War Horse Read online

  WAR HORSE

  A HISTORY OF THE MILITARY HORSE AND RIDER

  LOUIS A. DIMARCO

  Frontis: “The military seat as it is. A plummet line from the shoulder should fall an inch behind the heel. [Cavalry Regulations, Page 11] Saddling. The saddle is to be placed on the middle of the Horses back; the front of it the breadth of a hand behind the play of the shoulder. [Cavalry Regulations, Page 5.]” From Cavalry: Its History and Tactics (1853) by Louis Edward Nolan, reprinted by Westholme Publishing, 2007.

  Copyright © 2008 Louis A. DiMarco

  All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review.

  Westholme Publishing, LLC

  904 Edgewood Road

  Yardley, Pennsylvania 19067

  Visit our Web site at www.westholmepublishing.com

  ISBN: 978-1-59416-525-2 (electronic)

  Also available in hardback.

  Produced in the United States of America.

  To my wife, Colonel Joyce P. DiMarco, whose love of soldiers and horses is the real inspiration for this work, and to my daughters Cara and Gina whose efforts maintaining our barn and small herd of equine partners permitted the completion of this project.

  CONTENTS

  Introduction

  1. The Ancients

  2. Cavalry Armies

  3. The Romans

  4. The Knight and His Mount

  5. Steppe Warriors

  6. Early Modern Cavalry

  7. All The Emperor’s Horses

  8. Industrial War and Cavalry

  9. Mounted Guerrilla Warfare

  10. The Last Charge

  Epilogue

  Appendix

  Notes

  Bibliography

  Index

  Acknowledgments

  INTRODUCTION

  The war horse and rider were one of history’s most enduring military fighting systems. They were a key to the success of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BC, and, likewise, were integral to British General Edmund Allenby’s successful Palestine campaign in the same part of the world 2,200 years later. The similarities between Alexander’s lance-armed companion cavalry and the Indian lancers of Allenby’s cavalry divisions were far greater than the differences. The war horse and rider was a viable military weapons system for more than 3,000 years, far longer than any other military system. There were many reasons for this phenomenal endurance. One was that man-made technology could not outperform the horse as a means of transporting soldiers in battle until the middle of the twentieth century. Also, the horse is a large and powerful animal. As long as physical size and strength were a critical component of close combat fighting, the horse was an important con-tributor to combat power. The horse was not only a weapon that had a material effect on the battlefield, but also was a psychological weapon that by its mere presence could effect the morale of friendly and enemy troops. The physical presence of horses could inspire courage or instill uncontrollable fear. Even after technology gave soldiers firearms that provided protection from horses, it still took another half a century before the capabilities of technology were sufficient to erase the psychological impact of the horse in battle. The intent of this work is to study the long and fascinating history of the war horse and rider as a military weapons system—possibly the most important and least understood martial arm in military history.

  This work examines the horse and rider as a weapons system used in battle—it is not a battle history of cavalry. It reveals the slow and logical evolution of the horse’s employment in warfare. The chapters examine how horses were organized within the important armies of history, what type of arms were used in conjunction with horses, and what type of tactics directed the war horse and rider on the battlefield. However, weapons and tactics were only part of the success of mounted forces. The horse itself was also important. The physical characteristics of the horses, breeding programs, and training for military operations were all important. Horsemanship was also a critical component of effective mounted operations. The utility of the horse was greatly dependent on the rider’s skill under the stressful conditions of combat. Horse mastership—the science of managing the health and welfare of horses—was also an important aspect of the success of mounted operations. An army’s ability to manage its horses could be the difference between battles and campaigns won or lost.

  The type of horse used for military operations is an important and much neglected aspect of military history. Much military history assumes generically that all military horses were the same. Such an assumption is akin to assuming all rifles were the same. For most of history, horses were described broadly as types. Horses within a type are common to a geographic area and broadly share some physical characteristics. Breeds are more specific than types. Specific breed identification requires not just careful management to achieve desired physical characteristics, but also detailed record keeping to document that management. Breed organization in its modern form does not appear until the seventeenth century, but even after that period important and recognizable types continued to influence military operations until the end of large-scale mounted military operations. The distinction between type and breed is important, but less so in military history because both terms are sufficient to identify and highlight the characteristics of the important war horses used by various armies over the ages.

  The first chapters of this work set the tone for those that follow, establishing the fact that early mounted forces were certainly as equal in importance to infantry—if not the premier military arm. Even without saddles and stirrups, mounted forces were a critical component of ancient warfare. The mounted military power of the Middle East was a force to which Europe’s only effective response was Alexander the Great. Rome, despite all its great achievements, was not a state that fielded particularly effective mounted forces, and this characteristic of the Roman military helped define the limits of the Empire.

  During the Medieval period, mounted forces became unquestionably the most important military forces in Asia and Europe. But the European knight was a somewhat limited military tool that was only dominant in Europe because of the unique social and political conditions on the continent. The Eastern mounted forces, in contrast, were a true comprehensive military force. The Crusades provide evidence that the Eastern approach to employing the war horse was far superior to that of the knights of the West. The Central Asian steppe horse archers also demonstrated the superiority of the well-trained versatile horseman, using the horse as a firing platform as well as for shock action.

