War Horse

by Louis A. DiMarco

  Because of its weight and the heat generated under the armor, horses marched without armor. Prior to battle, the squire prepared the mount for combat by adding its armor. Spontaneous combat often required the man-at-arms to fight without full armored protection.

  Horsemanship

  With the advent of the Medieval saddle and stirrups—and the development of the type of mounted fighting expected of men-at-arms—European horsemanship took a step back from where it had been in Roman times. Despite the formal training knights received, Europeans were far behind the Middle East in equestrian knowledge.34 The Roman four-horned saddle without stirrups kept the rider in close contact with the horse and required the rider to be a knowledgeable master of his mount. The armored knight required significantly less refined horsemanship.

  Ann Hyland described the seat of the European knight throughout the Middle Ages: “The European rode stiff-legged, locked rigidly in his saddle which was raised so far off the horse’s back that no muscle or back movement of the horse could have been felt.” From a horsemanship point of view, this was not practical. What drove this seat was military necessity. The primary focus of mounted combat among European cavalry became the initial engagement with the lance. As the preferred lance technique became the couched, underarm technique, the knight trained to brace himself for the shock of engagement. To assist him in withstanding that shock he used a saddle with a high cantle. Upon contact with the target, the horse could react in a number of different and unpredictable ways. It might, for instance, stop suddenly. This would force the rider forward out of the saddle and over the horse’s neck unless he were braced with his feet forward and firmly in the stirrups. A high pommel on the saddle also helped the rider stay in position atop the horse. The supportive combat saddle and stirrups also kept the rider in position if the horse should turn suddenly. The cost to the rider of a secure position was less contact with and therefore less control of the horse.

  Spurs were an important tool for transmitting the rider’s intention for movement and increased speed. Because of the saddle and armor, Medieval war horses could not detect more subtle aids. Knights used prick spurs, a riding aid in use since Roman times. Rowled spurs appeared in the early fourteenth century although prick spurs continued in use during that period as well.35 These spurs were extremely long in order to reach the horse despite the distance between the placement of the rider’s leg and the horse’s flank. They also had to be able to reach under the horse’s trapping.

  ISLAMIC CAVALRY

  The Islamic armies were multiethnic and consisted of three distinct types of Middle Eastern mounted soldiers. The first type is probably the most famous—the Turkish mounted archers. The most important and professional of these were the Mamluks. The two other types were Arab and Persian/Kurdish general purpose cavalrymen. These three major types of cavalry made up the collected mounted group known as the Saracen Faris.

  Training

  Though different groups excelled in particular skills, the cavalrymen of the Middle East all shared some general regional styles and characteristics. The training of all Middle Eastern cavalry included three primary weapons: lance, sword, and bow. They wore chain mail armor though not to the extent as European knights. Typically their mail was limited to a hauberk reinforced with a scale mail or lamellar cuirass. Most wore an armored helmet supplemented by a mail coif to protect the neck and face. Most Islamic cavalry also carried an iron-reinforced round wooden shield. Though lighter in armor than European knights, the professional cavalry of the Muslim armies were not light cavalry.36 In response to the European presence, particular units increased their armor to the point of being heavy cavalry, including mail leggings and visored helmets. From a distance it was often impossible to distinguish Muslim from Christian cavalry.

  Though Muslim cavalrymen were capable with the lance and sword, Europeans associated them with the bow, which gave them an asymmetric advantage over the crusaders. The Europeans did not have an effective response to mounted archers, whereas they were equal to, or superior to, the Islamic cavalry in lance and sword combat. Thus Muslims emphasized the bow in warfare with Europeans. Though some tribal units used the central Asian hit-and-run technique, professional Islamic cavalry trained to fire their bows from within formations, in controlled volleys, often at the halt, while aiming at a designated target. The emphasis was on volume of fire over accuracy. At the gallop, a horse archer held the arrows in his hand and charged toward the enemy. When the distance closed to 30 yards, he dropped his reins. He then launched five arrows at a distance of 5 to 30 yards. Upon expending his in-hand arrows, he wheeled his horse and galloped back to a rally point.37 These tactics were similar to those used by the Persian horse archers against the Greek phalanxes at Plataea in 479 BC.

