"Horse flesh" Topic

I've long had a nagging thought about the horses we put on the table.(pun intended).

I'm going to risk heresy: I think most wargame horses are completely wrong.
Across periods, our tables are full of tall, elegant, well-conditioned animals that look like modern show horses. Line after line of glossy, high-bred chargers.
But historically? That feels off.

The uncomfortable truth might be: Most pre-modern horses were small, tough, and unimpressive by modern standards
Steppe armies didn't ride "cavalry horses". They rode shaggy ponies
Bronze Age chariot teams were likely far smaller than what we put on the table.
Even in the Napoleonic Wars, many mounts were compact, workmanlike animals, not towering parade-ground beasts.

Yet on the tabletop:
Everyone rides something that looks like a prizewinner.
There's almost no visible distinction between elite mounts and rank-and-file.
Entire armies appear mounted on what should be officers' horses at best.

Bluntly, have we accidentally modelled every army as if it's mounted entirely on generals' chargers?

A few questions for the collective:
Are we collectively guilty of using horses that are simply too large and too "nice"?
Should a typical cavalry unit actually look a bit… scruffier? Smaller? More uneven?
Where are the shaggy ponies, the half-starved campaign mounts, the real "horse flesh" of history?

Has anyone tried deliberately downgrading their horses for realism and how did it look on the table?Horses with that "campaign look"?

I can't help thinking we're missing a trick visually.
A force of steppe riders on tough little ponies should look radically different from Napoleonic heavy cavalry but right now, they often don't.

Interested to hear if others think this is:
A real issue
A necessary compromise of sculpting/scale
Or are more figure lines addressing the issue than I'm giving credit to?

So, that's my hobby horse – am I onto something, or just talking manure?

Your thinking is most likely the case. One continuous writing in the period of the Napoleonic wars is British cavalry horses are a obvious step up from the French as they are fresh from England and extremely well cared for. Reading Tupper Carey memoir he says they are very good but the longer they are on campaign they wear out quickly.

The problems are a lot more than just the sizes, mate. The comparison here- between silhouettes of my horse, my ex's horse and a range of 15mm horses- show problems with proportions, confirmation and just "the look". For some reason it's upset a couple of sculptors on TMP, in the past. Boof, my horse, was the model used by the late Mike Broadbent when he was sculpting his 18mm SYW horses, 20mm Plains Indians and a few others.

To be fair, Shady (15hh2/62", measured to the top of the withers as traditional) was at the large end for light cavalry horses, whereas Boof (16hh3/67") would have been pulling a wagon.

Heh, yes. My Comanche range across half a dozen makers, and their horses come in all sizes, and that is OKAY.

I'm currently working on a Samurai army in 10mm scale, and the horses are definitely NOT properly sized for that time or place. They are too large and modern. That being the case,
an oversized pony would look 'off' on the table to eyes trained by modern media. The same applies to height variants
among people in any chosen scale. The uniformity seems to give a validity in a tabletop army in terms of matching their
companions. In effect, if it 'looks good' run with it.

Some really interesting points here gents. I appreciate the perspectives.

14Bore, that campaign wear point is a good one. Even when horses start out as top quality, they don't stay that way for long, which does make our consistently "fresh" looking units feel a bit off.

Dal, the conformation issue is fascinating and probably a bigger factor than I'd considered. It's not just size, it's the whole look and build of the animal.

Captain Beefheart, I think you've nailed the counterpoint. There's definitely a "what looks right" factor at work. People expect a certain type of horse and anything else might look wrong even if it's more accurate.

Which makes me wonder if we're balancing three different things: historical reality, sculpting limits and visual expectation and the last one might be winning.

That said, I still can't quite shake the feeling that our horses are just a bit…too good.

But maybe I'm backing the wrong horse?

If I were redoing my Mongols from scratch, I'd go with a range that puts them on actual ponies rather than the honking chargers my Essex figures ride.

But since I'm not going to restart, I'm afraid all future additions too will have to ride oversize horses.

Front Rank does light and heavy horses, so they had an idea of horse size. Personally I have hundreds of horses from various manufacturers, and I put riders on what I think look best, Cossack's horses are smaller sturdy looking horses, French heavy cavalry are on beefy looking horses, my U.S. cavalry are on thinner scruffy looking horses. If you can mix it up, go for it. I wouldn't worry about it in the long run though.

I think horse size is a minor worry for wargaming, if it looks nice on the table, I am happy!

I am with Herky Bird on this – while I love to paint, I don't like painting horses

Painting horses is fine.

Painting horse furniture, OTOH, I regard as a bit of a chore.

I don't give it any thought at all. I use whatever horses the figures come with, and most of them get painted various shades of brown. It's a guy on a horse. I am not looking for any deeper meaning.

Mongols mounted on HUGE horses IS a problem for me. I took to using old Hinchliffe 25mm horses for my 28mm Mongol cavalry. Looks a lot better IMHO – although they are a bit "skinny" for the 28mm riders to fit on properly.

