# horses thread



## trenchwirez (Aug 27, 2011)

I am writing a work that I want to have at least a passable level of medieval realism and unfortunately I know very little about horses, so here are a few questions to spark discussion.  I hope someone can allay my confusion on the subject.  

1.  Basically I want to be able to describe the horses that each of my characters uses, and to make sure I am describing a horse that would be capable of what they do with it, ie. escape from a pursuit, go on a long journey with provisions/saddlebags, or charge into a pitched battle.

Also I want horses that would be realistic to each character's social station.  What kind of horses would each of the following have access to:

-A farmer or laborer?
-A mercenary or brigand?
-A well to do merchant or cleric?
-A non-noble cavalryman?
-A noble knight?
-A wealthy aristocrat?​

2.  Recently I learned from another forum and wikipedia that people in medieval times rode easy-gaited horses rather than trotters.  I don't think I have ever seen an easy-gaited horse or understand what "ambling" looks like as opposed to trotting, could anyone elaborate or provide an example like in TV or film?

3.  What are some of the main categories of horses used in the Middle Ages?  I more or less know the terms of types of horses used for military purposes: big destriers ie. heavy warhorses for the knights, coursers being more like light warhorses I think, and "rounceys" cited on wikipedia as a sort of poor man's warhorse. Palfreys for nobility in ceremonial and daily life.

-How many horses would a knight or other European cavalryman usually take with him on a campaign?​

4.  Geldings.  Which horses would have been gelded and which would not?  Is it true that castrating a horse early in life makes them not grow as large or powerful?

-I read somewhere that an ungelded male horse (a stallion?) would be agitated by the presence of a menstruating woman, is this true?  It could pose some difficulties for the hero galloping off with the princess.

-Would the above horses like destriers and coursers have been gelded or not?  Would anyone ride a female horse ie. a mare into battle or were they always male?  Did women usually ride mares?​

5.  GRR Martin in Song of Ice and Fire talks about "garrons" a lot which I take to mean a kind of mountain pony in his work.  Are there other cool-sounding old words for horse types?

6.  Would "thoroughbred" be an anachronistic term to use in a medieval setting?  What exactly is a thoroughbred?

7.  How about hackney or nag?  To me those sound like the names for a poorly bred, poorly treated peasant's horse, but apparently a hackney was just a common riding horse with a trotting gait.  Again with the gait... gah.

8.  How about the horse categories in the Mount and Blade games?  Is there any meaning to terms like "Hunter" or "Saddle Horse" or did they just make these up.


----------



## HÃ«radÃ¯n (Aug 27, 2011)

As to horses, I've not clue. But the word gait I know very well, it is basically just a word that is used to describe the way of moving. I hope someone answers these questions, I'd like to know the answers too.


----------



## Angharad (Aug 27, 2011)

I have a writer friend who is also into horses (owns them, rides them, etc) I can forward your questions to her if you'd like. She might be able to help.


----------



## Kevlar (Aug 27, 2011)

1. Believe it or not, horses are cheaper and more abundant nowadays than they were back in the middle ages. A farmer or labourer most likely wouldn't have been able to afford one. A mercenary or brigand would use whatever he could steal or confiscate. As far as merchants and clergy members, that would depend, based on the huge diversity of wealth, but I'd think the normal sort couldn't have better than a rouncey, which is what an all-purpose, unspecialized horse was called. They were about as cheap as they come, though a garron would probably fetch less. (See below) As for cavalrymen, including lots of knights, they might not be able to afford anything better than a rouncey. Rounceys did have an advantage over coursers/chargers and destriers, in that they could outdistance them. Not to say they were truly faster, though, I believe, they were. There were even medieval campaigns that the king or other leader called for knights to bring their rounceys, not their heavier horses, because they were easier to travel far and fast with. But if your really want to travel far and fast nothing beats an Arabian. A high ranking knight could have many horses, but he would most likely have at least two: his warhorse, a courser or destrier, or, for the lesser high ranking knights, a rouncey, and a saddle horse (light riding), a rouncey or palfrey. A wealthy aristocrat would most likely prefer the smooth gait of a palfrey.