  Mamluks

  The Turkish Mamluks were the most important of the Medieval Islamic cavalry types. The mainstay of the Egyptian Fatimid caliphate, they were integrated into the Ayyubid armies in the twelfth century. In the Ayyubid army of Saladin, the ex-slave Mamluks were the elite of the army and made up Saladin’s personal guard. In 1250 the Mamluk regiments in Egypt revolted against the last of the Ayyubid caliphates and established the Mamluk sultanate with its center in Cairo. They quickly conquered and unified modern-day Syria and Palestine under their rule. In 1260 they defeated an invading Mongol army at the battle of Ayn Jalut ensuring their preeminence in the region for the next 300 years. Mamluks were slave-trained warriors who gained their freedom upon completion of their military training. The Mamluk’s primary weapons were the spear and the bow. The sword was strictly a secondary weapon for them. In the Turkish tradition, archery was their preferred method of fighting. Their composite bows had greater range and penetration than all but the most powerful crossbow but with a much greater rate of fire. Mamluk’s were equally capable of wielding their bows at the halt and while galloping.38

  Islamic Horses

  The Islamic armies of the Middle East had a direct historical relationship with the ancient kingdoms of the Persia and Alexander. They also had frequent contact with the tribes of the steppe. Thus, they rode superb horses and had a well-developed concept of horse breeding. They formalized the unstructured riding techniques learned from the ancients and imported from the steppe.

  Most cavalrymen owned one war horse. The horse was the greatest expense of the cavalryman. Besides his war horse, the cavalryman would own several baggage horses or camels. Frequently, Islamic cavalry rode camels while leading their war horses. An ordinary horse in twelfth-century Egypt was worth about 3 camels while a top-quality war horse was worth approximately 200. Middle Eastern cavalry preferred to ride mares and occasionally geldings. Stallions, though not prohibited from military use, were not common, and their use was strictly controlled.39

  Because of a lack of pasture, Middle Eastern armies had to import much of their horse herds, which consisted of three primary horse types. The first were the medium-size Akhal-Teke type horses that had been prevalent among the steppe tribes since the days of the Persian Empire. These were the primary mounts of Turkish cavalry from Anatolia. A second type was the classic Arabian that began to appear as a breed during the period of the Arab conquest. The Arab was the mount of the Bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. A third type was the Barb horse imported into the region from the conquered territories of North Africa and an import type among the Mamluks of Egypt.

  The Arab Horse

  Apart from Islam, arguably one of the most enduring legacies of Medieval Middle Eastern culture is the Arabian horse. The horse came to the Arabian Peninsula relatively late, probably not until Roman times. The Greek Herodotus and the Roman Strabo both report that the Arabian Peninsula was the home of camels, sheep, and donkeys, but not horses. Arabian horses appear in the literature at the time of Muhammad; and, in fact, they feature prominently in the writing of and about the Prophet. Muhammad made numerous references to horses, their importance to living a good life, their role in warfare, and their care. One stor
y relates that Muhammad wiped the face of his horse with his cloak. When questioned about this strange practice, the Prophet stated that Allah had reproached him for not taking care of his horse. Muhammad is central to the legend of the careful breeding of the pure Arabian. Another story relates that Muhammad ordered a herd of horses to be left without water for seven days. Upon release at the end of the period, the horses raced to water. However, before they could drink Muhammad had a war horn sounded calling the horses to battle. Five mares ignored the water and answered the call. The legend holds that all pure blood Arabs descend from these five most obedient and loyal Arabian mares.40

  The lack of grazing in the Middle East required strict control of horse herds. The emphasis was on quality over quantity and breeding was strictly controlled. Breeders judged stallions for their excellence and destroyed those that did not meet exacting standards.41 Breeders managed horses through the line of the mare. This type of control, combined with geographic remoteness, permitted the Arab tribes over generations to maintain and improve the quality of their breed. Under these circumstances the Bedouin were able to produce the first pure-blooded horse breed.

