Horse attacks! can you do stampede or trample?

[bergh]

I have a question, when a group of mounted knight (my players in this case), wants to charge a close group of enemys, we play that they attack with there weapon and the horse just continue moving, and maybe stepping or "riding down" anything in front of it.

in OBAM there are only Rearing, kicking and pivoting.

should i just treat this "running over" attack as a pivoting?
or should i make new rules? anyway i think that the horses CP should be used, this means that a trained war horse is better then this a smaller, not so trained horse. ie. horse CP/Ride skill of rider. for attack?
What for damage?

i have a 2nd question.
In our group when the players are fighting in a closed group or fighting as part of 2 regiments, then we think not that a Full evade should be possible. only partical evades.
what do you think?

[Irmo]

I'd be sceptical about the riding down of a close group of enemies. A horse will do many things, but running into a solid obstacle, as which such a group would likely be perceived by a horse, is not usually among them. In any case, there would be severe risks to the horse's health as in injuries to the legs, and I am not sure who would risk a horse worth a fortune in such an attack. I'd require a seriously difficult riding test with failure resulting in a loss of the horse through broken legs. Better use a lance and make sure the enemy is down before your horse gets there...

[bergh]

you are right, i need to think something new up!

[bergh]

what about a single person, i think it would ride into that one.

anyway i can't see how knights should fight, if there horse was afraid to ride to enemy formations, anyway was knights not used to break enemy lines?

[Irmo]

what about a single person, i think it would ride into that one.

anyway i can't see how knights should fight, if there horse was afraid to ride to enemy formations, anyway was knights not used to break enemy lines?

No, not really, unless the line would break out of psychological reasons. Whenever the troops were discipline enough to hold their ground, the knights had to turn around and try again. At Hastings, the normans charged up the hill all day, unable to break the Saxon ranks. It was only in the evening hours, when the Saxons were already starting to send some of their men to camp that some guys got cocky and pursued another Norman retreat. By doing so, they opened a gap in the line, and the Normans quickly charged into it. Combined with the archers switching to volley fire, that caused complete disorder in the Saxon ranks and they lost a battle they had almost won. Likewise, centuries later, flemish militia gave some pretty good spanking to french knights whenever they kept their discipline.

The advantage of cavalry is mobility. If things turn badly for a cavalry unit, they will retreat, regroup, and attack again. If things turn bad for a foot unit, they get slaughtered. Again: You CAN attack a solid unit of infantry with knights, but you better be sure that you have lances, and they don't. If you have the longer weapon, you can create a gap in the line by killing them before you're really upon them. If they have pikes, you're out of luck. Also, the sight of a cavalry charge might be enough to cause some in the front ranks to decide they'd rather be somewhere else, which might cause disorder. I say might because infantry is sometimes packed so densely that at least those on the inside couldn't run if they wanted to. They might, however, cause the entire formation to go haywire. Nothing like panic to defeat an infantry unit.

[Jake Norwood]

My understanding is that once upon a time (meaning I can't cite the source so this may be crap, but growing up on a ranch I'd say it holds a large amount of feasibility) the scots highlanders would lie on the ground when mounted skirmishers came at them. The mountie's swords couldn't reach them, and the horse would always avoid stepping on this obviously unsure obstacle. The Scots would then either gut the horse or wait till it passed to take out the legs.

Jake

[Turin]

This maybe crap as well, but I have read that middle ages warhorses were trained to not be adverse to trampling a human.  

Makes you wonder about the idea that infantry, if they hold steady can withstand the charge of cavalry (perhaps properly armed is a major issue as well).  If if they begin to route, there is still a mass of troops the horses would be forced to run into.

I don't remember the source on this one, but the hard thing about determining what actually happened at the instant cavalry contacted infantry (or other cavalry for that matter) is almost all contemporary illustrations show the line of battle either before contact or somewhat after the initial contact - never really at the actual instant of contact.

There is debate among historians as to what actually happened in these contact.  A more recent theory is the cavalry did not actually gallop or canter into unmoving infantry, but slwed to a wal and it developed into somewhat of a "pushing" match as opposed to a collision.

[Irmo]

Illustrations should in any case be considered with a grain of salt, since they were often done on behalf of some wealthy sponsor who was likely part of nobility and would seriously like to see a superior depiction of cavalry...