2. I have no idea what you mean by ambling, but an easy gaited horse is one that is smooth to ride. Usually in refering to all four gaits.

3. Let me try to remember all the medieval terms. A destrier is the heaviest of warhorses. A courser or charger is a middling warhorse. A rouncey is a general, all purpose horse. A garron is a shaggy, small horse, usually a frowned upon thing, and I think probably a pony cross. A palfrey is a very smooth horse, not specialized in speed or stamina, but in being smooth. They would also have had some sort of draft horse, a big, strong, sometimes slow horse used to haul plows and heavy carts.

4. As far as I know, gelding a horse doesn't stunt their growth. I've been around geldings and studs both my whole life and never noticed a definitive difference. The biggest horse I ever saw was a gelding. Studs typically do have more of a temper though, especially around mares in heat. I'm not sure about menstruating women though.

5. Already covered.

6. Thoroughbred is a breed of horses known best for racing. Medieval people categorized horses by use though, not breed, and didn't care about breeding in most cases. I don't believe they had thotoughbreds.

7. Hackney is a breed. Developed in the 14th century. Look them up on Wikipedia. They're basically the opposite of what you said. A nag is a horse of low quality.

8. I wouldn't put much stock in them. I don't know about Hunter, but saddle horse is just a general/light riding horse.

I believe all the information I provided is true, but I don't claim it to be true. That said, don't use me as your sole source. I've been around horses my whole life, sometimes riding sometimes not, though I'm not much of a horse person. That said, some of what I said could be miseducation passed on by those around me.


----------



## Amanita (Aug 28, 2011)

I don't know anything about English medieval term for various horse types but I can give you a link to a video about gaited horses. You'll find more if you search for Icelandic horses or the various American breeds (eg. Tennesse walking horse, Paso Fino) Some of them are trained to show very exaggerated movements for shows however, they aren't good models for your medieval horses. These should be fine though:
Tenessee Walking Horse
Golden Tennessee Walking Horse Gelding - YouTube
Icelandic Horse
Super TÃ¶lt on an Icelandic Horse - YouTube


----------



## pskelding (Aug 28, 2011)

Let me add something a bit different but still entirely related that I found when researching walking, horses and medieval armies...

As a rule of thumb, good infantry can manage 5km/h in more or less flat terrain carrying a total load not exceeding 50% their body weight (36kg for an average 72kg male, which is the typical combat load). At this pace, well trained and physically reasonably fit men can advance 35km a day during an 8-hour period (7 hours of march and one hour of rest distributed in between). 

This is about the longest distance footsoldiers can cover in one day. Such pace generally cannot be sustained for more than a few days, though. Poor weather, difficult terrain, inadequate nutrition or additional equipment can further reduce the rate of advance. 

Medieval armies often marched at a very modest pace due to their reliance on pack animals. Oxen in particular were notorius. While capable of drawing very heavy loads, they were slow and could not perform well in broken terrain. It has been estimated that oxen could realistically average only 2km/h under regular conditions. Progress was hardly any better than 8 or 10km a day. 
Infantry could of course advance much faster than that, but moving ahead of the train always involved considerable danger and was not a viable strategy. Another alternative was to dispense with oxen altogether, distributing the loads among infantrymen themselves and faster pack animals, such as mules and horses. The Romans frequently did just that, but it was not an ideal solution for the footsoldiers ended up overburdened and some of the heavier equipment (especially large siege machinery) was simply too heavy for mules. 

