Talk:Horses in warfare/Archive 8

Bundeswehr
Horses are still used by the bundeswehr (German Army) today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.111 (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Main Picture
Why is the main picture of a horse that is not a warhorse? That seems silly to me. Azkm (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been over this again and again; it's a photo, it's legal, it is from a reenactment, so close to on topic. We've been trying to find something better for a couple of years, but no one can agree on something better or properly suitable in all respects.   Montanabw (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What about this: http://i.imgur.com/tHIzdEc.jpg It's US civil war, so must be public domain. It's a good photo of a warhorse.

Or what about one of these paintings: http://i.imgur.com/B2h3cnf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/QpN6QoY.jpg http://i.imgur.com/ow14Big.jpg All legal; all great; all showing horses in warfare.
 * Nice, but with no documentation with the images (not just old but published before 1923 or author died 100 years ago) proving they are legal is going to be hard. Froggerlaura  ribbit 21:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The picture we have now is not even a re-enactment of a horse in warfare, it's a re-enactment of a sporting event. Azkm (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see from the archives that you've discussed changing that picture a lot. It seems like there was no progress because the "perfect" picture could not be agreed upon. Shouldn't we change the current picture, which is completely inappropriate, to one that is of a horse in warfare or a warhorse - even if it isn't perfect? Azkm (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the existing image shows what people typically think of the horse in warfare, the knight in armor thing. So while imperfect, it grabs attention and illustrates a concept.  If you want to take a shot at it, there are the basic criteria:  1)  Must look good at thumbnail size (mass battle scenes don't work, 2)  Image must not be facing "out" of the photo.  3)  Black and white is questionable, but not impossible (I personally liked one of your images, see below) Color definitely preferred (though see Horses in World War I  4)  Photos preferred over paintings, but a GOOD painting might work.  5)  Must be  OK to upload at Commons (I rather liked http://i.imgur.com/tHIzdEc.jpg, particularly if it is a free use photo and if it were cropped a bit - can YOU upload it at commons?  I lack the time to do the research and such to verify...)  6)  One image can't fit all, but probably best if it is not too culturally narrow (as were the Samurai images above)  7)  Best if of only ONE horse (maybe two, if tight cropped)   If you want to start a new Gallery below and do another round, we can (best to see images at the size they'd be if lead image of the article)   Montanabw (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GericaultHorseman.jpg - colourful, dramatic and on commons already. Monstrelet (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the main objection to that one was that the horse is facing out of frame and it's a painting. Here's another that is not perfect but might work. Froggerlaura  ribbit 21:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice (and handsome horse) but a bit too neat and tidy? I think if we are talking about horses in warfare, we should be looking for a "fighting" horse rather than a ceremonial one Monstrelet (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right. Here's another painting with a perspective similar to the currently used lead photo. For a genuine warhorse there is . Froggerlaura  ribbit 02:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that a historic photo or painting of a genuine war horse would be a much better alternative than the current image of a modern reenactment - there shouldn't be any shortage of good options. I note that the current image has a copyright watermark on it BTW, though it seems that it was actually donated by its author. Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the WWI cavalryman (colour, drama, martial intent). I think the artillery horse would be good in the text but the lead photo, to me, should really be essense of a horse in war, if we can get it.  And that probably means not realism but art (although, to me, some of the most evocative photos of the horse in war are of artillery horses belly deep in mud in Flanders, but not necessarily ideal for this purpose) Monstrelet (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we are not going to use a photo but artwork, it would be nice if we used one from the "high point" of horses in warfare, not from WWI or WWII - which are very end of horses in warfare. Remember that the horse was used in warfare for a very very long time, and using a modern painting as the lead image gives a mistaken impression that most military use of horses took place in modern times. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A fair point. I refer back to the Gericault image above.  He also did a very nice one of a trumpeter in Napoleons Guard lancers but don't think there is a free image of that.  Medieval image we might try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naya,_Carlo_%281816-1882%29_-_n._034_B_-_Venezia_-_Monumento_a_Bartolomeo_Colleoni.jpg .  Better angle on the horse I think than the modern image on commons, though might benefit from a light crop.  Not colourful though.Monstrelet (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As a medievalist moving the image back to the Napoleonic wars isn't really moving it much towards the high point of using horses in warfare, you know. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I love the first world war recruitment poster up there on the right. I think it would be perfect. Azkm (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Except it's the lead for Horses in World War I and it's really boring to use the same image on multiple articles; My view is if we are going to go to WWI, there are plenty of photos of real hroses I do rather like that image, and it would meet the criteria, though the photo of the WWI horse would be preferable if we went that era -- but, Ealdgyth's point is well-taken, it would be good to have a good medieval horse in armor - which is why the reenactment image leads at the moment!  Montanabw (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally for me the essence of the horse in war is the cavalry charge - the single horseman just doesn't quite capture the sheer terror of massed ranks of armed men on horseback (although I like the recruitment poster above and the 1914 Australians in the current article). Skimming Commons, I see there's a commons:Category:Cavalry charges of which File:Carga de O'Higgins.jpg is probably my favourite, File:La charge 4443.JPG might work with a bit of clean up and cropping out the frame. Poking around other cats like commons:Category:19th-century British cavalry, File:11th-hussars-officer-1856.jpg is a decent side-on portrait and of course you can't ignore the iconic File:Scotland Forever!.jpg, although File:ScotsGreys.jpg is maybe more compact and shows both the charge and horses dying on the battlefield, it's a bit less vainglorious. Maybe not ones for the top right but worth having in the article somewhere would be two images from the British MoD - direct linking is a nightmare, but if you go to the OGL section and search on 45154700.jpg (RHA ceremonial - but gun smoke, uniforms and WWI guns could come from any horse artillery of the last 200 years) or 45150155.jpg (ranks of