The development of horses for both practical use and artistic representation has always been a complex dance between functionality and aesthetics. In the realm of historical warfare and modern gaming, understanding the evolution of horse breeds offers a fascinating glimpse into the past. This exploration delves into the practicality of different horse types across various cultures and eras, highlighting how their characteristics influenced their roles in conflict and daily life.
The Practicality of Smaller, Hardy Horses
Throughout history, the transportation and maintenance of large warhorses presented significant challenges. Viking raids, for instance, rarely involved their own specialized warhorses. The difficulty of transporting them, their high food and exercise requirements, and their poor adaptability to wild environments made them impractical for long sea voyages and unfamiliar terrains. Instead, Vikings utilized smaller, hardier Scandinavian horses that could subsist on wild vegetation, effectively serving as a potential food source if necessary. While these horses were not ideal for direct combat against larger European steeds, they were exceptionally practical for the Vikings’ needs. These hardy Scandinavian horses eventually found their way to the Americas, where they thrived in the wild and rough terrain with minimal upkeep, later contributing to the lineage of American mustangs and becoming integral to Native American and Western culture.
Similarly, the Mongol Empire relied on small, light, and compact horses. These animals required low maintenance, could be left to roam freely, and could sustain long journeys on minimal food. While perhaps outmatched by larger European warhorses in a direct confrontation, their adaptability and low resource demands were perfectly suited for the Mongols’ distinct warfare strategies.
The Spanish conquest of the Americas also faced logistical hurdles with large, powerful Spanish warhorses. Transporting these animals from Europe was incredibly expensive and difficult. Consequently, the Spanish initially had to establish breeding populations in Cuba before they could be widely distributed. Smaller, more self-sufficient horses proved to be a more practical and affordable option for the initial stages of American conquest.
The Nuances of Arabian and Irish Horses
Even renowned breeds like the Arabian horse have a nuanced history. While later celebrated for their role in spreading Islam, Arabian horses were not initially popular in Arabia, where warfare traditionally relied on foot soldiers or camels. It was only after the Arabians conquered Iran, a region with a tradition of producing large, strong, and fast horses, that these breeds became influential. However, Arabian horses were relatively high-maintenance, demanding significant resources for feeding. Had the Arabs adopted the more self-sufficient Mongol horses, their conquests might have been easier.
In Ireland, the local horse population and those imported during the Roman era were generally smaller, lighter, and faster. These horses evolved into the Irish hobby horse, ill-suited for combat against continental European knights. However, their agility and lighter build made them ideal for warfare in the boggy Irish and Scottish woodlands. Irish and Scottish light cavalry effectively used these lightly armored horses for quick raids and skirmishes. The rugged terrain and limited food resources made it difficult for knights on larger warhorses to operate effectively, giving the hobby horse a distinct advantage. This eventually influenced English warfare, leading to the development of mounted longbowmen who capitalized on the advantages of lighter, more mobile cavalry.
The Shifting Landscape of Military Horsepower
Many European military horses of the Dark Ages likely descended from the small, compact Mongol horse stock. These horses were more accessible for less affluent knights, offering a practical and affordable alternative to the larger, more resource-intensive warhorses. For many, it was a matter of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”—smaller horses were sufficient for many tasks, especially when more elaborate warhorses were a luxury of the wealthy, akin to heavy suits of armor.
The conventional wisdom that mounted knights on warhorses replaced infantry due to technological superiority is also being re-examined. While the Romans had highly effective infantry capable of countering cavalry, the fall of Rome led to a distrust of trained infantry in feudal Europe. Weapons were confiscated, and training was withheld, diminishing skilled infantry. This created an environment where heavily armored cavalry dominated, with poorly armed peasant conscripts relegated to absorbing cavalry charges.
However, cultures like England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland developed differently. The English, in particular, continued to train infantry to high standards, even after the Roman Empire’s collapse. English infantry remained a formidable force, often riding horses to war but preferring to dismount and fight on foot, a departure from European cavalry warfare.
In regions where well-trained infantry remained prevalent, smaller, more self-sufficient horses were often more than adequate. They could transport soldiers to the battlefield, where they could dismount and engage in disciplined infantry combat. The lower cost of feeding, exercising, training, and housing these horses was a significant benefit. The ultimate dominance of infantry, particularly archers like the English yeoman archers who proved devastatingly effective against European knights, and later the adoption of firearms, ultimately rendered the European heavy knight obsolete.
While heavy cavalry did not disappear entirely, its historical trajectory took many interesting turns, demonstrating that the dominance of large, powerful horses was not always a foregone conclusion. The interplay between breed characteristics, logistical constraints, and evolving military tactics shaped the role of horses in warfare for centuries.