  The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries witnessed the rise of military professionalism and resulted in the formation of very competent mounted military organizations in Western Europe for the first time since the Romans. Advances in riding techniques, training, and horse breeding were part of the overall advance of military professionalism. Scientific riding and horse training principles date from this period. Among horses, some of the first recognizable modern breeds, including the hot-blooded Andalusians of Spain and the various warmbloods of Germany, appear in military organizations during this period.

  It was during this period that controlled mass cavalry charges against infantry were first deployed. Infantry began to develop the tactics and technology to defend against this kind of cavalry attack; however, the psychological impact of mounted formations on battlefields remained considerable. Fear was an important—possibly the most important—aspect of employing war horses. Speed and timing were also keys to success. Despite infantry firearms and protecti
ve formations, charges by mounted forces were both common and had decisive effects.

  During the Napoleonic period mass conscript armies, accompanied by large cavalry formations, dominated the battlefields of Europe. Mounted units made up in size and enthusiasm for what they lacked in professional riding skills, making the point that professional armies had their limitations and that expert horsemanship was not always necessary for effective battlefield results. However, declining horsemanship and horse mastership had important negative operational consequences in several important campaigns and battles.

  The Industrial Revolution’s impact on mounted forces was primarily in the development of firearms that finally achieved longer range, higher rates of fire, and greater accuracy. These new weapons, used by both infantry and mounted troops, had a great effect on the role of horses on the battlefield. American cavalry of the Civil War demonstrated that modern carbine-armed cavalry gave commanders a highly mobile and lethal force that could attack mounted with shock action or dismounted with firepower. Small numbers of American Indians and South African Boers who used the mobility of their war horses to wage very successful guerrilla campaigns against nations far larger and with much greater resources in the closing decades of the nineteenth century further demonstrated the effectiveness of horse mobility combined with firepower. However, the combination of firepower and horse mobility was largely ignored by the major military powers of Europe. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 reinforced the traditional shock-focused employment of cavalry and set the conditions for generally ineffective cavalry tactics by the French and Germans in World War I.

  World War I and World War II demonstrated that a general purpose cavalry well armed with rifles still had utility on the battlefield, but the challenges of increasingly lethal firepower made the successful employment of horse-mounted units more difficult. As infantry weapons became easier to use and more deadly, the cavalry charge became more difficult to accomplish successfully because infantry no longer feared the charging war horse and rider. Improving automotive technology erased the advantage of mobility of horse-mounted forces in World War II. Only Russia fielded large mounted forces that had a major effect on operations. After World War II, continued improvements in automotive technology ensured the end of large-scale military horse operations.

  The thousands of years from the ancient Egyptians to World War II is a great expanse of history. Covering such a vast period of time in one volume requires deliberate steps to limit the discussion of the topic. Thus, this work does not include much discussion of the war horse in the Far East or in South America. Another topic not addressed is the role and contribution of logistics and artillery horses, though these horses were critical to military success and often outnumbered the horses of the cavalry. Space constraints also require the omission of many important battles involving horses and cavalry including the famous charge of the light brigade at Balaclava, the destruction of Custer’s command at the Little Bighorn River, and the charge of the light horsemen at Beersheba. Enough battle descriptions have been included, it is hoped, to illustrate the combat environment in which horses were placed and the complex factors which influenced the success or failure of mounted operations. Finally, some horse breeds and types that have played a role in military operations are not mentioned. Again, limitations of space have constrained the selection to some of the most important and famous types and breeds that are generally representative of the war horse.

  This work was only possible because of the research of many talented historians and horse experts, the written narratives of commanders and cavalrymen, and the surviving records of armies and units. These are recorded in the notes and references. The initiative of Westholme Publishing, who specifically wanted a discussion of the horse as a weapon, served as an inspiration for this project. The talents of excellent editors, and the interest of the knowledgeable members of the Society of the Military Horse, also contributed to the merits of the project. Though all efforts have been made to be accurate throughout, any failures in fact or analysis are completely the responsibility of the author.

  Chapter One

  THE ANCIENTS

  Far back, far back in our dark soul the horse prances. . . . The horse, the horse! The symbol of surging potency and power of movement, of action. —D. H. LAWRENCE, Apocalypse

  In the fall of 2001 television audiences were surprised to see via satellite video the modern-day use of one of the oldest weapons of war. Most viewers thought this weapon was as obsolete as the smoothbore musket. Ridden by American special operations forces and their northern Afghanistan tribesmen allies, the Americans integrated the war horse into a combat system that combined laser designators, global positioning systems, wireless communications, and sophisticated precision ordinance delivered by U.S. Air Force bombers. What audiences around the world witnessed was a weapons system—rider, war horse, and associated equipment—which has been part of warfare for more than 3,000 years.