Household Cavalry on parade - nice example of ceremonial). Given that the British Army still has more horses than tanks, the MoD has some nice pics of military horses but not all are freely licensed - somewhere there's some particularly nice photos of young cavalrymen larking about in the sea with their horses.Le Deluge (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The crop for Scotland Forever! is quite nice at thumbnail size. Froggerlaura  ribbit 19:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd go for a slightly wider crop, the central 5 horses. I've also just found commons:cat:History of cavalry through painting which may have some inspiration.Le Deluge (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The main problem with any mass scene is that it looks like crap as a thumbnail in the article, and to make it huge would irritate the wikipedia MOS gods. Besides, the massed cavalry charge was only one way horse were used in warfare; they also carried mounted infantry, pulled caissons, etc... (see, for example, the lead image in Horse artillery) That said, the current crop of Scotland Forever is pretty good and I wouldn't object to switching that one in if there is no one else who has serious objections.  Montanabw (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Follow up:  Hussar might also work, Ealdgyth's objections notwithstanding. I personally like the RHA photo, but the same "it's not really war" objection probably applies there.    Montanabw (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we were to follow Ealdgyth's suggestion and go for a medieval topic, I'd go for something from the Morgan Bible or Codex Manesse - both colourful, spirited and the horses are well represented. And there are a number of the images already on commons.Monstrelet (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Something like File:Codex Manesse Ulrich von Liechtenstein.jpg has potential, though it looks a little small in the gallery, can we crop it tighter and see how it looks then? I'm not fond of the woman/angel or whatever it is over the guy's head, but the horse isn't bad.  Can we find more like this?   Montanabw (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * More can be found here. It seems like it's a book of love poems, so most of the scenes are tournament type events featuring knights with very bizarre helmets (?) Froggerlaura  ribbit 00:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Went through there, nothing worked for me.  Montanabw (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, my vote for the Manesse codex one (which is actually a book of heraldry as much as love songs) would be von Aue, the one with bird on head - nicer colour and less "fussy" than Ulrich von Lichtenstein. There are some battle pics in it - the Duke of Brabant for example.  The Durer is the lead picture at Man-at-arms BTW, though it's a good picture of the horse.  Anyway, I would be happy with a 19th century horse, if others prefered not to go the medieval route.Monstrelet (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done on finding the Knight of Prato - I looked for that one but couldn't find it. Excellent colour - shame the artist didn't go for the horse facing forward though.  I added a Polish winged hussar into the gallery because it gives yet another non-Western European option, though I don't think it strong enough for the lead image.  I was thinking that we could look over the whole use of images in the article, to ensure a good balance and variety of horse use, now that we have sourced some options.  But lead image first.Monstrelet (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind, Monstrelet, that when we put this up for GA, we did a LOT of work on images to have a balance of different things. The only real issue we've ever had is with the lead one.  Well, that and people who want to put in galleries in the article...  :-P   Montanabw (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't a bad selection but, to me, review doesn't necessarily mean change. Just to look at what you've used and what you obtained since and see if any swaps are desireable.  However, as I've said, it is already a good selection, so if folks are happy with that, so am I.Monstrelet (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Yes it's true that horses were used for things other than cavalry charges - but the priority is an arresting image, and you're much more likely to find one in cavalry than in towing a cart. Still, I'm open to the idea of one doing logistics, if the image is good enough. We need the image to be good quality for both composition and technically - the re-enactment photo fails the composition test, the RHA one is a much better photo of horses standing around. The key things horses brought to armies were a)mobility and b)mass. Just one horse wasn't much good to you, Richard III aside. Just as a technical point - how does the voting below work, can anyone nominate their favourite picture? And might I suggest that we only have one half-decent version of each picture, and then worry about tweaking it later? Anyway, if you want to represent war horses in a single image, then they should be moving and there should be more than one of them. The first is easy - in fact a moving horse is more likely to make for an eye-catching image - but more than one horse is problematic at small scale. A portrait-shape image helps get round the MOS gods a bit, as it's bigger for a given width than landscape-shape. But the tradeoff between lots of horses and the thumbnail problem would seem to be a picture with one horseman highlighted, with a mass of horses behind him. The O'Higgins picture fits this bill nicely, it needs a bit of a crop but unfortunately there's no really good quality versions of it on Wikipedia or apparently anywhere online. I wouldn't get too hung up on the knights in shining armour - aside from the fact that most contemporary medieval paintings do a poor job of capturing the dynamism of horses, the knight is fairly Eurocentric and relates to a relatively short period of the use of horses in warfare, the chariot was a much more effective tool in continent-scale domination. Light cavalry on the other hand have been a constant from pre-Roman times to modern Afghanistan, and been found on all continents. So I'm looking for a picture that's portrait-shape, of more than one horse, in motion and without heavy armour. My heart says a crop of Scotland Forever!, logic leads me to the one of the Pacific War above (perhaps with a light crop). Can I nominate that for the final? Le Deluge (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally could live with the "Scotland forever" image if that one prevails, but I oppose the "Carga caballeria chilena.jpg ("pacific War") one because that horse is just painted weird; it's not a good representation of the horse all twisted funny, bad horse art. I don't necessarily hold that a group image is required, but I don't have any complaint that an image with one horse predominant could become the lead. Montanabw (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Finalists?
Let's try a smaller gallery to narrow down the best. Let's place the ones that clearly meet all quality criteria here and see what works (i.e., horse facing straight or left, one or a few horses, big enough to be obviously a horse at size in article, etc...). I think there's wiggle room for era. Maybe we could budge on the color thing if there is a good WWI image that was an absolutely fantastic photo (wonder if we could prove one of those first ideas would pass Commons muster) I'll start with three I could live with:   Montanabw (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

