Who had the biggest warhorses in the early middle ages (let's say 600-900 AD)

[AelleCyning]

Who had the biggest warhorses in that period? A lot of what I've seen in my areas of interest (Britain, France, Scandinavia) show horses not even really being used in combat (except the Romano-Britons and Picts), and horses that are tough but smaller. Were there any huge warhorses, like today?

 

[matmohair1]

Destrier - fourteenth century

"In AD 476, the Germans toppled the Western Roman Empire, and their leader, Odoacer, proclaimed himself king. In 488, their state was subjugated by the Ostrogoths, whose rule was not long-lived either: Byzantium soon acquired control of Italy. Finally, in 568, the northern part of the Apennine peninsula was conquered by the Langobards (Lombards), one of the Germanic tribes, and Italy was divided into two parts: Langobardia, in the north with its seat at Pavia, and Romagna in the south, ruled by Byzantium.In the third century, the Goths had brought the first heavy horses to the south-east of Europe; three centuries later, the related Langobards imported similar horses to northern Italy. In the Po river valley, they found favorable conditions for raising horses: fertile ground, a subject people who knew how to work it, and other remains of the most developed civilization in Europe. In the eighth century, with the help of Byzantium,the Franks conquered the Langobards, the best horsemen in central Europe,and assimilated them into their army.In the age of the knights, the most popular horses for heavy cavalry were raised in northern Italy. The most expensive horses, those used for court ceremony and prestige, parades and hunts, were bought in Spain. The blood of the north Italian and Spanish breeds flows nowadays in the veins of many modern horses.The name destrier was derived from the Latin dextrarius (in the right hand). It was a very tall horse, 17 hands on average, heavy and strong. It was rather slow, though, and had little acceleration; it was not therefore used in combat but only for jousting. The horse mostly used by knights in battle was the courser, which was smaller, lighter and cheaper. In the twelfth century, a knight usually had two horses, but this rose to three or four late in the following century. Another type of horse used in combat was the rounsey, akin to the courser but without special breeding. It cost comparatively little and was used by sergeants and horsemen without the rank of knight. Besides heavy horses, other breeds in use in England in the fourteenth century were the Irish hobby and the Scottish pony known as galloway or hackney, both about 12-14 hands. Horses of no particular breed, but occasionally used by knights, were called palfreys."

Cavalry - The History of a Fighting Elite
V. Vuksic and Z. Grbasic - 1993

Spoiler

 

[AelleCyning]

Thanks!

 

[matmohair1]

Goth Heavy Cavalryman - end of fourth century

"Three types of horse skeletons were found in excavations at Lake Dümmer
in north-west Germany: one was the size of a steppe pony, one medium sized,
and the third belonged to a horse of massive build, probably the
Forest or Diluvial horse. These two breeds were the ancestors of modern
horses of passive temperament. They lived in northern Europe after the Ice
Ages, and were first domesticated about 3,000 years ago in areas later
inhabited by the Germans.
In the second century, the Romans followed the mass migration of Goths
to the south-east, following the line of the fortified border (limes).
Descriptions of Goth horsemen and their large horses have come down to
us from that time, as well as information about their fighting habits. If a
rider chose to dismount and continue the battle on foot, or if he was killed,
his horse remained standing in place. For this reason, cavalry attacks were
supported by an infantry reserve, whose members were supposed to replace
the fallen riders. These foot soldiers held on to the horses' manes and ran
alongside - rather dangerous with ponies, as their manes were short, and the
men could be trampled under their hooves. With larger and slower horses it
was safer, as one could grasp the mane more securely. Stopping the horse
after a rider dismounted or was killed was not only a matter of training and
discipline but of the animal's docile nature.
The arrival of the Goths on the shores of the Black Sea and their alliances
with the Sarmatians and the Alans resulted in pooling of the military
experiences of the northern peoples and the ancient Iranian nomadic
civilization. The fierce northerners had brought horses about 160 cm/65 in
tall. The Sarmatians and the Alans were equally skilled in fighting on
horseback and making equestrian equipment and armour. The Sarmatian
cataphracts were the heaviest cavalry soldiers of their time, and Rome
respected them as formidable opponents, or valued them as allies in
auxiliary troops. The Goths acquired a lot of knowledge from them, but not
the habit of covering their horses in armour. Goth warriors wore a helmet,
and the richer and more important among them a scale or mail corselet. All
had wooden shields, and were armed with long Sarmatian swords, a spear
and several javelins, which they threw at the enemy. Over time, the Goth
cavalry evolved from an auxiliary troop of the infantry into a real fighting
force and a decisive factor in battles, moving independently on the
battlefield, without reserve riders following on foot.
In AD378, at Adrianople, Alateus and Saphrax, at the head of a force of
20,000 cavalry and 30,000 infantry, mostly Visigoths and some Alans,
destroyed the Roman army under Emperor Valens: 10,000 cavalry and
30,000 infantry. First, the Goth cavalry broke the Roman mounted troops
and attacked the infantry from the rear. Then the Goth infantry surrounded
and routed the enemy."