*Cavalry could naturally move much faster than foot, but unless an army consisted entirely of horsemen, this was largely irrelevant because cavalry had to keep the pace with infantry. Difficult terrain was an even greater obstacle for cavalry than it was for infantry, however. In mountainous or heavily wooded regions horsemen were actually slower than footsoldiers.
As has been noted, horses have their limits and are prone to breaking down faster than men. Steppe nomads who travelled with plenty of remounts could afford to push their horses faster, which is why they were capable of covering as much as 100km a day and more. Nevertheless, this method could not work outside the steppe due to limited grazing. *


----------



## Ravana (Aug 29, 2011)

Hmm… without looking up the answers I don't know off the top of my head (which is most of them):

1: Farmers wouldn't have any; laborers probably wouldn't even have uses for them. Mercenaries wouldn't have any–they wouldn't be paid nearly enough–apart from officers, who, if they had any, would do so in virtue of having come from a propertied class (nobility). Brigands generally wouldn't have any, not only because they're extraordinarily expensive to keep and highly conspicuous, but in a great many places and times it was an instant death sentence to be caught with one that wasn't yours (a practice that persisted until surprisingly recently). A well-to-do merchant might have horses, assuming he had any practical use for them; if he didn't do a lot of traveling, he'd probably think of better things to do with his money. A well-to-do clergyman is called a noble. A non-noble cavalryman is called an infantryman–at least until very late in history. Or unless you're talking Mongols. Which leaves only the last two of your examples to worry about.

Actually, even Mongols having horses comes with a caveat: while they were horses, a Western observer–one not extensively familiar with horses, at least–would have been inclined to look at them and call them ponies instead. Which goes partway toward answering what the others might have had: ponies, donkeys, mules. Even those wouldn't be all that common: the most common plow animal up to around the 1700s was _Homo sapiens_. 

3 (the final part): Several. Two, at a minimum–only one of which would be a "war" horse; the other would be one bred to be able to carry large weights (say, the knight) over meaningful distances (say, more than 1,000 yards). Unless he was a poor (that is, as opposed to wealthy, not inept) knight, two or more fighting horses, so he could have remounts, a riding horse (or two), and one or more horses to carry all his stuff. 

4: Male ones. They didn't bother gelding female ones.  Seriously: the only reason you wouldn't ride a female horse would be because each female can only have one foal a year, but it only takes one stud to service a herd. Males weren't stronger: they were more expendable. 

6: "Thoroughbred" would most definitely be anachronistic in any setting prior to around the 17th century or so. It emerged as a cross between European and Arabic horses, was deliberately bred for speed and looks–even bets on which was held to be more important: knowing the British, probably the looks  –and is lousy for any other purposes. 

-

A comment on what pskelding posted: those numbers are not unreasonable for Medieval European settings, but they don't necessarily represent limits on what humans can do… and may be somewhat generous concerning what cavalry can manage in the long run. Roman infantry could cover 30-35km a day for fairly long periods… and build a fortified camp at the end of each day's march. Some cultures–notably the Masai and Zulu–had infantry, albeit much less heavily equipped, that could run for hours and still fight a battle when they arrived. Incan relay messengers were reportedly able to convey a message across a straight-line distance of 1,600 km in a week… and while no single messenger would be covering even a fraction of that distance, that still comes out to 229 km a day–through mountains, where no road runs straight. A certain well-known legend concerns a Greek soldier running a message about a victory 42 km… and while he wouldn't have been carrying anything _other_ than the message, if there's anything "legendary" about the story, it was probably him collapsing and dying at the end–a touch of drama from the storyteller–since thousands of lesser beings do this daily. (Think about it: if the message was important enough to run all the way back, would you have really pushed yourself to your absolute limit and risked collapsing _before_ you got there? In fact, it's marathoners who make the Incan story plausible, since the Incans wouldn't have to run half as quickly, or nearly as far individually. Or, alternately, since they may be required to cover twice as much distance due to terrain, they could run as quickly, and _still_ not have to run nearly as far individually.) I know few horse owners that would care to cover the same distance on a horse in the same time, mostly because they'd just as soon their horses _didn't_ collapse and die at the end–which it would. (One of the advantages Mongol horses enjoyed was that they _did_ have greater endurance than the European ones.)