- VOTE?

Nominate your finalist in the small gallery above, and then vote on your top choice. (If better image added, you can change your vote!)


 * D (Or first retouch if color balance is better on other computers) Montanabw (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * D. A could also had been a good contender, but it is too low res. I'm puzzled by the current jousting image. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A Horses are doomed but magnificent while horsemen are secondary but show convincing mix of emotions. First impulse of viewer is to get out of the way - second is to read the article. And Napoleon (who saw the charge) gave the participants high praise: "Qu-ils sont terribles, ces Chevaux Gris". Buistr (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not make a new version of A? I've already found a higher res version the crop could be made from: I'm sure there are some in even higher res. I'd support A in that case. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the best version of each image should go up, if someone can do the crop and put up a "new A", I'd like to see it.  Montanabw (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Added crops of higher resolution image. Color balance may need to be adjusted. I altered the gallery to reflect the image size that will appear on the page. Partial to A. Froggerlaura  ribbit 00:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I actually like B best. The upright crops look too crammed, the last one is more "epic" due to the slight panorama. FunkMonk (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * B is great, A would do fine if that narrow shape is preferred. I also like D. By the way, thank you very much for your effort in this Montanabw, and everyone else who's trying to make progress on this. Azkm (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Though I put in a vote for D, I must admit that, for the quality of the horse, the full-body side image, and pretty colors, still am rather fond of B, except that it seems a bit "busy." can anyone brighten up that image to see how it ranks with the others?  I really am mostly Ok with whatever consensus develops, I've been trying to figure out why I am not gung-ho for "Scotland forever" even though in so many ways it's a great image, and I think one problem is that the front hoof of the lead horse is cut off, the original must have contained it -- can that be fixed?  My other concern is as an anatomy geek, that the horses seem distorted, the heads and legs having dwarfism in their proportions (yes, I have judged conformation classes, sigh....) I could live with it as the chosen image, just saying...  Montanabw (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would prefer A or B, but am OK with D. I've tweaked the sizes in the gallery, standard thumbnail size is 250px (and a lot of leading images are 300px, and/or people "forget" to use the upright tag but I'm not sure the MOS gods have noticed.  ) Seemed sensible to just concentrate on the image first and then worry about tweaking with Photoshop, seemed to be a consensus that the latest WWI version was best.Le Deluge (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see how B looks if it were brightened up the way we did D, though. It's the "purdyist" horse!   Montanabw (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, I took a shot at brightening B, but the original levels are pretty good already, and I didn't like my "improvements". For example, the white on the horses' faces gets a bit streaky looking. I'm by no means an expert at this work. The reason "Forward Enlist" looked so much brighter after my corrections was that the poster source had browned quite a bit with age, and the raw scan of the source, while rich in data, didn't do justice to the artist's original work. Someone more adept than myself might be able to do a more skilled color correction. BusterD (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For my part, I'm glad we're considering replacing the existing image (which is quite good but not optimal). I really liked the energy of the WWI poster, and that's why I spent some time tweaking the image. So I prefer D right now, but I don't think we've found the ideal image for an FA-quality article yet. I'd like to see a Remington, but there's nothing I saw in Commons which meets the ideal criteria we've previously discussed (high res, outstanding quality, photographic in style, facing toward the page, single focal figure, not too busy). BusterD (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Remington? Frederic Remington?  I have to admit (grinning) that as a Montanan and fan of CM Russell, I find Remington's work a bit cartoonish and frequently a bit inaccurate.  But that's just me.  ;-)   Montanabw (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Could we call for a final vote on this now? It would be a pity if the effort that editors have gone to in setting criteria, posting suitable images and cropping/brightening the same was wasted because of a surfeit of riches. Perhaps consensus would be quicker if we accorded preference to some or all of the short-listed illustrations above (in which case my choices would be B, D, C and A in that order - but really happy with any of them). Buistr (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My order would be B,A,D,CMonstrelet (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I like the weighted vote. That said, B is NOT going to look good as a lead image, so if it is a SNOW situation, I must choose A over B.  I have always preferred C, but if it isn't in the finalists and so far it's running last, then my weighted vote order (right now subject to change...heh) has to be A,D,C, B   Montanabw (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm (A or B), D, C. I still haven't made my mind up yet on the SF crop - I even put the wide crop in the article just to see what it looks like. That's not intended to prejudice the vote, it's just to try and figure out what works best. We're agreed that the old image was doomed. I think that if one is being MOS-purist about it and don't specify the width of the image, then A is probably better, but if you allow the common tweak of setting the lead image to 300px, then B just shades it. But I reserve the right to change my mind! Le Deluge (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK - convinced by the smartphone argument I'll do a flip-flop to A,D,C,B. IMHO C is very nice but perhaps has too much parade ground ambiance for the subject of this particular article. I'll add it to the Hussar article if it is not already there. Buistr (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Le Deluge, want to put A in as lead image now? (I spanked you for putting in B...) Maybe do it and see if anyone screams bloody murder?   Montanabw (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If the asymmetrical crop is not liked I can make another focusing on the three central horses making a V-shape with all horses facing straight ahead. The higher resolution image has the lead horse's hoof cut off, and I couldn't find another image of similar quality with a full crop. Froggerlaura  ribbit 17:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Additions to Central and East Asian sections
I'd like to bring this article to up speed on Genghis Khan's Mongol horsemen. But before going on, I have to point out that there are 1,651 words devoted to European horsemanship, but just 154 words devoted to East Asian horsemanship, and a mere 113 words devoted to Central Asian horsemanship. Why is this? Were there less horses used in Asian warfare, or did the Asians have less wars? Why the different sized articles? According to Wikipedia's own article on systemic bias, "The size of [Wikipedia] articles is often based on the interest that English-speaking Wikipedians have in the subject (which to some extent is based on the involvement of their nations). For example, the article on the Second Congo War, the deadliest conflict in the past 60 years, is shorter than that on the Falklands War, with a death toll of under a thousand. Additionally, the amount of information available to researchers is disproportionately biased towards events involving more economically developed countries."

With this in mind, I suggest that the reason European horsemanship has over ten times as much coverage as the either of the Asian areas is that we as wiki editors are Westerners living in developed countries, not Asians living in third world countries (for example, nomadic steppe herders in Mongolia). Though understandable, such slanted coverage is not helpful in furthering Wikipedia's mission to make available the sum of human knowledge. To produce a balanced, consistent article, I propose that we list out all the information that is covered in the European section, then work to match the same level of detail in the two Asian sections. Otherwise, the European section should be shortened to 150 words for the sake of consistency, and the bulk of the information moved to a separate article devoted to the subject. It might be argued that we already have a separate article devoted to Horses in East Asian warfare. However, the counterpoint to this is that we also have a separate European article devoted to Horses in the Middle Ages. If it is appropriate to store the bulk of the E. Asian material in a separate article, then for the sake of consistent coverage, it is also appropriate to store the bulk of the European material in a separate article. Or, if we wish to retain 1,651 words of European coverage, then it is reasonable to expect that 1,651 words should be devoted to the Central and East Asian regions respectively.

One final point before starting--there is a bit of a muddle here as regards Central Asia vs. Eastern Asia. The Central Asia section discusses the Mongols, but Wiki assigns Mongolia to East Asia. (Confusingly, there are different ways of slicing up Asia; but I guess it's best just to stick with Wiki's way.) It would probably be a good idea to move all the Mongol information out of the C. Asian section and into the E. Asian section as part of the rewrite.

An overview of the information in the European section

1. The introduction to the European section describes types of horses and sizes ("The destrier, the courser, and the rouncey") and their sizes ("rarely exceeding 15.2 hands (62 inches, 157 cm)") and what it costs to keep them in varying terrain ("Heavy horses were logistically difficult to maintain and less adaptable to varied terrains."). By a similar token, the Middle Eastern and Sub-Saharan Africa sections also list breeds that were used in the war, including the Arabian, Barb, Turkoman, Basuto and Waler horses.

For the Mongol empire, the equivalent text would read: "Nomadic East Asian steppe warriors used the Mongol horse, a small breed averaging 12 - 14 hands. These horses were hardy, strong, easy to keep and adapted well to varying terrain."

2. The European section then goes on to describe the sexes of war horses ridden, describing why each type was chosen by that particular culture. So we learn that stallions were chosen because of natural aggression, or that mares were chosen was because they were less likely to whinny and give away the soldier's position.

The equivalent Eastern Asian section should provide the information that the Mongols rode mares, and that the reason they chose them was because fermented mares' milk was their favorite drink.

3. The European section describes the maneuvers that the European horsemen used during war ("The heavy cavalry charge, while it could be effective, was not a common occurrence."), and when they fought mounted or dismounted ("it was common for knights to dismount to fight,[134] while their horses were sent to the rear, kept ready for pursuit.").

The Eastern Asian section should note how each Mongol soldier had 2 - 4 extra horses that they used as remounts, and how this affected their strategies and tactics, i.e. 1.) it allowed them to make lightning strikes deep into the territory of enemies who mistakenly thought the Mongols were hundreds of miles away, 2.) it allowed them to pull off their signature feigned retreats, fleeing until the enemy was strung out and exhausted, then jumping onto fresh horses and turning on their foes. The section would also note that the Mongols never left their horses; they were an entirely mounted force and stayed that way.

4. The European section then goes on to discuss the uses of the horse in war games.

The E. Asian steppe warriors also used horse in war games, namely the asa, the great yearly hunt organized by the Khan in which riders on horseback would coordinate to round up herds of wild game on horseback, shooting arrows into the trapped herd. This was considered training for war, since the bulk of Mongol soldiers were horse archers.

5. Next follows a section on the modernization of the European knight, and the factors that changed the European military to light cavalry. It also mentions some of the types of armor they wore and weapons they carried.