Spoiler

Avar - seventh century

"The Avars were nomads of Turco-Mongol origin, and were first heard of in
Europe in the middle of the fifth century, around the Black and Caspian
Seas. After that, nothing is known of them for a whole century; in AD557
they appeared on the Black Sea shores again, and offered Byzantium
assistance against other barbarians. Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527-65)
paid the Avars to attack the Bulgars, who made frequent incursions into
Byzantium. The Don Bulgars were quickly vanquished, and the Avars
arrived at the mouth of the Danube, where they subjugated the Slavs.
Reinforced with Huns, whom they encountered along the way, and the
Bulgarians who had retreated from the Don, the Avars circled the
Carpathians and made their way to the Baltic Sea. Around AD567, under the
leadership of the founder of the Avar state, Bajan, they settled in the
Pannonian valley, and extended their power from the Adriatic shores to
Bohemia, and from the Carpathians to the Alps. Although they were
numerically inferior, they conquered the many Slav tribes living in these
areas, as well as those who came later. The Avars could not have had more
than 50,000 warriors, including the Huns and Bulgars who joined them.
Towards the end of the sixth century, the Avars were the strongest
military power in Europe. Firmly organized, led by a khan (kagan), they
retained control of all the conquered areas, concentrating their forces for
local supremacy where needed. In the central part of their state, between the
Danube and Tisa rivers, they built large camps with defensive earthwork
fortifications and palisades, from which they could conduct raids. In battles
on open space, the Avars used to place the infantry (consisting of Slavs and
other subjugated peoples) in the first ranks, preserving their cavalry for the
decisive part of the battle.
Those who came to Europe did not remain nomads like the Huns, but
became warrior-horsemen, with a firm military organization and state.
They introduced a series of innovations which were soon accepted in
Byzantium and other neighboring states. Among the elements of military
equipment copied from the Avars were the wood-framed saddle with
leather covering, stirrups, powerful bow, and the use of lamellar armour
with neck-protecting gorget which they sometimes wore. Perhaps the most
important of these innovations were the stirrups, which made possible
advances in the technique of fighting on horseback, thus making cavalry
more effective. The rider was more secure in the saddle and controlled the
horse easily, giving him more freedom to use his hands, perhaps to carry a
larger and heavier shield. The rider could lift himself in the saddle and
deliver stronger blows at greater distances than his opponents.
The cornerstone of Avar military power was the armoured cavalry, which
fought equally well with bow, spear or lance. As mercenaries in the service
of Byzantium, the Avars fitted well into the state's complex organization,
which indicates that they excelled in combat tactics which required not only
organization but discipline and training."

Spoiler

 

[Mamlaz]

Hmm, that is an interesting question.
Hard to answer because rarely anyone is properly read up the subject of warhorses, let alone the early medieval horse.


My pick would probably be the warhorses of Lake Constance.


Namely, shortly after reaching the peak of his power, Charlemagne imposed an annual tribute of horses from Konstanz and St. Gallen of all places(both situated around the mentioned lake).

What is interesting is that, while the usual price of a good warhorse at the time ranged around 9-12 solidi, the ones Charlemagne ordered from there were basically twice as expensive, 20 solidi.


So, suffice to say that, at least within the borders of the Frankish Empire, those horses would be the top choice.

 

[AelleCyning]

Hmm, that is an interesting question.
Hard to answer because rarely anyone is properly read up the subject of warhorses, let alone the early medieval horse.


My pick would probably be the warhorses of Lake Constance.


Namely, shortly after reaching the peak of his power, Charlemagne imposed an annual tribute of horses from Konstanz and St. Gallen of all places(both situated around the mentioned lake).

