Horses were an
absolutely essential — indeed defining — component of a knight’s equipment. The
German word for knight (ritter)
derives directly from the word for rider (reiter),
while the French and Spanish terms, chevalier
and caballero, derive from the word
for horse (cheval and caballo respectively). While a knight
might temporarily be without a mount, without a horse a knight could not
fulfill his fundamental function as a cavalryman. Indeed, the symbol of
knighthood was not the sword (infantrymen had those as well) or even the lance (they
were throw away pieces of equipment), but the (golden) spurs tied to his heels
during the dubbing ceremony. Richard Barber notes in his seminal work The Knight and Chivalry that being
financially in a position to outfit oneself with arms and horses was crucial to
knightly status. David Edge and John Miles Paddock argue in their comprehensive
work Arms and Armour of the Medieval
Knight that “[a knight’s horse] was the most effective and significant
weapon the knight had; the basis of his pre-eminent position in society and on
the battlefield.”
In short, knights
needed horses — significantly not just one horse but several. This short post provides a overview of a knight's equine needs.
The warhorse or destrier, is the most
obvious of a knight’s horses. This was the horse a knight rode into battle,
joust or tournament. This horse was his fighting platform. It was trained to
endure the shock and noise of combat. In later years, destriers were sometimes
also trained to lash out at enemies with teeth and hooves thereby becoming, as
Edge and Paddock note, a weapon as
well as a fighting platform. Knights rode stallions, not mares or geldings.
This was in part because stallions were considered more aggressive, but also
because riding a mare or a gelding detracted from a knight’s image as a virile
warrior.
Destriers were
not a specific breed of horse, so arguably the defining characteristic of a
destrier was simply its function — and price. If a knight thought a horse had
what it took to be a fine destrier, he was willing to pay a large premium for
that — and anyone in possession of a horse with the necessary qualities was
going to ask a commensurate price for it as well. In short, destriers were outrageously
expensive. They cost 4 to 8 times the price of lesser or ordinary horses. They
cost as much as the armor a knight wore. They could cost as much as the annual
knight’s fee — in short roughly the annual income of the gentry. The equivalent is the price of a top-line BMW
or Mercedes today.
Like any horse,
destriers were vulnerable to colic and injury, however, which meant a knight
was well advised to have more than one destrier — if he could afford it. Even if he could and did, however, he was
likely to have a favorite. The destriers of knights in contemporary romance and
legend all have names: Baucent, Folatise, Babieca etc., but perhaps no description
is more famous that the Dauphin’s praise for his horse before Agincourt in
Shakespeare’s Henry V. “When I bestride him, I soar, I am a hawk: he trots on
air; the earth sings when he touches it…. It is a beast for Perseus: he is pure
air and fire….”
For all their
value and importance, however, a knight spent far less time
mounted on his prized destrier than on his palfrey(s). Palfreys were riding horses, transportation not weapons, the means
of getting from point A to point B. Since medieval knights rode everywhere -- to oversea their estates, to visit neighbors, when hunting or hawking, to attend court or to go courting. In short, a knight spent literally countless hours
with his palfrey(s). Palfreys were bred not for strength and fierceness but for
smooth gates, endurance and common sense. They were probably much the same size
as destriers, but lighter — marathon runners rather than sprinters, wrestlers
more than boxers.
Since these
horses were just as likely to get colic or injured, the need for more than one
palfrey was just as compelling as with destriers, but given the substantially
lower price of palfreys the possession of more than one was considerably more common.
Knights would normally have possessed at least two and wealthy nobles likely
had stables of horses at their disposal for transport purposes.
See the medieval world through
the eyes of a horse! Follow “A Destrier’s Tale” on:
http://schradershistoricalfiction.blogspot.com.
In modern comparison, I think I'd prefer a half-breed for my Destrier: Half Quarter Horse, half Morgan. The Quarter Horse supplies the required agility, the Morgan the strength for toting all of that armor.
ReplyDeleteGood choice -- and it underlines the fact that these horses weren't a specific breed but individual horses that brought particular strengths with them. In my experience the most important traits are the ones you can see either, but the character of the horse. Whether he's willing, trustworthy, has strong nerves and a big heart.
ReplyDeleteI am breeding gascony chargers or destrier gascons. Archeological evidence as well as written illustrations show us, as you have so rightly said that they were relatively small animals by todays standards. The Great warhorse that came later on was an animal bred for size and did not need to be taken on crusades in the hold of a smallish ship.
ReplyDeletetells a lot of information for my project. Good comparisons. really like this blog
ReplyDeleteI hope comments are still being answered on this blog, as horses are my passion. I was wondering about Crusaser horse types, and noted in one of the earlier videos of Real Crusader History, that supporting lords and knights had remarked on the spirit and stamina of the mounts that the Turks rode. I know most think of Arabian horses as being hot-blooded and hard to control, but a lot depends on the blood line. A relative of mine breeds Arabians that are descended from a stud and mares gifted to a Polish noble, and they are considerably more sensible than the pure Egyptian bloodlines. At any rate, do you know of specific incidents of Crusaders obtaining Arabians for breeding to their destriers, to increase intelligence and stamina perhaps? Thank you in advance should you choose to answer.
ReplyDeleteThere a fun novel based on this premise (whose title escapes me at the moment but I'll post it if/when I remember), but I have not personally seen historical evidence of such inter-breeding. We know, however, that captured Arab horses were an important "spoils of war" and that they all belonged to the king, who then re-distributed them to knights/turcopoles who had lost horses in combat for the crown. The king's obligation to replace wounded and killed horses was called "restor" and was one of the unique features of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Since the Arabs did ride mares, the opportunity for inter-breeding would have been considerable and, I suspect, irresistible. We also know of specific incidents in which the Saracens gave horses as gifts. Allegedly, al-Adil sent one (or two depending on account) horse(s) to King Richard I at the battle of Jaffa.
DeleteUltimately, knights depended heavily on their horses and were always looking for the best possible horseflesh. Interbreeding was an obvious option. But, again, I have not personally seen a record of a specific incident.
I found the novel! It is "A Stallion at Sunrise" by Martyn Whitlock. You might enjoy it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is a record of cross breeding at the preceptory in Clonoulty
ReplyDeleteCo.Tipperary,Ireland