Giving similar context to the C. Asian steppe nomads, it would be relevant to devote a paragraph to some of the types of units used by the Mongol military, i.e. the distribution of light and heavy cavalry and archers. Since the European section discusses what the professionalized European militaries looked like in some detail, it's probably worth devoting some space in the C. Asian section to explaining what the Mongol military looked like. Promotion was by merit rather than money or noble blood; they had Chinese artillery; they employed innovative battlefield signalling systems that allowed them to execute elaborate tactics, and they were organized on the decimal system with 10 soldiers under one commander, ten commanders under one upper commander, and so on until the level of generals. It would also be worth mentioning some of the key ways in which the Mongol soldiers differed from our European conception of the mounted cavalrymen: namely the fact that every single male citizen was considered a warrior rather than just the knights; that each soldier rode horses he had personally bred and raised from foals; that each warrior started riding at the age of 2--all of which paints a considerably different picture than the one we imagine when we think about a cavalryman's level of skill and his relationship which his war horse(s). So long as the European section is discussing armor and weapons, this would also be the place to bring up the Mongols' light, flexible lamellar armor/tack and their composite bow, which is considered superior to the English longbow in terms of force produced.

6. The European section next describes the use of horses as scouts ("prickers"). It also describes how horses were used in a logistical role, i.e. pulling carts of provisions.

The Mongols were also noted for using horses extensively in scouting the terrain before battle. However, their use of horses in a logistical support role differs considerably from our Western understanding, i.e. pulling carts loaded with food, weapons, supplies, etc. down a road serving for the supply line. For one thing, the Mongols didn't use supply lines; they just "lived off the land" as they marched. For another thing, the Mongols did not consider the logistical role of their horses to be limited to (say) pulling a cart laden with food--rather, a horse was walking food. Historical sources say that Mongols' favorite drink was fermented mare's milk, and their favorite meat was horse meat; they would even drink the blood of their horses in times of need. Westerners don't think, "Hey, my horse makes alcohol" or "I feel like horse steak for breakfast today." But an army marches on its stomach, and to the Mongols an unneeded horse was just as good as a cart filled with their favorite food. Likewise, the horses did not merely pull carts full of armor, rope, shoes, fuel for fire, or bowstrings; rather, the horses were turned into armor, rope, shoes, fuel, and bowstrings. The use of horses as foodstuffs and raw material is typical of the nomadic steppe people, who used every part of the horse just as the Native Americans used every part of the buffalo. The difference between the logistical role horses played in Europe in pulling provisions and the logistical role horses played in E. Asia as provisions deserves to be described. (And of course horses did pull carts and siege engines too.)

7. In the European Early Modern section, the article describes how cavalry were used in combination with artillery. It also describes the ways in which cavalrymen handled horses in order to use guns effectively ("Ever-more elaborate movements, such as wheeling and caracole, were developed to facilitate the use of firearms from horseback.")

The Mongols used Chinese artillery against opponents; they would fire a rolling barrage to weaken their enemy, then charge into their scattered ranks to finish them off. They also had various maneuvers to facilitate the use of compound bows from horseback: they could shoot both forward and backward while mounted, and also perfected the maneuver of hanging down behind their horse's body for protection while shooting under its chin. I don't consider these techniques to be less militarily significant than wheeling or caracole.

The new material as I've sketched it out thus far is about 800 words. Though still less than half the size of the European section, it should go a long way towards remedying the regional bias in this article. My hope is that new material will continue to be added so that the E. Asian section can become a truly excellent survey of mounted warfare in the entire East Asian region, not just Mongolia. This would include both archeological finds on the steppe from cultures other than the Mongols and written material from China, Korea et al.'s thousands of years of civilization. It would also describe the modernization of these respective countries' equine armies and the changing role that horses played in major East Asian conflicts up to the modern era. There is a long way to go before this article's coverage of East Asian horsemanship will be at at par with that of Europe, but we have to start somewhere. In the meantime, we will at least have coverage of the horsemen who conquered the largest contiguous land empire in history.

Thoughts?
 * In concept, adding more to the Central/East Asia and related sections along with some cleanup is not a huge problem, though the article is not as unbalanced as you think, as we do have Horses in East Asian warfare, Mongol military tactics and organization and Nomadic empire where a lot more detail could - and does - go. (Also Horse artillery, light cavalry, heavy cavalry and others) We could also pop in material in the general sections to further globalize those areas. HOWEVER, my concern is basically as follows:  1) This is a GA-class article, so any material must be properly and meticulously cited. (Your edits to Mongolian horse aren't done well enough to pass muster here)  2)  It must be neutrally phrased, no one culture is going to be described as superior to another.  3)  This is an article about HORSES, not so much tactics and logistics which here we must handle in a summary fashion.  Montanabw (talk)  20:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--

Details--I will continue to refer back to the European section and imitate what I see there; I won't go into more detail than already exists for that section.

Citations--no problem; I'll make sure that I get good citations for this article. I know I've been lazy in the Mongol horse section. :p

Neutrally phrased--I certainly don't believe that any one culture is superior to another. If you do see anything that looks that way, then it's not deliberate (please fix it).

Some concerns of mine:

I know you aren't going to like this, but I'm afraid that it may require more background information than you're used to giving in order to provide context for the reader. When discussing a subject that is outside the common frame of reference (in this case, the Western, English-speaking frame of reference), you have to establish the frame of reference itself before you can convey the information--otherwise, readers will jump to incorrect conclusions. Like, if I say, "The Mongol cavalrymen were known for their skilled horsemanship." Well, so what? Every nation's cavalry has skilled horsemen. Well here's what: every single soldier in the Mongol army started learning to ride horses at age two or three. This implies a level of skill that most readers will not automatically assume when you say, "skilled cavalrymen." Instead, the reader will default to their Western cultural expectation regarding skilled cavalrymen, i.e. a select group of especially talented horsemenmen who began learning to ride at a young age--not as babies. Without context, the sentence "The Mongol cavalrymen were known for their skilled horsemanship" is meaningless as a measure of comparison. Yet if I provide the context for this fact, then is the section now too detailed?

Have you ever read a story written by (say) the ancient Egyptians 4,000 years ago? Without a background in Egyptian culture, some of the events in the narrative sound inexplicable simply because a modern reader has no context for them ("Why are they letting this bull walk into the royal harem like it's normal?"). This is why such stories are accompanied by a pile of footnotes meant to prevent the reader from getting lost and confused. Take another example, the sentence, "The husband picked up his new bride and carried her to bed." A European reader might think, "Aww, how romantic." But in an Asian context, that sentence has an entirely different meaning: "That bride can't walk because her parents bound her feet to make them small and attractive to her future husband, with the result that she is now crippled and has to be carried everywhere." Without context, readers jump to the conclusions natural to their own cultural background, and such conclusions are often incorrect. A reader unversed in E. Asian horsemanship and warfare is entering a new world with unfamiliar reference points, and they are going to make mistaken assumptions unless we provide them with context. But this means adding in more information, mostly information which would be considered obvious and unnecessary in a European context.