What is interesting is that, while the usual price of a good warhorse at the time ranged around 9-12 solidi, the ones Charlemagne ordered from there were basically twice as expensive, 20 solidi.


So, suffice to say that, at least within the borders of the Frankish Empire, those horses would be the top choice.

This has always confused me. Surely absorbing the Langobards didn't make them master horsemen? In the time of Clovis they were all on foot in combat, like most Germanics (not all, I know), but by Charlemagne's time they were fielding major cavalry. What led to that? Selective breeding of local horses and then forming a cavalry unit?

 

[Mamlaz]

The Franks simply had a cavalry revolution in the mid 8th century, some attribute this to stirrups, others to saddles as well, some merely to culture and societal changes.

Even though stirrups arrive in Eastern Europe by the 500s, they do not arrive to France until the 700's.

By 784 at the latest, the Franks were horsemen to be reckoned with, as that is the date that the Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks describe the Frankish cavalry obliterating the Saxon army at Lippa.

 

[AelleCyning]

The Franks simply had a cavalry revolution in the mid 8th century, some attribute this to stirrups, others to saddles as well, some merely to culture and societal changes.

Even though stirrups arrive in Eastern Europe by the 500s, they do not arrive to France until the 700's.

By 784 at the latest, the Franks were horsemen to be reckoned with, as that is the date that the Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks describe the Frankish cavalry obliterating the Saxon army at Lippa.

Celts had saddles since at least the La Tène period, they invented a certain style (I forget which). How would they change anything? Were they superior saddles? Stirrups, though, are later period (for Europe), you're right (not saying you're wrong about saddles, but I've heard contradictory info).

And that makes sense, as far as we can tell right down to Harold Godwineson's death the Saxons never seem to have used cavalry in combat. It's probably what helped the Britons keep them at bay for a while. A horse charge can break or destroy a formation, and a dead horse will take down several people by kicking and biting, and so will a horse which has lost it's master. Terrible creatures.

 

[Untitled.]

Speaking of, do we know how charges happened? I've never heard anyone actually go into details about cavalry charges (apart from cutting down routing soldiers or picking off stragglers), but it seems really weird if we didn't know how they happened, considering cavalry was such a big deal not too long ago.

 

[AelleCyning]

Rarely since they're **** disastrous. Horses don't stop very slowly, so you're going to be ramming anything for a few metres after you've hit your target. Luckily this was usually other men, meaning a single charge could decimate a formation. It's something Total War never does properly (for balance reasons I expect). The horses just freeze after hitting the first line of men. That's not what would happen. They'd trample and directly burst the skulls of at least five men on impact, and send anyone around them literally FLYING off their feet, even if they were in a **** shield wall.

This also applies to the man charging. The horse is going to trip on those bodies eventually, and also there's a good chance of dying when your horse is charging, if the enemy has ranged attacks. Falling off your horse is a very good chance of being killed, especially since the horse will flail about if it falls. Moreover, warhorses are trained. Only a very well-trained horse and horseman will be willing to charge into a dense formation of men. But if they're willing to, that formation is dead.

That said, a big group of well-trained men standing very firmly and with a tactical advantage can stave off a charge, like at Hastings. Being uphill, outnumbering the Norman knights (2000) by a LOT and being disciplined let them survive the charge. Then they ran after them like idiots and got shot to death.

You don't stop a horse. You flee.

 

[Untitled.]

Is it possible to train a horse to run into a wall of people though? It seems sort of weird. Even war elephants were deathly afraid of water by the sound of things.

 

[AelleCyning]

Is it possible to train a horse to run into a wall of people though? It seems sort of weird. Even war elephants were deathly afraid of water by the sound of things.

Warhorses were trained to ignore the sounds of battle, smell of blood, feeling of walking on corpses, and were trained to bite, kick or claw at enemies. They were bred to fight, but even then a lot of them probably wouldn't want to charge a formation.

Elephants weren't bred for war, so I imagine that plus perhaps elephants being more stubborn (I don't know) may have contributed to them being unruly in combat.

 

[Dryvus]

directly burst the skulls of at least five men on impact

wat

 

[AelleCyning]

directly burst the skulls of at least five men on impact

wat

Ever seen a horse barge into a crowd? I have.

Here's a video of a horse killing a man. He flies at least 5 metres, perhaps more.

 

[Dryvus]

I note that his skull failed to explode in this video despite a complete and incredible impact.

 

[AelleCyning]

I note that his skull failed to explode in this video despite a complete and incredible impact.

