run effectively on bogland

The mountains and valleys of Wales were also difficult territory for armoured horsemen

[Sinclair]

According to Gwynne Dyer, knight-style cavalry (or heavy cavalry, call it what you will) held on for a while in Europe even though it was increasingly obsolete, because of tradition.

[OVERWATCH]

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7628/z253hu.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Sinclair]

Supposedly horses are still of some use in war... I remember reading something about Special Forces types using them in Afghanistan.

[OVERWATCH]

Supposedly horses are still of some use in war... I remember reading something about Special Forces types using them in Afghanistan.

Definitely, the mujahedin used lots of pack mules because they could carry decent sized loads over terrain impossible for trucks to traverse.

Plus, they're quieter.

Additionally, Operation Barbarossa employed a very large amount of horse drawn artillery.

[Jonathan]

Ireland is a wet country, not good ground for heavy cavalry. Horses can't run effectively on bogland
Bogland, undulating ground, and heavily forested (in the time period being discussed). Our native horses are also very small (about the size of ponies). For this reason, cavalry in Ireland was only used for reconnaissance, skirmishing, and raiding (not that there was much more to Irish warfare anyway). Even the Hiberno-Normans who originally used cavalry in continental fashion had more or less abandoned them after a hundred years or so. And during the Tudor period, the English only sent over what they called "light cavalry" for operations.

On the battle field, horses were just a sign of prestige (Richard II's men commented that the Irish chief Art MacMurrough-Kavanagh had the biggest horse they had ever seen, but it cost him 400 cattle).

Some comments on Irish cavalry:

"800 year behind the time ... Unable for want of stirrups, to couch a lance, he carried the javelin, which was his principal weapon, overarm in the ancient manner ... The horsemen had always 2 horses, often 3 each with its groom or horseboy in attendance. These horseboys also took part in battle as light troops. Their horsemen were recruited from the richer and more prosperous elements of the landowning classes (that is from the Gaelic aristocracy)." - Unknown.

1543, Sir Anthony St Leger wrote in a dispatch to Henry VIII: "I think for their feat of war, which is for light scourers, there are no properer horsemen in Christian ground, nor more hardy, nor yet that can better endure hardness."

Later in the same century, Sir Edmund Spenser would write: "I have heard some great warriors say that in all the services which they have seen abroad in Foreign countries they never saw a more comely horseman than the Irishman, nor that cometh on more bravely in his charge."

In 1600, Fybnes Moryson states: "Their horsemen are all gentlemen (I mean of great septs or names, how base soever otherwise)".

Richard Stanihurst in 1577 writes: "These horsemen when they have no stay of their own gad and range from house to house like errant knights of the round table, and they never dismount until they ride into the hall and as far as the table."

[A. Radek]

Cavalry is very useful in combined arms operations. True, many Fuedals and plenty of Generals didn't really know how to use it properly. It was essential for exploiting breakthroughs and destroying enemy morale. Nice thread.