One final note on this: in order to avoid going into the background details that are necessary to give the fact its proper value, it is tempting to compare the Mongol horsemen to a culturally familiar reference point, like the European horsemen (i.e.): "The Mongol cavalrymen were known for their skilled horsemanship; this gave them an edge against their less well-trained opponents in Europe and other areas." But this makes it look like you're trying to say one culture is "better" than another. It is also unhelpful to people who don't live in Europe and therefore cannot use it as a shared reference point. I did that before and you were right to ding me on it.

"This is an article about HORSES, not so much tactics and logistics which here we must handle in a summary fashion." Hm...I'm unclear here. What are we talking about in terms of tactics? There is a whole section entitled "Tactics," and the word is used almost twenty times throughout the article. I read sections that describe how European cavalry were deployed against various kinds of enemies, how charges were made, etc.

Logistics--I'll devote to two or three sentences to this; it won't be any larger than in the other sections.

Lastly, I remain unconvinced that the article is balanced. If the Horses in Warfare is simply supposed to be a brief summary with the bulk of the information elsewhere, then why does the European section go into detail and depth when that extra information could be placed into the European-focused Horses in the Middle Ages so as to avoid cluttering up Horses in Warfare? For that matter, why are all of the non-Western sections tiny? Unlike E. Asia, most of these sections don't have a separate article where the better information is kept. A similar pattern of regional bias exists in the horse artillery, light cavalry and heavy cavalry articles, where Europe is given a long, thorough treatment, while other regions are glossed over in a few sentences. If Horses in Warfare was like a newspaper, the entire front page would be devoted to European horsemanship, with a footnote at the bottom that reads, "Learn about foreign horsemanship on page 21." This article is supposed to be about war horses worldwide; the "front page" should provide the same kinds of information and the same level of detail throughout so that a reader can survey everything and compare various types of horsemanship at a broad level. Having one long, ultra-detailed section and a bunch of tiny, uninformative stubs isn't going to be helpful to readers who want to gain a generalized understanding of the topic.


 * First answer is that some of the non-European sections are "tiny" is due to either 1) Lack of good source material available to those writing the article; or 2) (in the case of sub-Saharan Africa) not much of a tradition.  Second answer is that while I acknowledge there is some inevitable European bias here, the truth is that the underlying structure is essentially chronological to the greatest extent possible. (i.e. Ancient Mesopotamia --> Ancient Persia --> Technological developments (saddle, stirrup, horseshoe, etc) -->  Tactical (in uses of the horse) developments --> and then we go to the culture-by-culture assessment and divergence once we get to about 400 CE or so.  As certain sections get bogged down in detail, spinoffs get created (example being Horses in the Napoleonic Wars)  We also have "cousin" spinoffs that are not confined solely to warfare such as Horses in the Middle Ages or History of the horse in Britain).   Montanabw (talk)  02:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess my thinking here is that we need to add material carefully and properly - your Mongol horse article is interesting, but it's becoming a data dump, it's sloppily sourced, and such a style here here would subject this article to a GAR. I think I'd like to see what you can do with the Central/East Asian section first, rather than inserting Mongolian material hither and yon throughout. Perhaps start with adding a paragraph or two that summarizes material that could be covered in more detail at the Mongol horse article (which, by the way, was originally an article about the horse type/breed, not the whole culture - may want to note the comments at the talk page there...).  If it seems to be consistent with the rest of the article, we can see what else is useful. So far this article has been derailed by POV-pushing on a number of occasions (someone was upset that we didn't dedicate enough to the Samurai, someone else didn't like the coverage of artillery, yet another person felt the Winged Hussars weren't adequately addressed  -- sigh) and short of writing a book, I'm not sure I have a complete solution.   Montanabw (talk)  02:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * /shrug Lack of source material is listed as one of the causes of systematic bias.  I'm not saying that it happens on purpose, I'm just saying that it's there.


 * No complaints about the chronological order, or the creation of spinoffs. There is a lot of very detailed information about the uses of use of E. Asian horses in war that I wouldn't discuss here because it would obviously exceed the summary nature of this article.  But I think that the level of detail within each section should be equivalent, i.e. if one section discusses warhorse sex, then all sections should provide that same information here, rather than in a separate article.  It might be helpful to make a standardized list of all the different kinds of facts that should, in an ideal world, be included for each section.  Like, horse sex, size, major breeds, types of cavalry, maneuvers used, etc.  Then we would have informational equivalence throughout the article.  Anything past that would go in a separate article.


 * Here's a list of all the material that I believe should be covered in the article to bring it up to parity with the European section (or at least get it halfway there).


 * Horse sex (reason for choosing), size, breed, and a one sentence summary of the characteristics that made it valuable.
 * The use of multiple remounts, and how these extra horses affected the way the Mongols waged war
 * The use of horses in war games
 * A summary of the kinds of cavalry used and a description of what an average cavalryman was capable of
 * Horses as scouts
 * A few sentences on the use of horses in a logistical role pulling/as provisions
 * The use of horses in combination with artillery
 * The maneuvers employed by mounted archers that are the Eastern equivalent of the caracole, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.22.179 (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Does the outline sound good, then? Shall I begin? I also had one additional thought, which was that I could write out my edit here in the Talk section and we could discuss it as I go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.96.201 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Moved from my talk
Good morning Thank you for informing me about the edit you have just made to 'Horses in war'. I can see your passion from horses !

I am responding because I believe that some of the statements in the article are generalisations or incorrect :

so were not used to haul artillery on battlefields. This is a generalisation solely based on American source material. If they were not used on the battlefields of the American Civil War (as per the source book), they were certainly used on the battlefields of the Peninsular War. Given your obvious interest in horses, you may be interested in an article of mine that has been widely published about the use of mules in Wellington's Peninsular War army.

Congreve rockets, a type of rocket artillery, required about 25 horses. This is not a correct calculation and draws the reader to completely the wrong conclusion because it appears to compare teams of 6,8&12 for ‘long guns’ with 25 for rockets. Refer to the page : Congreve rockets

by the end of the Peninsular War, heavy cavalry were performing the scouting and outpost duties previously undertaken by light cavalry This is a generalisation; only French dragoons were undertaking some light cavalry duties – not the British, Portuguese or King’s German Legion heavy dragoons. Source : *

such as the Royal Scots Greys and 2nd Dragoon Guards (Queen’s Bays) The Royal Scots rode Grey (horse)]s and the 2nd DG rode [[Bay (horse)s

German Hanoverians] ‘Germany’ as a country did not yet exist. Prussia was a major state in, what was to become, modern Germany. From the time of Frederick the Great, who had revolutionised the use of cavalry, they had favoured [[Trakehner horses from East Prussia. Source : *

