probably worse tbh

Matt even had to edit a break in there to cut part of his own talking out. So he probably went even longer than 90 sec!

Poor horse waiting there for the talk. That is a horse's life.

@@MtRevDr Nobody ever listens to the horse.

- ur parents, selling u at the farmer black market -

Stop skipping leg day.

@@GallowglassAxe I don't think he was talking about his legs...

For sure. It would be incredibly scary. And most of the time the horse itself was pretty well armored as well. Not to mention that a knight would have also been riding a bigger horse than the one shown in this video. They would have been on a big destrier warhorse, bred specifically for the purpose of being rode into battle. Mounted knights really were like the tanks of the medieval period. They were just incredibly difficult to kill. I certainly wouldnt want to find myself on a battlefield with one of them running me down, thats for sure.

I think this is further enhanced by the riders mobility allowing them to essentially choose their engagements most of the time. Even if one would encounter such a brave and skilled footman, if the horseman recognizes this in time he'd just ride away and find one of many potential others targets who would break under the immense pressure of facing a mounted knight. In a one-on-one situation the horseman might not notice this in time, but on a battlefield the footmen most likely to properly stand up to the cavalry are those surrounded by fellow soldiers who'd do the same, AKA those in an infantry block that doesn't break cohesion at an incoming charge. Which would likely result in the cavalry abandoning the charge and finding some other targets elsewhere on the field isntead. So those footsoldiers who would manage to fend off a horseman like that are the least likely to actually find themselves fighting one directly.

@@predwin1998 I'd agree that in open field conditions, the combatant with greater manouverability will use that advantage to avoid engaging except on terms favourable to him. But urban fighting, or fighting in woodland or scrub or on broken ground or bog, would negate this to a greater or lesser extent. One on one, in an open, level, firm field, my money would be on the horseman. Hint to the footman: choose your ground.

@@simonbrooke4065 like Moray and Wallace did at Stirling?

@@simonbrooke4065 I agree. Additionaly, while I don't want to give the impression that knights were fools, it can also be noted that the cavalry was often chosen based on who had access to the proper equipment (warhorses), which meant that *some* knights could be arrogant/foolish enough to be lured into a fight they should and could have avoided, perhaps due to peer pressure or something. I'd say Agincourt is a good example of mounted men-at-arms taking a fight they really shouldn't have. P.S. While you don't seem like someone who would assume knights were just arrogant rich dudes in armour, the emphasis I put on stating that would be the exception was aimed at others who might read this conversation.

@@davidtuttle7556 The Scots waited until 'about 2,000' of Hugh de Cressingham's troops - apparently mainly cavalry - had crossed the extremely narrow bridge, and were hemmed in on a small area of soft ground, before they launched their attack. The attack drove de Cressingham's force away from the bridge into a bend of the river on extremely soft ground. Outnumbered more than two to one by mainly light infantry while tightly packed in a bog with no escape route, it's hardly surprising that de Cressingham's cavalry was cut to pieces. It's also significant that the Scots commanders, on the Abbey Mount, had a clear strategic view of the field of battle, while the English side did not - so the Scots command and control will have been better.

Where horsies run tirelessly, and like F1 cars.

@@Taistelukalkkuna F1 + F3 cars you might say

@@Lionbug F1 + F2 cars if you are really into micros

I have a theory, as HEMA seems to rise in popularity anti populists join and want to do things other than the normal swords. they want to do axes, and spears, because those are not normal. My sister kind of did this by learning fencing with her left hand

She is naturally right handed,

That is so awesome! I hope to join one of those weekends myself sometime!

Having known horses I guarantee this is the entirety of what goes through that animal's big stupid head.

@@dysomniak sounds ideal to me; if my entire burden was simply wondering where by next carrot would be coming from ... paradise

Obviously in real life you hit the horse and get it to bolt or rear up and dismount the rider, then the rider is toast.

@@bigyin2794 assuming you're still alive lol

Yes, unless a footman gets a surprise hit in the crush of battle, I can't imagine a one-on-one duel ending in any way but a fallen footman covered in hoof prints.

@@stevenkobb156 Pietro Monte wrote that this was no big deal, that even if you were unarmored & trampled by a horse, it still shouldn't be able to hurt you enough to prevent you from killing it by attacking its belly as it rides over you. He did, however, note, that soldiers on foot almost always failed to do this theoretically obvious thing in practice, that it required considerable courage to accomplish.

Probably depends a lot on the horse. If it's trained to think and move on it's own while being really aggressive. I wouldn't want to fight it even without a rider on top.

@@PaletoB well said

@@stevenkobb156 In an open field with no cover, the horseman has a lot of advantage.

this was the explicit advice throughout the cenutries, this was known in Italian as a 'repulon' and in franch as a 'passade' the tightness of the turns at the end is quite significant to make it an effective technique. sidestepping is not really as easy as people presume as a horse can be very easily made to follow with a lot of precision, in fact side stepping very much encourages the horse. stepping towards can also be accomodated by the rider in a way akin tot he rejoneo bullfight, for instance. the sidestep of a horse is generally much larger than the step of the human.

@Satanas Luciferi we got a badass over here.

@Satanas Luciferi There's 3 main problems when it comes to "Side stepping" a charging horse. 1: If you're in a set piece battle, your mate by your side will block you 2: If your entire formation does decide to side step with you, the entire formation will scatter, lose cohesion and allow the horsemen to pass through your lines unscathed 3: Horses can turn on a dime. There's always a chance that a horseman might see you sidestepping and decide to strafe his horse to your direction before you could even hit him back. You should see how good horses are at turning when they come to a halt.

Two different types of horses exposed to completely different stimuli. Apples and oranges.