[Tash]

Jake is bringing up a pretty accurate point.  Here in Maryland a number of farms have expensive racehorses turned out along major roadways with nothing keeping them in but a small wire 10-12 inches off the ground.  I asked someone about this once and was told that the horse doesn't know what the wire is, and doesn't know that they can't simply step over it.  Horses have extremely poor depth perception and size judgement.  They litterally think almost anything is the same size as them.  Consequently you can put a cat in the middle of a path and a horse will refuse to walk forward because it can't tell that the cat is only the size of a cat.  To a horse that wire looks no different than a hedge or solid wall, so they won't try and go over it.  
You run into this when training a horse for eventing (jumping).  If a horse is ridden at an obstacle they will usually rear up, turn abrubtly, or just stop dead.  Getting them to go over something requires lots of training to counter this instinct.  Getting them to actually run INTO something is maybe possible (though I don't see how, they have a health sense of their own mortaility, unlike many people), but not a real good idea.  The legs of a horse are very, very fragile, especially considering the weight of the animal they must support.  A dry spot on a muddy racetrack can kill a horse (and its jockey if things go really badly).  I just can't see anyone, no matter how much money they had, risking themselves and their mount by ridding into a person on purpose.  Even assuming the horse charged straight over the target the chances of it successfully trampling a human and not loosing its footing are pretty low, and when you are perched atop more than a ton of horse and armor running at thirty odd miles an hour you don't want to risk even the slightest chance of the animal stumbling.

[Turin]

You run into this when training a horse for eventing (jumping). If a horse is ridden at an obstacle they will usually rear up, turn abrubtly, or just stop dead. Getting them to go over something requires lots of training to counter this instinct.

I would think a warhorse from the middle ages would have had training as intense if not more than horses trained for eventing.  It's real tough to compare horses from the chivalric period to horses today, as there aren't many training schools that train horses to trample people.

Just exactly how well these horses were trained for combat however is unfortunately largely conjecture.

Though it does make you think of how useless a non combat-trained horse might be in a combat situation.

Also brings up a good question of the different equestrian cultures from that time and if the warhorse were trained differently by these cultures, and if so how different.  I would see the main types as the feudal western, arabic, and steppe nomadic such as mongolians, with most cultures falling somewhat into one of these categories.   Did Mongolians, due to the type of warfare conducted, train their warhorses to do the same things european warhorses would?

Perhaps Arabic or Steppe Nomadic types did not train their horses to be as aggressive as Europeans when moving to contact or melee.  This could possibly explain european knights strength in melee combat (or the explanation could be due to non-partial recording of history).

It has always made me curious, as the Arabic horses were as large as the standard mideaval horse, at least until the 14th-15th century, and even the size difference there is somewhat debatable.  Even Mongolian horses were only about 2 hands shorter than the european warhorses of the day, and they mongolian horses were a bit stocky.  Many of the huge breeds we think of as the heavy warhorse, such as the percheron were similar in size to the arabic horse.  Horses like the Percheron became the huge things we know of today because they were bred predominantly for draft work for hundreds of years.

Maybe it was the type of training the european warhorses had that made them more aggressive in melee.

[Farseer415]

Horse can be trained to go push pass people and so forth.  Police departements with mounted officers use it for crowd control.  Horses don't naturally do it but can be trained for it.  

::You run into this when training a horse for eventing (jumping). If a horse is ridden at an obstacle they will usually rear up, turn abrubtly, or just stop dead. Getting them to go over something requires lots of training to counter this instinct.::

This mostly depends on the individual horse.  When I got my horse she had never jumped but on our first attempt she went right over.  SHe does not  have an aggressive attitude. And Draft horses can jump!

::Horses have extremely poor depth perception and size judgement. They litterally think almost anything is the same size as them. Consequently you can put a cat in the middle of a path and a horse will refuse to walk forward because it can't tell that the cat is only the size of a cat.::

I have to disagree with the size judgement item.  If that was the case, the horses in my area would be too afraid to move with all the squarrels and coyotes.

[Lance D. Allen]

You know what I love about this forum?

Every time we need one, there's at least one expert at hand.

At least!

[Irmo]

Horse can be trained to go push pass people and so forth.  Police departements with mounted officers use it for crowd control.  Horses don't naturally do it but can be trained for it.  

True, but there is plenty more you need to train a warhorse for, most importantly to perform as part of a closely-packed unit, which is contrary to the instincts of a flight animal. The question thus is whether there would be much use in giving a horse such training. Most importantly, modern crowds usually aren't heavily armed and ordered to hold their ground.