Richard TennantRichard Tennant (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising the issues in question. I do hope to direct you to Horses in the Napoleonic Wars, an article that is in decent shape, but may benefit from your specific expertise.  Here, I and the other editors who have worked on this article are happy to discuss your concerns and adjust any inaccuracies to the extent possible, but there are limits.  The first issue is, basically, that any new material you add either must be able to be verified by a new source/footnote or at least remains verifiable by the existing footnotes.  Some of your edits (not all) inserted material that was not verified by existing footnotes.  An example was your insertion of the bit on the Queen's Bays.  Second, because this article IS a general overview, it must treat some information in general terms and not get bogged down in trivia (such as the extra details on Waterloo).  So, though sourced, we don't want to overdo information on any one region. (That's one reason we have a lot of spinoff articles, so that the experts in one area can expand and go into detail on each technology or conflict) I did make one touch-up based on your comments - Though "German" as an ethnicity and language did exist in the mid-19th century, you are right that there is some potential for confusion, so I went ahead and took "Germany" out as a modifier of Hanoverian. Finally, it is also important not to add laundry lists of everything - for various points, one (Royal Scots Grays, linked and implied by name, no need to go on and on about it) or two (at the most three, if covering a wide region as we used Britain, Central Europe, and Russia) examples are all that is needed; an exhaustive list is not, and these things have a tendency to spawn lengthy lists: while the Trakehner is a fine breed of horse, once we start adding breeds, there are another half-dozen or so regionally-developed German Warmbloods, as well as other horse breeds from Hungary, Finland, Poland, etc... it never ends.    Montanabw (talk)  18:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Now, to be specific, the issue of mules not being cooperative under artillery fire may benefit from additional research; clearly they were useful for hauling guns around, and even in the uSA were used for such, but to stay on the battlefield under fire was a different situation. It would require a look at the tactics used by the various armies - the behavioral issues of mules under fire, if problematic in the USA, would be duplicated elsewhere under similar circumstances - a mule is a mule is a mule, whether in America or Europe ... I am not familiar with tactics enough to know if the animals always needed to remain hitched to the guns while they were actually in battlefield conditions, being fired and fired upon, or if the soldiers could unhook the animals, move them from the front lines during battle, and then bring them back later to move the equipment... I also suppose it depended on the specific weaponry used, which may not have been the same.  But the point is that this article discusses the usefulness of the animals, but also their limitations.  Accuracy is important, of course, but nuances of weaponry are not the focus of this article.  As far as the other issues, where you have any links to google books, or specific page numbers for hardcopy texts that we can have folks verify, I am open to further discussion.   Montanabw (talk)  18:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I can fully appreciate that you are passionate about horses and are also committed to providing accurate information about your subject-matter. From the ‘view history’ page of the article it is clear that you have invested a lot of time on this particular article. So here I go again.

Horse colours in titles :

Scots Greys - see specific Wikipedia article on this subject.

In 1713, they were renumbered the 2nd Dragoons as part of deal between the establishments of the English Army and Scottish Army when they were being unified into the British Army, but were already being referred to as the Scots Greys. In 1877, their nickname was finally made official when they became the 2nd Dragoons (Royal Scots Greys), which was inverted in 1921 to The Royal Scots Greys (2nd Dragoons).

2nd Dragoon Guards (Queen’s Bays) - see Wikipedia article on this subject.

In 1767, the Regiment was ordered to be mounted on bay horses accompanied by the new title 2nd Dragoon Guards (Queen's Bays). This is emphasised in the Regimental badge which is simply the word 'BAYS' within a laurel wreath surmounted by a crown.

A Battery (The Chestnut Troop) Royal Horse Artillery - see Wikipedia article on this subject.

1793 - A Troop Royal Horse Artillery was raised as The Chestnut Troop at Woolwich on 1 February 1793. Equipped with Chestnut horses from the start, Lord Wellington asked of the whereabouts of “The Chestnut Troop” during the Battle of Waterloo. This unofficial title stuck until Edward VII (lived 1841-1910) sanctioned, in Army Order 135, that the Battery be designated A Battery (The Chestnut Troop) Royal Horse Artillery.

Certainly the first two regiments are relevant – but you are the editor and should use whichever you want. I can fully appreciate that you may just want to use the one as a general example.

"Congreve rockets required about 25 horses"

I can only re-iterate that this is not a correct calculation and draws the reader to completely the wrong conclusion because it appears to compare teams of 6, 8 & 12 for ‘long guns’ with 25 for rockets. Apart from the teams of horses pulling the guns, there would also be the reserve ammunition limbers/wagon and support wagons, besides horses for the crews in horse artillery batteries. In a Rocket Battery they did not need teams to pull any guns.

For general background information : In the British artillery there were 6 gun crews to a battery; in a Rocket Battery there were the same 6 crews.

On 7 June 1813, Captain Richard Bogue, Royal Horse Artillery (see Wikipedia article) with a Rocket Battery, had a total of 144 officers & men, plus 8 officer’s horses and 97 trooper’s horses. They fought at the Battle of Leipzig (see Wikipedia article). Therefore : 105 horses / 6 = 17.5 horses.

On 16 June 1815, Captain Alexander Cavalié Mercer, Royal Horse Artillery (see Wikipedia article) with a Battery of 9-pounders had a total of 192 officers & men, plus 220 horses and 6 mules. Therefore : 220 horses / 6 = 36.7 horses.

In my opinion, this part of the sentence should be deleted, but, as editor, it is your call.

Portuguese Horses and Mules

For general background information, as you are interested in horses :

Cavalry - Portuguese

In 1809 Marshal Beresford reorganised the 12 Portuguese cavalry regiments along British lines. Sufficient mounts were hard to find after the ruinous French invasions. Part of the country, especially in the centre and the north where most of the horses were bred was devastated, and thousands of farms has been ruined and abandoned during 1808-11. At the same time, great quantities of forage had to be found for the British cavalry as well the Portuguese. Priority was given to the large British cavalry contingent, which was already deployed in the field and vital to the war effort. In any event, what horse were found for the Portuguese cavalry came mostly from the provinces of Biera and Tras os Montes and were considered to be small by British observers.

In the campaign years 1811-12 just six of the twelve regiments were completed and in the field. In 1813 it was decided to to mount only five regiments; regiments frequently mustered less than 300 men from an official establishment of 595.

Artillery - Portuguese

Lieut-Col Dickson remarked that, due to the extreme shortages and limitations of Portuguese horses, their artillery only employed mules, both for draught, pack and riding.

As with their infantry and cavalry, the artillery worked to the British drill manuals.

Artillery – British & KGL

The guns and limbers employed draught horses, however a number of draught and pack mules were also on the strength.

Artillery – Spanish

Again observed by Dickson on 26 February 1810 – ‘A large corps of Spanish artillery arrived here this day belonging to the army late the Duke del Parques. There was about twenty pieces of cannon, a great many ammunition carriages, mules loaded with ammunition and upwards of 500 men. The artillery and carriages etc appeared strong and efficient, although arranged and equipped in a most slovenly manner. They were generally drawn by mules, from 5 to 8 employed according to the size of the gun etc. The mules were fine ones but many of them out of order.’

Lieut-Col Alexander Dickson (see Wikipedia article on Alexander Dickson (British Army officer)) was the effective commander of Wellington’s army's artillery during the latter part of the Peninsular.

His diaries covering the years 1808-1813, ‘The Dickson Manuscripts’, were published in 1905 by The Royal Artillery Institution – ISBN 0-946879-39-7

In his letter dated 23 June 1813 to Maj General MacLeod, Deputy Adjutant General Royal Artillery in Woolwich he states “There were 72 British and 18 Portuguese guns [3 batteries] in the field and there happened in this battle, what I believe rarely occurs in such occasions, that every brigade [battery] was brought into action.”