As a horseman and cavalry reenactor, I can address that. It comes down to two things -- selecting the right horse and doing enough training. Many horses can be taught to tolerate those things but certainly not all of them. After finding a horse with the right temperament, it's a matter of doing a lot of training. I won't go into the techniques for that but there are a number of ways to do it. Obviously it also involves a lot of trust for both partners. The horse learns that the rider won't take him into a situation where he will get hurt and the rider learns that when the horse is hesitant to do something it might be wise to reevaluate. I don't know where you're hiking but it's very likely that most of the riders you encounter haven't selected their horses for that and haven't spent a lot of time training them to tolerate things they haven't seen before. People select their horses for a lot of reasons and everything involves compromises.

@@itsapittie Even in more modern times, horses had to be selected for tolerance to gunfire whether from the rider or from others. Some horses will more or less ignore it, others become uncontrollable.

@@markfergerson2145 Oh, absolutely. I've trained horses to gunfire for cavalry competition. Some of them just aren't suited and will never get it. Some are dead easy to train. Most can be trained with enough time and patience.

and to add to what Kelton is on about, even nowadays certain horse breed are bred for different things. most horse breed you encounter in europe or used for hacking nowadays have been bred from riding stock meant for hunting and jumping as sports. they have not been selectively bred to be docile and amiable and brave. you can hear reaction anecdotes about how arabs, thoroughbreds and warmbloods behave and react. and then how pres, shetlands and cobs react. ofc all horses are different but there are generalisations of how they cope with certain things. and in those days some horse were bred for war, so were they bred to be brave? which is certainly not something they are being selectively bred for today. and e.g. quarter horses are bred to herd cattle and ik someone and have heard from others that some even bred in the uk and with no prior experiences to cows will try to herd and drive them when first introduced

I've trained myself to see kinetic energy When I close my eyes I find it has helped me in fencing and I saw a flaw in everybody's statement that a landscape be used multiple times yes it can when's the horse remains basically still as soon as the horse Lynch's the Lance will snap and if armor grabs the Lance you have to drop It or Break It

Do you mean a comparison? The cloth coat that knightly steeds are usually shown wearing?

@@adambielen8996 OK, that too, but I mean real heater-shield shaped personal coat of arms. You know, maybe with picture of black horse on it? =)

Up until the advent of semi-automatic rifles, the cavalry charge still had some utility against unsupported infantry. Obviously machine guns would change the equation but there are examples as late as WW1 of infantry in the open being cut up by cavalry. A horse can close the distance from out-of-range to right on top of you so fast that someone with a bolt-action rifle can get off two or three shots at a moving target before he's skewered. The last cavalry charge by the U.S. Army took place against the Japanese on the Philippine Islands in January of 1942 but they used semi-automatic pistols against the Japanese bolt-action rifles so you could say the advantage lay mostly with the cavalrymen in that case.

Aka hog hunting in Florida

Interesting. How did you work the throttle? I've pondered how I could use a handgun on a motorcycle and there aren't many options. You'd either have to shoot left-handed or pull in the clutch and coast while taking your right hand off the throttle. Presumably the same applies to a sword.

The spear most times did not have a guard or means to keep the weapon from sliding out his or her grip. That would be one difference.

@@shawn6860 Yup, the other would be an option of using an overhand grip.

15th century lances can be really long, 12-16 foot is pretty normal, there is an original lance of 467 cm, overhand spear use and two handed use of long lances is shown in the treatises. but the reach of a 16 foot lance is pretty huge and the lance feels much heavier in the hand, especially with a period weight head on it. (ca 150 grams) but you can absolutely fence with it still the 12 foot lances are a lot more nimble lances in later periods (napoleonic, or something) are often 250-310 cm long, which is a fair deal shorter and is more commonly held in the middle (or 2/3rds) of the shaft. this does really change the game.

@@shawn6860 "or her" ;-)

@@bakters I figure some poor peasant woamn at one time or a antother picked up a spear or pitch fork and sais "Oh ya? you wanna piece of this?" and stabbed the fool getting too close. lol!

I see what you did there.

We are all fans of Jason and his 👍🏻encouraging Horse talk.

I think horses where smaller historically.

@@alicelund147 In antiquity and the early middle ages, yes. Not so from the high middle ages on. Those horses were pretty big. That goes for (western) europe, other peoples often preferred lighter infantry and had smaller horses for that (Mongols, Arabs, etc.)

Nope, you aren't 😉✌🏻

No

Goodbye horses, I mean Zach!

Most evidence we have suggests warhorses even from the late medieval period were usually around 15hh to 15.2hh, which is a modest sized horse by some modern standards. They were likely stallions though, and few people today ride stallions (I have several). They are much more powerful than geldings generally.

That still has a reduced reach. Any action where the arm is stretched across the chest is going to have a short reach.

@@scholagladiatoria thanks. I’ll look forward to the sequel in which we get the cavalryman’s take on tackling the infantryman. It’s refreshing to hear about the tactics, one on one, since most books I’ve read on infantry versus cavalry encounters tend to lean towards group encounters, either in a skirmish or full scale battle, and I guess there are different dynamics / considerations with formations of cavalry versus formed infantry as, say, at Bannockburn or Nancy.

Jason is essentially a professional horseman judging by his videos. I'd agree his horses are probably better prepared to participate in a medieval battle but I wouldn't feel screwed if I had to use this one. Rider and horse have obviously done a lot of work and deserve mad props.

@@itsapittie Agreed - but Indy (this horse) is trained for jousting as his owner (in Zac's video) said. Generally, I was in no way trying to denigrate either Zac or this horse.- apologies if it came across like that - and I'm in awe of all of them who put os much time, hard work and effort into this work and into their videos.

A spear that gets stuck to something on the horse is likely to obstruct or even hurt the horse in some way. The horse could get a bit mad. It could be a gamble how well trained the enemies' horses are.