So while pskelding's numbers are reasonable–and are definitely far more representative: the above are the exceptions–a lot of it depends on what the human is accustomed to… while rarely does it depend on what the horse is accustomed to. Even with available remounts, modestly-laden horses aren't likely to outdistance modestly-laden humans over the course of days, let alone weeks–and remember, the remount has to keep up with the rider or it's useless: the only difference is it has a lesser load to bear during that time. You can't gallop the legs off the first one and then hop onto the second expecting it to be fresh, because it will have been galloping just as fast and just as long… or unless you're using post relays–which messengers can but armies can't. Scouts generally moved faster, true–but they were lightly equipped, just like our runners, and even then they would have walked their horses most of the time, in order to conserve them for when they needed the speed most: getting away. The biggest value of cavalry was on the battlefield, not in being able to reach it faster.


----------



## SeverinR (Aug 29, 2011)

I have read about the Middle ages and horses, but I will post some sights to people that have published on the web about thier research.

I was...possibly still am part of the SCA, former SCA equestrian.  The group strives to recreate as much of this period as possible. The only way to do this is to study it.

This one bolds key words- Palfrey, destrier, courser, etc.

http://kyhorsepark.com/pdf/4 HorseHistory.pdf

Horses were costly, it was a rich person that could own a horse.

Knights might only have one horse. They would be the poorest of knights.  Knights needed several warhorses,
imagine the cost of travelling to a tournament only to find your only warhorse lame from a small rock.(btdt*)  They would prefer to have at least 2 war horses(or more). They would have the courser or even a palfrey(hey,even the tough tank can enjoy a pleasant ride) plus a draft horse.


*Planned on attending an equestrian event with both our horses, when we got there, my favorite horse was lame, stepped on a nail or wire, and could not be ridden.  I went on with his "big" brother.(and won the day)
Nothing beats the feel of a lance being driven through the quintain on the back of a large horse.

People did steal horses but it was punishable by death, so you did not want to be caught with a stolen horse. Caught, which means they abandoned the horse when they didn't need it anymore or faught to the death.

The mongels used special bows so they could shoot from horseback.  They fired on the run and were very good at hitting what they aimed at.

Horses in war is very interesting and not often accurate in movies. (actually most movies are pretty poor at historical accuracy.)


----------



## Amanita (Aug 29, 2011)

Adding a few base facts about horses:

If they can, horses run away when in danger. They don't fight. And horses "think" that they're in danger very quickly, wind or clothes they don't know can be enough. If you're going to have battle horses, they'll need specific training to put up with this situation.

Horses are very sensitive where food is concerned. The number of things they can safely eat is rather small and even those can be dangerous if given to the wrong horse or prepared the wrong way. They can't be given leftover from the table or anything of that sort like dogs. While a dog doesn't suffer harm from a bit of plant based food a horse can't be given dried meat or anything of that sort on a journey.

If a horse has never carried a rider before, it will need time to get used to the extra-weight and move with it. Especially gallop will be very difficult in the beginning. The hero/in can't jump onto the back of a wild stallion and galopp off into battle with him.

The same goes for people who've never sat on a horse before. They'll have trouble staying up, especially without a saddle and definitly won't be able to use weapons at the same time. 

The legs of horses are very prone to injuries and with some horses this is true of their hooves as well. 

(I don't think that you intended to ignore any of this, but I've seen it ignored before, therefore I think I should mention it. )


----------



## SeverinR (Sep 2, 2011)

Amanita said:


> Adding a few base facts about horses:
> 
> If they can, horses run away when in danger. They don't fight. And horses "think" that they're in danger very quickly, wind or clothes they don't know can be enough. If you're going to have battle horses, they'll need specific training to put up with this situation.
> 
> ...