British & Portuguese Artillery deployment

In action the artillery limbers would be drawn up behind the guns, facing forwards; the 2 limbers boxes would contain 32 rounds of ammunition. The distance between the guns to the lead horses/mules of the limber team would be 15 yards, with the support ammunitions drawn up further to the rear.

I believe that this data supports my previous statement that mules were used to haul artillery during of the Peninsular War and stayed on the battlefields under fire.

Further historical note : at Waterloo, the drivers and horses of Capt Mercer’s Troop were as exposed as the gunners and they sustained sixty-nine horses killed.

Per p.280-282 of ‘the Waterloo Companion’ by Mark Adkin, ISBN 1-85410-764X

These losses would have been in the limber teams and, being horse artillery, the horses of the gun crews, which would be drawn up just behind the limbers. In the area behind the gun line there would have been 96 horses. (8 limber horses, 8 horses of the gun crew x 6 guns).

To round off the subject, I suspect that your comment that ‘a mule is a mule is a mule’ reflects the usual horse-person’s feeling of superiority with regard to mules. I admit that I equally shared your stance until researching for my article on ‘Wellington’s Mules’. By halfway through the Peninsular War, Wellington had completely switched to mules as the basis of his middle & front line logistics. The allied armies were using in total between 15 and 18,000 mules (more than the total number of horses); some of the mule captains were earning more per year than the British commander-in-chief in London. As Wellington commented ‘The people of England, so happy as they are in every respect, so rich in resources of every description, having the use of excellent roads, etc, will not readily believe that important results here frequently depend upon 50 or 60 mules more or less, or a few bundles of straw to feed them; but the fact is so.’

Finally, I would also like to revert to my comment on the statement

"by the end of the Peninsular War, heavy cavalry were performing the scouting and outpost duties previously undertaken by light cavalry"

It was only the French dragoons which were undertaking some different duties – not the British, Portuguese or King’s German Legion heavy dragoons. Apart from providing ‘battle cavalry’, the French dragoons were required to revert to their previous role of ‘mounted infantry’ in order to counter the Spanish guerilla activities.

Source : *

In my opinion, this middle part of the text should be removed, so as to become : "During the 19th century distinctions between heavy and light cavalry became less significant and by the end of the century the roles had effectively merged. "

Many thanks for your patience on this article.

As you have probably noticed, I have also had a go at bits of Horses in the Napoleonic Wars !! Richard Tennant (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit that some of what you have above is a bit tl;dr, but I'll try to address it.
 * 1) We don't need "laundry lists of every single example of something, this is an overview article. For example, we link the Scots Grays, we don't need to also add links to regiments of bay horses, black horses, purple horses or whatever.  One example will do.
 * 2) Mules are great for some things, they need less food and tend to be tougher than horses; do not assume I have a prejudice against mules. Here, you are comparing apples and oranges.  In the US Civil War, to oversimplify, Mules had the sense of self-preservation to kick the shit out of their traces if they were expected to stay near artillery of that era on the battlefield under fire.  They were great for getting stuff there and back, but not under fire (arguably, this means they were smarter).  Wellington's experiences were a different time, different tactics and different equipment.  I am not convinced that he had the same issues with artillery.
 * Essentially, I'd like to know if you want to add very specific material, but do remember WP:COI: You cannot add material that is you have authored.  You also have to consider that this is a general overview article and we simply are not going to go into great detail in any one era, given that we are covering everything from antiquity to the modern world.   Montanabw (talk)  04:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Apologies if I rambled on too much. Unfortunately I am an ancient Brit, so your comment about it all being ‘a bit tl;dr’ went over my head. Perhaps it means ‘too long; drivel’>

These are the edits I would propose :


 * Other equids

From

However, under gunfire, they were less cooperative than horses, so were not used to haul artillery on battlefields.

To

However, under gunfire, they were less cooperative than horses, so were generally not used to haul artillery on battlefields. I'm OK with that one. Go ahead and do the edit. --Montanabw
 * Horse artillery

From

Horse artillery units generally used lighter pieces, pulled by six horses. "9-pounders" were pulled by eight horses, and heavier artillery pieces needed a team of twelve. Congreve rockets, a type of rocket artillery, required about 25 horses. With the individual riding horses required for officers, surgeons and other support staff, as well as those pulling the artillery guns and supply wagons, an artillery battery of six guns could require 160 to 200 horses.

To

Horse artillery units generally used lighter pieces, pulled by six horses. "9-pounders" were pulled by eight horses, and heavier artillery pieces needed a team of twelve. With the individual riding horses required for officers, surgeons and other support staff, as well as those pulling the artillery guns and supply wagons, an artillery battery of six guns could require 160 to 200 horses. I'm OK with that one too. Go ahead and do the edit. --Montanabw


 * 19th century

From

In the 19th century distinctions between heavy and light cavalry became less significant; by the end of the Peninsular War, heavy cavalry were performing the scouting and outpost duties previously undertaken by light cavalry, and by the end of the 19th century the roles had effectively merged.

To

In the 19th century distinctions between heavy and light cavalry became less significant and by the end of the 19th century the roles had effectively merged. Richard Tennant (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The first two seem simple enough and don't change anything significantly. The third I think we should discuss.  Earlier, you stated, "only French dragoons were undertaking some light cavalry duties."  My thinking here is that we need to explain the transition, using the Peninsular war example (maybe adding another source to verify the dragoons bit) to show the early-to-mid 19th century changes that were starting to be seen, etc.  Thoughts?   Montanabw (talk)  07:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Further reference books

I quite realise that you will be into e-books, but this could be an interesting addition to your ‘horses library’ – it is available on the Abebooks website from dealers in the US for under £5.

‘The Horse in War’ by J.M. Brereton, printed in 1976. ISBN 10: 071537124X ⁄ ISBN 13: 9780715371244.

For further information about the transition from heavy & light cavalry, I will refer to the book of my old friend, Philip Haythornthwaite - Napoleonic Cavalry, isbn: 0-304-35508-9.

‘… the larger mounts were usually allocated to heavy regiments, the smaller and swifter mounts to the light regiments, but in practice the distinctions were not always so clearly defined. Although in larger forces of the cavalry might be sufficient in numbers for the heavy regiments to be concentrated for use in ‘shock’ action, in armies with less cavalry the available mounted troops might have to fulfil whatever role was needed, without the luxury of being able to allocate particular units to a specific duty. … Wellington, for example, was amongst those who deplored the attempt to create within the small British Army all types of cavalry which could be maintained by larger armies: ‘We form five descriptions of cavalry … as many descriptions, as far as dress and ornament may go, as in any other army whatever possesses; and the consequence is, we have nothing perfect.’ He advocated the alternative view that all cavalry should be capable of doing whatever was required, ‘be they dressed or armed as they may’. Ref: Colburn’s United Service Magazine, 1844, vol II, p439.