  EVOLUTION AND DOMESTICATION OF THE HORSE

  To understand the war horse first requires an understanding of the horse’s origin and its evolved relationship with man. Horses are an old and hardy survivor of literally millions of years. The horse is a member of the mammal order Perissodactyla, which represents mammals of the odd-toe variety. Three families are members of this order: Equidae, Tapiridae, and Rhinocerotidae. The latter two, represented in modern form by the tapir and the rhinoceros, are much closer to the original species than the Equidae. The horse’s ancient predecessor was a small fox-size animal called the Hyracotherium that existed approximately 65 million years ago. Like all Perissodactyla at the time, the Hyracotherium was comfortable living in a relatively wet and forested environment. Over the next several million years, a shifting environment brought about changes in the Equidae.

  Climate and geography changed as ice ages came and went, tectonic plates shifted, and untold diseases and natural calamities ravaged the planet. The Northern Hemisphere, once very wet, became dry grassland in many places. The Equidae adapted physically by breeding for speed that enabled survival. They became taller, and the original five toes became three, and eventually one. Nine different species of Equidae evolved over this period representing donkeys, zebras, and horses. Of the nine varieties, the two most relevant to the history of war and horses are Equus caballus and Equus przewalskii. Equus caballus is the modern domesticated horse in all its variety of breeds. Equus przewalskii is similar to the domestic horse in many respects, and in fact the two species can interbreed and produce nonsterile offspring—a characteristic that none of the others in the Equidae family share. Popularly known as the Przewalski horse, Equus przewalskii, became extinct in the wild in the twentieth century. Today preserves and zoos carefully manage the species.1

  The domestic horse, Equus caballus, descends from a variety of wild equids that ranged over the whole Northern Hemisphere and South America as early as the end of the last ice age—approximately 8000 BC.2 Scientists have identified four major types of postglacial ancestors of the modern horse: (1) a Celtic pony that resembles the modern breeds of Exmoor and Icelandic ponies; (2) a Norse horse resembling the modern breeds of the Norwegian Fjord pony and the Noriker heavy horse; (3) a Central Asian horse resembling the Akhal-Teke of Central Asia; and (4) a small horse of western Asia resembling the modern breed of Caspian horse.3 Evidence retrieved from the steppe regions of eastern Europe and central Asia indicates domestication occurred in about 4000 BC among nomadic tribes living in the central Asian steppes north of the Black Sea and Caucasus Mountains.4 There are also hypotheses that domestication occurred independently at different points from central Europe through western and central Asia to eastern Siberia.5 By 2000 BC, domesticated horses were widespread throughout the ancient world from Europe to Asia and into the Middle East.6

  The first domestic use of horses was as a food source. One theory for the first experiments in riding is that at some point herders achieved the ability to ride the animals as a means of facilitat
ing control over them. Another theory, advanced by Marsha A. Levine, is that the domestication of the horse came about through the taming and adoption of the foals of mares kept for food. These youngsters, much easier to handle and more comfortable around humans, gradually were broken for riding and became a useful means of transport and work. Close scientific analysis of horse bits found in archeological digs in Dereivka, Ukraine, combined with carbon dating techniques indicates that the earliest evidence of ridden horses dates to about 4000 BC— which means that the art of riding horses predates the invention of the wheel.7

  CHARIOT WARFARE

  Almost as soon as man discovered the horse’s utility as transportation he incorporated the animal into his war-making capability. The first military use of horses was as part of a chariot system in the third millennium BC. The battle standard of the ancient Mesopotamian city of Ur, circa 2600 BC, depicts war chariots. Most theories reason that the early use of the horse as part of a chariot system, as opposed to riding, was a function of the small size of the early breeds in central and southwest Asia.

  The earliest indicators of horse-drawn wagons date from clay tablets found in Uruk in southern Mesopotamia—within the borders of modern-day Iraq. These small, simple diagrams show both wheeled and sled-mounted boxes with what appears to be a tongue for harnessing oxen or horses. The pictographs date from approximately 3200–3100 BC, although no clear association with horses can be drawn.8 However, the depiction of “battle wagons” on the wooden box known as the standard of Ur offers much clearer evidence. These illustrations of vehicles may represent the earliest war chariots and show that they were relatively large. In addition to their box shape, the chariots had four solid wood wheels and were pulled by a team of two or four draught animals—either small horses or asses. A fixed center pole harnessed the animals to the wagon but made it very unstable when turning. Traces joined the inner two animals; the outer animals set a pace rather than pulling the load. The vehicle was low to the ground, and large enough for two individuals to stand one behind the other. The forward person drove the animals while the rear person was responsible for engaging the enemy with javelins. A noseband controlled the speed of the horses. Voice commands or the use of a whip controlled direction.9 A yoke system attached the horses’ harnesses to the center pole. Recent scholarship indicates that a variety of different strap arrangements existed. In some cases a neck yoke transmitted strain to the shoulders but inhibited the horses’ breathing; in other cases a dorsal yoke system transmitted the point of effort to the chest. The former system appears, at least from illustrations, to be the most common with Bronze Age chariots, although the latter system is optimal for control and endurance.10