As regards horse furniture, btw, i an finding the color gel pens to be a huge time saver in doing reins and such.

I was building my Saga armies for Anglo-Saxons and Welsh at the same time. Each had a small cavalry unit. The Saxons were from BTD, and their horses were huge! I ended up mounting them on the Old Glory Welsh horses and buying Gripping Beast riding ponies for my Welsh. The OG horses looked much better with my Saxons, and the GB ponies were actually smaller and had shaggy fur sculpted on them, so they looked significantly better for mountainous Wales. I wonder if I still have those BTD horses around here, somewhere.

While I am happy with my horse swaps, I must admit to having a "Where will it all end" attitude about horses, among other things. Afterall, I have only one set of palm trees, and they just have to serve as African species for Colonial games, New World species for pirate games, and Asian species if I ever wanted to do games set in the Pacific or Burma. The same goes for rocks, having realized that the lovely rock outcroppings somebody on TMP had done for Gettysburg didn't look at all like the outcroppings I'd seen the previous day while out hiking in the Rocky Mountains.

Grelber

I imediately thought of a painitng I saw once, I think it was of an overweight Scotsman on a pony, his feet were alomst dragging.
I once read a quote about Gustavus Adolphus' cav – something like tall swedes on undersized horses looking comical.

I'm grateful that the horses in my miniature armies look something like horses and not just blobs!

Awhile back I bought some Chinese cavalry intended for the Sino-Japanese war of 1895 from Jacklex miniatures that had been sculpted by Andrew Stadden. I didn't know what to expect, but was very pleased with the artist. It seems he simply bent the rider's knee to give the impression of the horses being on the small side. A simple cure to working with a given herd to give riders the smaller mounts they may have had historically?

@doc, gel pens for writing with like you can buy in any store, or are they the painting markers?

Some great points here and a nice spread from "it matters" to "it really doesn't." A range of opinions sums up wargamers se well!

The Last Conformist, that's exactly the trap I suspect a lot of us are in. Once an army's established, inertia wins over accuracy.

cavcrazy and Grelber: interesting to see people actively mixing horses to get the right feel. That does seem like a practical middle ground without going full purist.

Perris0707, that Mongol example is spot on. That's one of the cases where it really jumps out visually.

Herkybird / Frederick / 79thPA, fair enough and I suspect that's the majority view: if it looks good enough, it is good.

What's interesting to me is that even among those of us who aren't too fussed, the "oversized Steppe horse" seems to keep coming up as something that looks off—so maybe there are certain matchups where it matters more than others.

I'm starting to think it's less about strict accuracy, and more about getting the right "feel" for a troop type.
Though I admit, some of my cavalry are starting to look suspiciously well-fed.

A can of worms lies in variation, BTW.

Even looking at modern horses—say a line of thoroughbreds at a horse race—you don't get identical animals. There's always a mix of taller/shorter, heavier/lighter, different builds and proportions, even within a single type.

If that's true in a highly controlled modern breeding environment, historical cavalry would have shown even more variation; different regional types, mixed quality and then the effects of campaign wear on top of that.

In our tabletop units, generally every horse in a unit often looks virtually identical even if their are some differences in poses.

To model this is undoubtedly madness but worth pointing out.

I'd be happy to have some shaggy, robust, compact Highland garrons for my Scots and clansmen, but I don't know anyone who makes/sells these. The market dictates what we buy, pretty much. (Apart from those with 3-D printers and their own library of files.) I don't think there's much money in it for manufacturers to produce and stock a huge range of horses and compatibility between makers is a factor to consider as well (furniture on the horse or the rider? Etc.)

I do the best I can and afterward shrug off any inconsistencies or anachronisms. Like some have noted, once I've invested in figures and painting, I'm unlikely to start over without a very urgent reason or intense motivation.

Dal, the conformation issue is fascinating and probably a bigger factor than I'd considered. It's not just size, it's the whole look and build of the animal.

That's the biggest issue I have, mate- some horses look like upholstered rats (legs not even as long as the depth of the barrel/body), or have giraffe necks and "lego" heads.

Like people, there are always differences in size, build and proportions. But- as most people are pointing out- in art, on TV, in newspapers/magazines and at riding schools you see variations of Thoroughbred and Standardbred horses (what Boof and Shady were) and Shetland ponies (or a Welsh pony occasionally). Few would have seen working horses. In the US quarter Horses- stocky, strong boned and good legs, are probably the "photogenic" horse, just behind T-breds.

So that image is is branded as "Horse" in peoples' minds- eg:

They're all out of the "Pretty Horse" mould. That off-side lead grey has very thin legs for the work it's doing.

PS I didn't know OG did Welsh ponies, though. Good for them.

Depending on the manufacturer, I have limber horses that look the part; sturdy, carriage & dray horses, bred to haul heavy loads. But many are not & frankly, don't look up to the work.

Of course, in real life, they took what they could get & weak, undersized nags (some with, undoubtedly, very thin legs) were used.

It is, of course, with miniature figures, unrealistically, an entire team is one or the other.