Despite such opinions, the distinction between heavy and light regiments was generally maintained. …

Dragoons are sometimes described as ‘medium’ cavalry, midway between the heavy and light regiments, though this was a classification rarely given at the time. The origin of such troops, in the seventeenth century, was as mounted infantry, armed with muskets, who could ride into battle and fight on foot (their name being derived from their firearm). By the Napoleonic era, however, this role had been lost: dragoons were generally regarded as heavy cavalry, but unlike the heaviest also able to perform some of the duties of the lighter regiments. … The flexibility of the French dragoons was demonstrated in the later campaigns, when they formed the backbone of Napoleon’s mounted arm. In northern and eastern Europe they were employed as heavy cavalry, … while those in the Iberian peninsula fulfilled in addition the role of lighter cavalry, for example in anti-guerilla operations.

There are many recorded comments to the effect that heavier horses were simply not capable of performing the duties required of light cavalry, but conversely that in battle the heavier horses enjoyed a distinct advantage.’

General comment

In the British Army of Wellington there were the five types he refers to: Horse Guards, Dragoon Guards, Dragoons, Light Dragoons and Hussars.

Towards the end of the war, Wellington wanted more Light Dragoons, so, to avoid all sorts of arguments and regimental politics in London about British regiments, he had the 1st & 2nd Dragoons of the King’s German Legion converted into Light Dragoons, despite their spectacular success at the Battle of Garcia Hernandez in 1812. The King’s German Legion cavalry, both heavy and light, were probably the best regiments, on both sides, in the Peninsular War. Richard Tennant (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Poland, horses and WWII
I think Poland is singled out as a cavalry user against germany because of the "cavalry vs panzer" legend (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_at_Krojanty) whereas all other countries where using horses in 1939 as well (maybe not actively? I'm not even sure). Maybe the paragraph can be rewrite a bit to not single out especially Poland or to explain why everyone like to talk about Poland and horses (when France and Britain performed cavalry charges later on in the war). Actually something more in the tone of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry article may be better.. Niberto (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Poland isn't even mentioned in this article, perhaps you are wanting to discuss things at Horses in World War II.  Montanabw (talk)  20:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Latin America
While more information on use of horses in warfare in Latin America may be worth adding, the stuff on animal herders joining cavalry doesn't fit; this isn't about the people, it's about the animals. But worth discussing. Montanabw (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Misleading caption
I've noticed that the caption for the image from the Battle of La Higueruela refers to Spanish heavy cavalry, whereas there are none in the picture (it's actually Spanish and Moorish Jinetes skirmishing in front of the massed ranks of the Moorish army). Is it OK to modify the caption?Monstrelet (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Basically, yes, but perhaps we should discuss use of the word "jinetes" in the context shown - You make a good point that it's not heavy cavalry, though if you look at a larger image, such as here, I see armoured Spaniards (not sure if armour=heavy cavalry, but...FWIW). More to the point, though is that the "la jinita" style (short stirrups, knees bent, feet back) is clearly the style of most of the riders in the image here, but I see a few riders - the armoured ones - in the "la brida" style (long stirrup, feet forward). In the image in this article, one la brida rider is partially visible on the left side, and a couple can be seen very faint in the background if you blow up the image.  Propose the caption you think it should be?   I'm definitely wanting to be accurate.   Montanabw (talk)  21:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * How about keeping it simple "Spanish and Moorish jinetes skirmish at the Battle of La Higueruela" ? The wikilink should explain the term in context (e.g. we are not talking cowboys)  Or we might say "... light cavalry (jinetes), for clarity. Monstrelet (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Make it light cavalry (jinetes) and it works for me! Go for it!   Montanabw (talk)  03:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Stopped using chariots
The military stopped using chariots in the West around 3rd-1st centuries BCE. Alexander's tactics at Battle of Gaugamela successfully halted what used to be an "invincible" chariot charge. I cannot find academic sources online (probably available by subscription). Can anyone help? Student7 (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Horses in warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727182012/http://www.dressage.ponyclub.org/PDFs/Articles/history%20of%20dressage%20by%20rebecca%20barber.pdf to http://www.dressage.ponyclub.org/PDFs/Articles/history%20of%20dressage%20by%20rebecca%20barber.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.indiapolo.com/Polopedia/Genesis/Indian_Army/61st_Cavalry/61st_cavalry.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hood.army.mil/1stcavdiv/horseDet/history.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Horses in warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.yabusame.or.jp/english/html/t_Trekishi_E.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 22:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
Compare the sections on horses in Asian warfare https://books.google.com.au/books?id=rDCKCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=horse+in+south+asian+warfare&source=bl&ots=Py8VNplTQU&sig=XwUfuUp3U3wqAM0SH1dAz0diz3o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT4OPk9YvMAhWGupQKHXKrArYQ6AEILjAE#v=onepage&q=horse%20in%20south%20asian%20warfare&f=false to the sections on Asia in this article. This page appears to be copied word by word from this book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.190.211 (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the book seems to be a pile of wiki articles, so it would need a check to see whether this article predates the book (which I suspect it will)Monstrelet (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Looking at the history, this page came into being on in Nov 2005 whereas this book was published on August 31st, 2015 so yes it seems as though the plagiarism was the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.190.211 (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

British or American English?
I had made a change, which has been reverted, to use consistent spelling for the few American spellings that exist in the article.

Reason for assuming that the article uses British spelling rather than the assertion that it uses American spelling:

At the top of the article, there's a tag saying the article uses British English, not added by me.

Quantity armour / armoured - 22 instances. armor / armored - 4 instances

manoeuvre / manoeuvres / manoeuvrable - 6 instances. maneuver - 1 instance

Please corroborate the assertion that the article uses American spelling. Thanks.

Gadge888 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See the history - the article was started, presumably in a sandbox, by Montanabw, who reverted you, using USE. However she has evidently not been maintaining consistency in style. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The important thing is to maintain consistency within the article. This is an A class article. It could lose that status if reviewed on grammatical inconsistency. In a generic article such as this, I think guidelines say it stays in the language it started with.Monstrelet (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh heck, a trout to me... we DID make a decision to use British English about the time we did the GAN. I'm good with fixing it so it's consistent... I apologize.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  21:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Horses in warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517034841/http://horsepullresults.com/LacledeCountyFairgroundsarticle.asp to http://horsepullresults.com/LacledeCountyFairgroundsarticle.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915143907/http://www.horsepull.com:80/Record%20Loads.htm to http://www.horsepull.com/Record%20Loads.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203175410/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-07/21/content_70825.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-07/21/content_70825.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529004408/http://www.allempires.com:80/article/index.php?q=Central_Asia to http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=Central_Asia
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529154818/http://196.35.231.29/sahra/HeritageSitesDetail.aspx?id=21179 to http://196.35.231.29/sahra/HeritageSitesDetail.aspx?id=21179
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014141054/http://www.wkdzradio.com/pages/11505214.php to http://www.wkdzradio.com/pages/11505214.php?
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214111220/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca:80/gghg/regiment/cavalry-cavalerie-eng.asp to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/gghg/regiment/cavalry-cavalerie-eng.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325162006/http://www.saskd.ca/heritage.pdf to http://www.saskd.ca/heritage.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608214206/http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26315 to http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26315
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060105152729/http://www.militaryhorse.org:80/ to http://www.militaryhorse.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)