Allahu Akbar.

It takes 1100 pounds of force to bash a skull in at the temples. Don't know about a charge, but a horse's kick alone is usually 1000-2000 pounds of force. (1000-1250 is also enough to snap a neck, so it's basically instadeath anyway)

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

That was one guy being hit cleanly by a modern racing horse at full speed. While there is some debate as to whether medieval cavalry charged headlong into infantry at all, you can't use that video as proof that pre-industrial horses were giant ploughs. A human being could probably knock a man that far if they barged into him -- if you look at the slow motion bit you'll notice that he falls most of the way instead of actually being flung.

If we look at primary sources we occasionally get an implication that cavalry charges were conducted at a canter or even a slow trot, like how mounted policemen corral crowds nowadays. Here's an example:

Spoiler

Galloping straight into a human obstacle is a massive, needless danger to everyone involved, and given how the period you're mentioning was before the real advent of heavy cavalry in europe, I doubt that even the largest horses would have been deliberately used to ram people to death.

 

[Mamlaz]

Speaking of, do we know how charges happened? I've never heard anyone actually go into details about cavalry charges (apart from cutting down routing soldiers or picking off stragglers), but it seems really weird if we didn't know how they happened, considering cavalry was such a big deal not too long ago.

They did happen.

The only reason there is even a debate is because some historians have experiences with modern equestrianism and fail to understand how their modern cuddled pansy horsies could ever charge violently into anything, completely failing to realize that modern horses have little to do training wise with the psychotic war trained beasts of old.

Is it possible to train a horse to run into a wall of people though?

Yes;

Spoiler

It seems sort of weird. Even war elephants were deathly afraid of water by the sound of things.

Warhorses were actually far braver than war elephants, they purposefully launched themselves onto wooden fences or even pikes if ordered to, they would bite the faces of enemies who tried to grab the reins etc.

For example in Froissart, there you will find a passage of a single knight using his horse to trample several men to death simply by smashing into them.

If we look at primary sources we occasionally get an implication that cavalry charges were conducted at a canter or even a slow trot, like how mounted policemen corral crowds nowadays.

Correct, but that was not always the case and the trot was not as slow as some would imagine.

A destrier trot would be more akin to this;

Spoiler

Galloping straight into a human obstacle is a massive, needless danger to everyone involved, and given how the period you're mentioning was before the real advent of heavy cavalry in europe, I doubt that even the largest horses would have been deliberately used to ram people to death.

I disagree, we have swarms of sources describing frontal cavalry charges into infantry, even pike formations.

For instance, at the battle of Marignano, the French heavy cavalry charged the fully formed Swiss pike formations numerous times with success.

This was not an isolated case;

Spoiler

From "The Northwern Wars 1558-1721" by Robert I Frost has at the battle of Kircholm 27-7-1605 have Lithuanian hussars charging and overruning Swedish Pike and matchlock armed infantry. Also it mentions the battle of Klushino:

"(...) our horsemen, after ramming fences, with which the enemies treacherously strengthened their defences, plunging into pikes with chests of horses, suffered a lot of damage."


Battle of Lubieszow, 1577 - German pikemen broken and defeated by Hussars;

"6. On Left wing of Crown Army –when the foote on the right wing were fully engaged in close fighting, the Crown cavalry (200 hussars) attacked again. The attack smashed through the reiters. The reiters, fleeing, entangled with the formation of landsknechts standing behind them. The Hussars, after breaking through the reiters immediately pressed on and broke through the ranks of the German infantry."

"The landsknechts held their ground before the enemy infantry but finally broke when another two companies of Polish hussars attacked them in the flank.""(...) our lancers wipe out not only enemy cavalry, but also pikemen, as fresh examples from Livonia prove."

David Eltis, "The Military Revolution in Sixteenth-Century Europe" on page 46 quotes Sir John Smythe, "An answer to contrarie opynions militarie", British Library, Harleian MS 135, f 11 - who wrote, that 1000 cavalry can easily defeat 3000 or 4000 infantry unless they are protected by pikes or favourable terrain.

On the same page (46) Eltis quotes Matthew Sutcliffe, "The Practice Proceedings, and Lawes of Armies", STC 23468 (1593), page 109 - who in 1593 wrote that a cavalry charge against melee infantry with swords and shields is devastating for infantry, unless they are protected by pikes, ditches, hedgerows or forests.