Good information.
No horse used for non-combat would easily charge into violence.  

Horses can't burp, so any stomach upset is serious.  Eating to soon after exercise, the wrong food, anything can cause it.

Legs: in battles the horse is a target, cutting the legs out from under a horse ends a knights charge through a crowd.  As I said a simple wire into the hoof, leaves a horse lame for several days. (Several days of soaking the hoof)

Some horses do not tolerate riding double. (without getting them use to it first.)
 Horses do not like lances and spears moving in thier field of vision without exposing them to it first. Desensitizing
them to the new things. 
Horses are very dependant on their senses, a windy day will make a horse nervous, even more if anything else is new. Flags, clothes being blown in the wind, can make them jump.

Speaking of clothes, Capes and cloaks can be a problem.  The windy day when my young horse was acting up nervous about the wind, the whipping flags, the freeway traffic roaring by(next to the park), I was sitting horse back walking my horse and my cloak blew over my head blinding me.  It was like wrestling an animal getting it off one handed. (one hand to keep the reigns from falling out of reach.)

On the average, the younger the horse, the more they react and panic quicker. The older more "experienced" horse will be less affected by common fears.  My 3 yr old required alot of concentration to "see" scary things before he did. His brother 4 years older was pretty calm. 

Also if a person isn't use to riding long periods, they will be suffering during the ride not to mention the next day.

other common horse knowlege:
Always let the horse know you are coming up from behind, put your hand on the rump before walking behind, but also don't just assume the horse knows your approaching. Same day as above, I came up from the rear side(not right behind, but to the side,)easily noticable if horse was awake.  The horse jumped severely when I placed a hand on his rump, he was asleep with his eyes open.  Alot of people speak to the horse prior to this, after this I always did.

If suprised they will kick, rear legs can kick without warning and are really powerful.


----------



## Jenna St. Hilaire (Sep 7, 2011)

My guess is that "easy-gaited" refers to a pacer rather than a trotter. When trotting, a horse moves its right fore and left hind leg together, then its left fore and right hind. Pacers move left fore and hind together, than right fore and hind. I understand that pacing is a much smoother gait to ride; the closest I've ever experienced was a ride on a neighbor's Tennessee Walker. The Walker breed was developed from pacers.

I'm a woman, and used to work at a riding stable. I never had any trouble with the stallions; in fact, I took riding lessons on one for awhile. He was better-natured than some of the geldings I knew.  I've heard that rumor about menstruation, but the only story I've heard to corroborate it was of a stallion ripping a woman's shirt off at the wrong time. Honestly, considering how much my own mare loved chewing on fabric, I strongly suspect this was coincidental.

Gelding a colt will prevent him from developing the thick neck of a stallion, and will deprive him of some of the energy and excitement (and potential for distraction) that the stud retains. A horse gelded late may be termed "proud cut" for retaining some of these characteristics and behaviors.

The term "thoroughbred" may have been used in earlier days to refer to an animal of any pure breed, but the proper noun Thoroughbred refers to a modern breed descended from three specific animals: the Godolphin Arabian, the Darley Arabian, and the Byerley Turk (1680s, according to Wikipedia; the earliest of the three.)

As far as I know, "nag" is simply a derogatory term for a poorly-kept/stubborn/aged horse. With "hackney" you'll find the same sort of problems as "thoroughbred"; the breed was developed in 14th century England, but the term may have been in use beforehand. It might have been tied to England, as I believe it's also a place name.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Dreamer (Sep 12, 2011)

