搜索结果: *

Dovah4084 说:

Yeah but the more built horses are more likely to trample several men without tripping or having a higher chance of being injured than racing horses. That's the point I made a few replies ago.

点击展开...

hruza 说:

Again wrong:

Destrier best-known war horse of the medieval era.

Though the term "Great Horse" was used to describe the destrier, leading some historians to speculate that such animals were the forerunners of modern draught horse breeds,[12] the historical record does not support the image of the destrier as a draft horse.

They apparently were not enormous draft types.[7] Recent research undertaken at the Museum of London, using literary, pictorial and archeological sources, suggests war horses (including destriers) averaged from 14 to 15 hands (56 to 60 inches, 142 to 152 cm), and differed from a riding horse in their strength, musculature and training, rather than in their size.[8] An analysis of medieval horse armour located in the Royal Armouries indicates the equipment was originally worn by horses of 15 to 16 hands (60 to 64 inches, 152 to 163 cm),[9] about the size and build of a modern field hunter or ordinary riding horse.

Horse racing

Thoroughbreds range in height, which is measured in hands (a hand being four inches). Some are as small as 15 hands while others are over 17.



Wrong:

But it is against the nature of a horse to ride into a solid obstacle, so the cavalry attack took one of two forms: Either the horse did a turn (a rollback, demi-pirouette or volte-face) before it met the target, or it passed the target.47 There is no tactically correct third choice – crashing into the target, with horse and rider being cast down, is documented, but can hardly be called “tactically correct” as the fighter is rendered hors combat.

...the inevitable result of cavalry riding into a solid infantry formation will be that the horse will get stuck in the midst of the infantry, and if the impact did not impale it on the infantry’s pikes or spears, their Katzbalger and Roßschinder53 will soon finish the job. Even if the infantry wanted to get out of the way, they couldn’t – there is no-where to go, and not enough time.

Another argument against the “shock” attack into a solid infantry formation is that it cannot be
trained; even if done without sharp weapons, it is too dangerous for man and beast on both sides,
and what cannot be sensibly trained cannot be a regulation battlefield tactic. What can be observed
in re enactments is that horses will gravitate towards a perceived gap in the formation facing them,
however small, and will (delicately but irresistibly) shove aside the infantrymen both sides of the gap (experiment done 2015 between the mounted Timetrotter crew and assorted legionary infantry
at Augusta Raurica, and at Tournoi XIII; ref. also Bachrach, Carolingia ns , p.

Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages, Jürg Gassmann

点击展开...