"How vulnerable were horses?" Topic

I'm struggling a bit with the question of how vulnerable were horses in combat.This pertains to my home-groan Late Antiquity wargame rules.

With my Late Romans, there are a number of different types of mounted troops from all armoured cataphracts to totally unarmoured horse archers. With the bulk – various "scutari" types- you generally get riders with helmet, shield, mail coat. They're well protected.

However, the horses wear a variety of protective gear ranging from half-armoured & totally covered in thick cloth barding to nothing at all.

So do I ignore this, or do I grade the various scutari cavalry from 'medium' to 'light' armour based on the horses? In other words, how vulnerable to spear or arrow were horses?

I don't have a lot of information about horses, but I suspect they were pretty vulnerable to spears and arrows. Agincourt and Crecy come to mind, and vulnerability to long spears.

But the bigger question is this; do your "Home groan" rules contain lots of bad Puns ?

I think you could take into account horse armor when determining vulnerability. Much depends on what level and what you are trying to accomplish with your rules.

"Bad" & "puns" are two words I think shouldn't be in the same sentence.If you have something against puns, you must be homophonic.

Homophonemephobic?

I don't have a particular problem with bad puns, but would find bad Huns more worrying

John

Depends on scale. If you are skirmish gaming by all means take into account. Especially if you are tracking detailed hits.

If you are doing something where a unit of troops is the smallest scale then just role it into an overall rating for the unit. 1 class better with armored horses, etc

Leidang, thanks for the comments.

My rules are betwixt & between – not skirmish but not big battle either.

For example, a typical mounted unit is 8 figures, representing maybe 8o men.

I find the armour saves useful in giving outliers (cataphracts or infantry skirmishers) a point of difference to the bulk of the troop types.

And I don't use class as such. Different troop types have different abilities. I am just not sure that what are essentially medium cavalry should be divided between light or medium armour designations, depending upon the protection of the horse.

G'day, ochoin.

Keeping well across the ditch, mate?

In other words, how vulnerable to spear or arrow were horses

Like people, it depends upon where they get hit and how far it penetrates. Horses have big slabs of muscle that protect them a bit, especially on the croup. However, a wound to the neck or lower flank can cause real damage, or result in the horse ditching the rider and finding somewhere else to be. A leg/shoulder wound that causes the horse to become lame takes it out of action all together. When mine partially gloved his off-side rear shin he refused to move after the first step on that leg, until after the vet saw to it.

But too much armour can both trap heat (over-heated horses founder and can collapse) and also tire a horse out, severely slowing it down, so armour meant balancing the advantage of protection against reductions in movement and stamina.

I'd give them an advantage for protection but penalise them for movement, including changes of formation or direction, and limit heavily armoured horses, and horses carrying heavily armoured riders, to one charge or melee per game/campaign day, or else heavily penalise them (take additional casualties beyond the combat result) if they do charge/fight more than once.

Cheers.

Thanks, Dal.
Your profound knowledge of horses is welcome.

I noticed in the various histories that the heavily armoured cataphracts went from being everyone's 'flavour of the month' to disappearing from the various armies who once used them.

I figured the probable slow movement of the beasts was a factor but I think your point about over heating is valid too.
I'll put some thought into factoring some of this in the rules.

I would guess from your observations on injuries that canny opponents might well target an unprotected horse, especially if the rider was well armoured.

My rules are simple (…much like the author…)- only 8 pages including a preamble, army lists & various tables. I think factoring in some of the things we've been talking about here will stop them being too bland.

Unlike you poor folk in NSW, we've so far avoided nearly any issues with COVID over the past two years. I'm fully vacc'd & feel bullet-proof. Yes, I know that's not entirely accurate.

I am champing at the bit (see: equine image!) to get back to the UK to see my daughter & other family.

The virus is an emance, mate. The politicking going on with it is what really annoys me. I've had both jabs too, but that means nothing here, and won't until 80% have had the vaccine. I've had to slide my return trip to Vienna into 2023.

My knowledge isn't profound, mate, it's just a legacy of being owned by a horse for over 20 years now (Boof is 29 this year). BTW, in Oz "foundered" can mean two things- developing laminitis (a nasty hoof infection) is the usual meaning, but here it also means a horse that breaks down from over-work, being underfed or being overfed- which is how I used it.

Targetting the horse was common. It had two advantages (besides being a bigger target)- it (hopefully) stopped the big animal rushing at you and it generally meant the rider was going to become suddenly uncomfortable, or worse. Coming off a horse can hurt even when it's walking (Boof didn't feel like being ridden any more and I was riding bareback). If it's trotting or cantering then it hurts a bit more. If you're wearing 20kg of armour, and carrying sharp objects and a shield, then it will probably hurt much more.

I'm guessing, but it's a semi-informed guess, that cataphracts and similar units were probably one-shot weapons. A horse carrying that much weight is going to feel it, even if trained and fully fit. Think of how you'd do carrying 1/3 of your body weight- armour, rider and his gear- and wearing heavy clothing at the time (think greatcoat or thick jumper and strides). You'd be able to plod along all day, but how far would you be able to jog (trot) or run (canter)? And how long would it take for you to recover if you were forced to run 100 m under those conditions?

On the other side of the coin, how would you feel about that mass of metal and pointy things deliberately coming at you, malice intended, and all you have is a spear, some mail/plate and a (looking smaller by the second) shield?

As you would know, cataphracts seem to have gone from 'flavour of the month' in several armies (Late Roman, Palmyrene, Sarmatian, Pathian, sassanid & Byzantine) to disappearing…..just when armoured knights started hitting their stride in Western Europe. Curious.

At any rate, we're having a final play-test game in a fortnight. It'll be a Roman civil war as I don't have any foreign opponents for them yet. I still have some figures to paint & a final tweak of the rules.

I'd invite you over but your Premier or ours would probably have you shot.

Horses can be more vulnerable than the riders. While out of period, in the American west shooting the horse instead of the rider was the preferred method of keeping someone from escaping due to the horse being a larger target.

Not my field, but may I chip in?
Are there records of the Numbers' of Cataphracts / Heavy cav… in relation to the overall forces?

Maybe the investment costs… armour, quality horses and training, became less attractive than lighter cav.
A few armoured cav… with limited mobility and endurance… pitted against a lot of lighter cav running rings around them… and maybe Bow armed…

Also issues with 'supplies'. Horses need a Lot! Fodder, but especially water. Better quality heavy horse would need more than lighter horses if to be in top condition. In 'Eastern' campaigns, a great consideration. Infantry… much less 'high maintenance'!

As said, not really clued in… but I would think that armoured heavy cav… and maybe not that many of them… would be 'hoarded' 'Tactical Asset'.
Maybe a situated to offer 'threat' and 'force' opponent into a desired course of action.
Or, as a Reserve… to smash an impending 'breakthrough'… or exploit a situation when enemy forces committed to close combat and missile troops less dangerous. Think Waterloo… Brit Heavy cav?

European Armoured Knight may have been a different thing entirely… armour / trained horses only affordable for noblity and some retainers… yet, until the massed use of Longbows or 'cheap' effective crossbows.. very dangerous to poorly armoured inf in 'untrained' mob.
A stout defence line…(Hastings)… or spears… (Bannockburn)… could see off knights… but victory or defeat often to to tactical blunders / impetuosity / or lack of commitment / 'beleif'.

The main effect of Armoured Horse would be the fear inspired in those 'troops' facing tons of meat and armour…or, the 'Threat' of such fears in a Commander's thinking.

Well, back to those who will know more! :)