  The original stock for the Arab breed is likely to have come to the Arabian Peninsula from Mesopotamia during the Parthian or Sassanid Empire. It may have been this stock that combined the traits of the original type 3 horse—the central Asian horse resembling the Akhal-Teke—and the type 4 horse—resembling the Caspian breed. This would account for the two most notable breed features of the Arabian: its physical endurance and its fine conformation. The remoteness of the Bedouins and the high status they placed on ownership of fine horses provided ideal conditions for careful breeding. The conversion of the region to Islam perpetuated and emphasized the esteem of the horse in Bedouin culture. Thus, when the Islamic armies poured out of Arabia they rode the most carefully bred horses to that point in history.

  The Arabian horses of the Medieval armies were the mount of the Bedouin tribal warriors and the favored mount of Islamic military leaders. These horses represented the major features that are still characteristic of the modern Arab breed:

  Even though centuries have passed, today’s Arabian cannot be mistaken for any other breed. The Arabian’s head has a characteristic dished profile with a prominent eye, large nostrils, and small teacup muzzle. His gracefully arched neck rises out of a long sloping shoulder and broad chest. A short, strong back and high trail carriage complete the picture. Arabians come in grey, chestnut, bay and roan and an occasional solid black. Although some individuals will vary, most are between 14.2 and 15.2 hands in height and weigh between 800 and 1,000 pounds.42

  Traders prized Arabs because of their bloodlines. For example, Arabians brought to North Africa with the invading Arab armies strongly influenced the breeding of the Medieval Barb horse.

  The Barb Horse

  The Barb horse was the primary mount of the Moorish tribes of North Africa. The Mamluk cavalry of Egypt knew the Barb horse well and preferred it as their favorite war horse. The Barb horse is likely related to the horse known in Roman times as the Libyan. The Muslim conquest brought the horse to Spain, where they were bred with the indigenous Iberian horses and eventually evolved into the modern Andalusia breed. The name Barb derives from the Berber tribes of North Africa, who also gave their name to the North African Barbary coast. When Medieval Europeans spoke of fine Spanish horses they were referring to horses that were Barbs, or strongly influenced by the Barb horse. The Spanish conquistadors eventually brought the Barb blood to America.

  Horse Equipment

  The horse equipment of Islamic armies reflected their diverse ethnic influences and utilized a combination of Bedouin, Mediterranean, and Sassanian Iranian styles. Riding bits included both snaffle and curb bits. The saddle was the most interesting feature of Medieval Islamic horse equipment. Saddles varied in detail among the Arabs, Turks, and Kurds, but the basic construction was similar. A wooden tree was the basis of saddle construction. The curved tree conformed to the shape of the horse’s body. A saddle blanket lay between the saddle and the horse’s body. A slight rise in the center of the tree prevented applying weight directly to the horse’s spine. This design distributed the weight of the rider to the large muscles on each side of the spine. Stirrup leathers attached to the tree, as did a leather or woven girth strap. Leather and cloth covered the seat of the tree and a leather skirt draped down both sides of the tree to provide protection between the horse and the rider’s legs. The stirrup straps fed from the tree, through slots, to the outside of the leather saddle skirt. Iron stirrups attached to the stirrup leathers. A thick woven pad covered the seat of the saddle. The Medieval Islamic cavalry saddle had virtually all the attributes of a modern cavalry saddle. This saddle offered rider security sufficient to negotiate rough terrain and engage in close combat with a variety of weapons while permitting a high degree of contact between the rider’s body and legs with the horse. Thus the rider was secure and retained enough body contact to use the natural aids to control the horse. The saddle was also very comfortable for both rider and horse and reduced the potential of saddle sores developing.43