[Tash]

OK, lots of stuff to respond to.  I'll just go one at a time:

Farseer: As you said, it mostly depends on individual horses.  I was simply speaking about horses in general based on what the various horse savy folks I know.  Some horses are quite easy to train to jump, others will balk and need to be worked constantly before they will even think about going over something.  To a large degree it depends on how much the horse trusts its rider.  Just like some are head shy and some refuse to run when its raining.  As fot them not understanding size relationships, that was told to me by a local vet who treats horses in this area.  The reason your horse isn't spooked by small creatures is because she is used to them and they don't have a scent that horses instinctively fear.  I was wrong on one point though, they don't see everything as the same size as them.  They see everything roughly 4 times the size it is.  So that cat is about the size of a wolf and you are the size of a giant!  Thier eyes work in very funny ways that are resp[onsible to a large degree for thier behavior.

Actually here is a very funny article that discusses some major inconsistencies between real life horses and the ones in fantasy movies and novels.  It also talks about the eyesight issues horses have:

http://www.speculations.com/mortal_mount.htm

On the level of training of medival European horses:  You can still see some bits of it here and there.  For example modern dressage grew out of the very complex series of commands knights used to direct thier mounts in battle.  These moves included not only maneuvers but also attacks with the front and rear legs.  As time went on the movemnts become both more restrained and less dramatic.  But anyone who has taken dressage lessons should appreciate the level of skill and control those knights had.

On what they looked like: You can still see several breeds who are almost unchanged since then, my favorite being the Friesian.  Friesians now are typically much more streamlined and elegant (because of interbreeding with Arabians along the way) but there are some farms who still breed them the way they looked in the middle ages.

Here is an example of what is known now as a "Baroque styled" Friesian.

http://www.jokarsfriesians.com/images/thor-gallop.jpg

Now THIS is a horse.  I told my wife she can have one if it looks this cool!

Then there is the mighty Shire, which was bred out of the famed English warhorses.  Here is an example, just imagine him charging at you in full harness!

http://www.warhorsefarm.com/images/Image5.jpg

Shires now are used as draught horses, but they make superp hunters when crossed with a lighter build, faster horse such as a Throughbred or an Arabian.  The line between a draught horse and war horse is not as large as you might think.  Essentially the same qualities are needed by both: durability, strength, intelligence and a solid, reliable nature.  They are probably bigger than their medival ancestors were, but not by a whole lot according to what I am being told as I type this (my wife is a horse nut, incidently she found all these links for me).  A war horse needs to be only a bit smaller and more hot blooded in temperment to give it the speed and agility needed in battle.  

Here is a breif history on the Friesian and Shire from two seperate websites, for anyone who is interested:

http://www.wishuponaster.com/published/friesianhistory/
http://www.shire-horse.org.uk/heritage.htm

[q]"True, but there is plenty more you need to train a warhorse for, most importantly to perform as part of a closely-packed unit, which is contrary to the instincts of a flight animal."[/q]

Actually that's possibly the only thing you don't need to train a horse for, besides eating.  They are herd animals and will basically follow the dominant stallion or mare (more likely the later as the dominant male will usually attack anything that threatens his herd).  Keeping close formation is something horses do very naturally.  When panicked they will run, but they will run in the same direction as the rest of the horses.  They hard part obviously is training them not to panic, because, as you mention, they are a flight animal.  They will "run first, ask question later" so to speak.  If the heard becomes cornered they will circle around the foals and weakest members and kick anything that comes near them, usually the lead stallion or mare will agressively patrol the outside of the circle attacking anything that threatens the main heard.  This is a useful instinct for the horse certainly, but not for humans who want to use them as weapons of war or crowd control.

On a not really related tangent:  When I was a kid the local police brought one of their horses by our school and gave a long talk and demonstration in the school yard.  He also showed us how police horses can run up steps, which was very cool to watch.  The horse was some kind of Belgian cross, probably about 16 hands.  The cop riding him took several of the kids up, including me.  For a 6 year old kid being that high in the air on an animal is a pretty intense feeling.  I can definately see why horses give such an advantage in close combat.  That was the only time I ever went near a horse when something bad didn't happen.  I went riding for the first time about a year later and got bucked off.  Then I tried again and got bitten.  I think horses just don't like me and have stayed away from them since.

[Valthalion]

We often get the weird impression that spear armed peasant infantry are easily overwhelmed by heavy cavalry.  But in reality if they stand up to the horses they have the advantage.  I read an anecdote once where making a movie about the battle of waterloo.  Russian infantry (real 20th century soldiers being used as actors) wouldn't stand up to the charge of the cavalry.  

But anyway I believe that masss infantry tactics lasted until the Civil War because of the defense against cavalry aspect as much as the need for volley fire.

Valthalion