On next page - 47 - Eltis quotes Robbert Barret, "The Theorike and Practike of Moderne Wares", STC 1500 (159, page 69 - who in 1598 wrote that missile infantry deployed in open field, unsupported by pikes and without protection provided by hedgerows, ditches, trenches or ramparts, are not able to hold on against cavalry for a long time, and especially are not able to hold on against lancers cavalry.

Raimondo Montecuccoli in "Sulle battaglie" - basing on experiences from the Thirty Years' War (1618 - 164 - on pages 106 and 150 wrote that cavalry can very quickly destroy musketeers deployed in dense formation (read: density of infantry formation formation is not an obstacle for cavalry in destroying this infantry), unless they are protected by pikes. He also wrote, that pike is "the only defence" of musketeers.

Also Kampenhausen wrote in 1737, that it very rarely happens, that lancers cavalry sustain more damage than they inflict (i.e. lancers almost always inflict higher casualties upon the enemy than they suffer).

Regarding infantry, Marcin Bielski(born 1495 - died 1575) wrote the following thing:

"If you have infantry against enemy cavalry, deploy your men in rough terrain, deploy your men in wetlands, in thickets, in terrain surrounded by depressions. (...) infantry needs ditches, fences, rivers, hills."


We can even go beyond the medieval and venture into antiquity.

In the battle of Gaugamela, Persian and Indian cavalry armed with long spears managed to break through the line of Macedonian phalangites (pezhetairoi) at the point of contact of taxis (one taxis = "paper strength" of 2048 phalangites) under command of Simmias and taxis under command of Polysperchon:

Arrian, Anabasis, III, 14 wrote:

(...) Simmias and his brigade were not yet able to start with Alexander in pursuit, but causing the phalanx to halt there, he took part in the struggle, because the left wing of the Macedonians was reported to be hard pressed. In this part of the field, their line being broken, some of the Indians and of the Persian cavalry burst through the gap towards the baggage of the Macedonians; and there the action became desperate. For the Persians fell boldly on the men, who were most of them unarmed, and never expected that any men would cut through the double phalanx and break through upon them. When the Persians made this attack, the foreign prisoners also assisted them by falling upon the Macedonians in the midst of the action. But the commanders of the men who had been posted as a reserve to the first phalanx, learning what was taking place, quickly moved from the position which they had been ordered to take, and coming upon the Persians in the rear, killed many of them there collected round the baggage. But the rest of them gave way and fled. The Persians on the right wing, who had not yet become aware of the flight of Darius, rode round Alexander's left wing and attacked Parmenio in flank."



The excuse for all this is simply the herd nature of the horse.

In a cavalry charge, the horses are tightly packed, nose to tail, unable to turn, stop or coordinate their movements, their movement 'decision' is taken out of the equation and they are just left with "forwards".

Also remember that while the natural escape vector for a frightened human is backwards, the natural escape vector for a horse is forwards. Predators (mainly large cats) that historically ate horses attack from the rear and side, the only defense is to run forward. If you've ever seen a horse race you can see this in full effect. The rider uses the whip to create a frightening crack to the side and rear and the horse bolts forward. Surely a horse without a rider would rather maneuver around it if it could. But remember that in real battles a horse is controlled by its rider.


Also cavalry - when striking enemy line - was usually charging in a tight formation, so called "knee to knee" (horses in each line were close to each other - that's why it's called "knee to knee").

So in such formation horses were also unable to maneuver anywhere but forwards - otherwise they would just bump into other horses which were charging on their right and left.

They had to go forward and fall into what was in front of them. And actually for a charging horse, bumping into a man in front of it was often a better "choice" than bumping into a horse next to it. And even if it was not a better choice (for example if a man in front had a sharp pike) - its rider would still force it to do so.


It is similar to the effects of a human stampede running in one directions and then, all the sudden, reaching the end of the platoe and starts heading off a cliff.

Do you really believe that the front row of humans would be able to stop the push of all the humans in the back who could not see the cliff?


To properly understand a cavalry charge you have to forget the riders and imagine a stampede of animals, because that is all a cavalry charge really is, a stampede of animals with humans just riding along on top of them.

 

[AelleCyning]

"LOL AELLECYNING IS SO SILLY HE SAID A CUTE LITTLE PONY COULD BREAK FIVE MENS SKULLS HAHA WHAT A DUMB ****"

Up yours. Just up yours.

 

[Dryvus]

directly burst*