I grew up around horses so I hope what I do know may be of some help to you.  To escape from a pursuit you would want a horse that is able to go a longer distance plus have the speed to outrun.  Naturally, the first horse that comes to my mind would be a 
Thoroughbred.  They are able to run a mile +/- at a faster speed than say a Quarter horse.  The Quarter horse is usually built 
with a strong muscle tone and is able to run at a good speed, but hence their name, are only able to travel about a quarter of a
mile before needing to stop or slow down. Many farmers use Quarter horses for help in labor or in rounding up livestock.  They 
are able to easily spin to a new direction if properly trained, which is why they are used in barrel racing.  
I know for a fact that stallions are able to pick up on a woman close by when she is menstruating.  I have seen this to happen with my own eyes.  Just like any other animal, human females give off a scent from hormones that gets the horse's attention.
An easy gated horse would be one, when ridden, gives a smooth ride.  They would not be bumpy like a Quarter horse or say an Arabian.  You can think in comparison to riding in a lifted up truck versus a Cadillac.  Two examples of an easy gated horse 
would be the American Saddlebred and the Tennessee Walking Horse.
For possible names that may have been used during the medieval setting that you are hoping to achieve, you may try searching a few of the names I have given you along with medieval.  The search may turn up a few ideas for a better sounding breed 
name.  I am not sure how long some of the breed names have been around, but possibly there are some that had an older 
calling prior to what we know them as today.  Good luck!


----------



## SeverinR (Sep 13, 2011)

> Knights were expected to have at least one war horse (as well as riding horses and packhorses), with some records from the later Middle Ages showing knights bringing twenty-four horses on campaign.[12] Five horses was perhaps the standard.[43]



Horses in the Middle Ages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems to have some good information on Middle ages equestrian.



> Mares were the preferred war horse of the Moors, the Islamic invaders who attacked various European nations from A.D. 700 through the 15th Century



I wonder if it was to throw off the European stallions?  Imagine a cavalry of mares in season, charging towards a cavalry of stallions? Not sure mares in season respond to comands better then stallions in the heat of passion.


----------



## Ravana (Sep 14, 2011)

Hmm. You'd have to time your wars pretty carefully. In fact, that's probably the _last_ time you'd want to have your mares tied up, though... since each one out on campaign is one fewer foals that year. I'm sure the Moors had a reason... just don't know what it might have been.


----------



## Degenerate Hill Person (Oct 3, 2011)

I was poking around and found this the other day, found a blog from an horse person about horses in fantasy fiction. Guess it just started, the first post is pretty decent.

Words from Thin Air: Horses in Fiction--What Writers Get Wrong


----------



## SeverinR (Oct 5, 2011)

Good article.
The feed part is easily over looked,
how many times does a dog being fed get mentioned in a book or movie?
Granted how they carry weeks of grain without a pack horse or wagon is a tough one.
But horses can live on just grazing, but they have to be allowed to graze, tied to a tree or a tree line does not count since the amount of grass within reach will be gone in a very short time.
(And the idiots will get tangled in their lead rope. btdt)

Riding a horse for long periods in hot weather also means the horses need to cool before they can drink massive amounts of water, and or eat grain.  

It only takes a little research to figure out how a horse will react to the obvious.

It takes some thought to figure out what the horse is panicked about when there seems to be nothing to be afraid of. (Sometimes just a shadow moving does it)

Horse tangled in reins,(As she pointed out) means one of two outcomes:
The horse jerks their head up and reins are busted, can't bust the reins, horse panics, and thrashes around until it can move or has injured itself so badly(such as tumbling down the hill) that it forgets what upset it.
secondary; herd mentality, when lead horse freaks, horse two freaks, when horse 1 & 2 freak, horse three gets nervous and so on.
Most horses will not figure out if they lift their hoof, the reins will be released.  But some might.

It is reassuring that I am only guilty of ignoring the feeding. It is not easy to keep the story moving and explaining the mundane eating habits of the vehicle they use requires.

One question, I have been on modern trail rides, and modern Wagon trains, how does a horse graze in open fields, one writer hobbled the horses, is that the right way? (hobbled: tied hooved to keep them from running, a grazing horse only able to wlak does not move very far overnight, but in dangerous locations a hobbled horse could be an animals next meal.


----------