  Horsemanship

  The Arab style of riding was scientific and closer to that of Romans than that of central Asian Turks. Known as the “high Islamic school of riding,” it reached its peak in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. A combination of Persian and Andalusian methods, it was more sophisticated than techniques practiced by the European nobility and emphasized the use of the seat in the saddle. Horsemanship was part of the Islamic military system. Instructors taught young horsemen to ride bareback and develop a stable balanced seat before allowing them to ride in a saddle. The Islamic riding school set stirrups farther back than the Europeans did. Compared to Europeans, the Islamic equestrian used a short stirrup. In the saddle, he rode with stirrups that would touch his ankles when his leg hung free. This allowed the rider to rise out of the saddle when necessary to wield weapons more effectively. Sir Bertrandon de la Brocquiere, after returning from Jerusalem disguised as a Muslim, reported that: “their saddles are commonly very rich, but hollow, having pommels before and behind, with short stirrup-leathers and wide stirrups. . . . They sit as in an arm-chair, deep-sunk in them, their knees very high and with short stirrups, a position in which they cannot support the smallest blow from a lance without being unhorsed. . . . I suffered so much that when I dismounted, I could not remount without assistance, so sore were my hams; but after a little time this manner seemed even more convenient than ours.”44 Horsemanship in the Medieval Middle East was approaching the standard of modern horsemanship. Muslim military horsemanship represents a balanced accounting for the essentials of functional military riding: military utility, control and contact with the horse, comfort of the rider, and health and well-being of the horse.

  MEDIEVAL CAVALRY IN BATTLE

  Success in mounted warfare in Middle Ages required skilled warriors, trained mounts, and leaders who understood how to effectively use the rider and his mount and mitigate their vulnerabilities. Of these attributes, skilled leaders were the most important in battle.

  Hattin, 1187

  One of the largest, and the most decisive battles that matched the European knight against the Saracen cavalry of the Middle East was the battle at Hattin in 1187. This battle demonstrated the superiority of the latter. The victory also demonstrated the tactical superiority of the Islamic leader Saladin.45

  Disunity among the Muslim states in the region characterized the initial years of crusader history in the Middle East. This began to change with the rise of the Ayyubid caliphate in Damascus. The situation became critical for the Europeans in 1186 when Saladin, one of the most capable Islamic commanders in history, took over effective control of the Ayyubid caliphate.

  War broke out between the Ayyubid Empire and the kingdom of Jerusalem in 1187 when a crusader force under Reynald of Chatillon captured a large Muslim caravan and refused to release the prisoners. Saladin responded by
assembling his army and raiding against unprotected crusader lands. This raiding brought unity to the divided crusader leadership. Count Raymond of Tripoli swore homage to the King of Jerusalem, Guy of Lusignan, though personal animosity and distrust remained between them. King Guy directed that the Christian army assemble for battle with Saladin.

  Saladin had assembled a diverse army representing virtually every corner of the Ayyubid Empire. Its central core was a professional, multipurpose cavalry force of about 12,000 who were equally capable of fighting with lance and with the composite bow. A host of auxiliaries and infantry of various types added another 28,000 troops to the army. When the crusader army assembled under King Guy at the end of June, it included approximately 1,200 knights and about 4,000 sergeants and other mounted combatants, including turcopoles (Turkish mounted archers). The bulk of the army consisted of a mixture of professional and levied infantry numbering between 15,000 and 18,000. Saladin’s army outnumbered King Guy’s three to two, and his mounted force outnumbered the Europeans two to one. The only advantage the crusaders’ had was the close combat capability of their armored knights and sergeants.

  On June 26, Saladin moved his army into the area known today as the Golan Heights. He organized his army into three battles. His nephew, and best senior officer, Taqi al Din, commanded the right wing of the army, Saladin himself commanded the center, and the commander of the left was a distinguished amir, Muzaffar al Din Gokbori. On June 27, Saladin sent raiding parties into the kingdom of Jerusalem to attack the area between Nazareth, Tiberius, and Mount Tabor. On July 1 Saladin moved his army toward the crusader army assembled at Sephorie, possibly to lure the crusaders into battle. The crusaders did not respond, and on July 2 Saladin laid siege to the crusader fortress at Tiberius while simultaneously positioning the bulk of his army, and most of his cavalry, on the hills between King Guy’s army and the besieged garrison.