The Wargamers Fascination with Ethnicity

[Freddy]

Oh, you mean like the Roman equites, the entire flippin' equestrian class of Rome named after their fondness for mules, no doubt, and not for their capability of fielding cavalry? Italy, especially central Italy, is not a landscape suitable for sweeping cavalry manouevres, or for much cavalry in general. Most of Romes early wars were fought across mountainous landscape such as that where infantry were far more useful than cavalry, hence moving towards a primarily infantry force. It was a choice forced on them by the wars they fought, not because they couldn't afford the horses. Sorry Freddy but I think you might be on the wrong track with this idea.

So Romans had a lot of grassy pastures to raise loads of horses on, but they choose to wage wars in the mountains so that they do not disturb the horses neither by conscripting them in the army nor by trampling the grass they are eating?

[Rick]

I'm not so sure that either the Etruscans or the Samnites really consulted with the Romans on just what sort of terrain they would like to fight over, it just sort of happened that way; but I take your point and I'm sure the Romans would've stayed with cavalry if they'd had the choice of terrain.

[carlos marighela]

Could we change the title to The Wargamers Fascination with Gee-Gees?

Maybe someone should put in a pin in this thread before we get references to Equus or Black Beauty or those difficult pre-teen obsessions with ponies? 

[Freddy]

I'm not so sure that either the Etruscans or the Samnites really consulted with the Romans on just what sort of terrain they would like to fight over, it just sort of happened that way; but I take your point and I'm sure the Romans would've stayed with cavalry if they'd had the choice of terrain.

So now not only the Romans but also the Etruscans and the Samnites tried to avoid the horse-filled pastures in favour of fighting in the mountains? 

[Rick]

Well no, not exactly Freddy - the Etruscans and Samnites were already there and the Romans kinda had to go to where they were in order to fight them, not a lot of choice in that regard. If you look at all the trouble the Allies had in 43-45 you'll probably get the gist of the problem - all up and down and not the country to take horses into.

[Freddy]

Well no, not exactly Freddy - the Etruscans and Samnites were already there and the Romans kinda had to go to where they were in order to fight them, not a lot of choice in that regard. If you look at all the trouble the Allies had in 43-45 you'll probably get the gist of the problem - all up and down and not the country to take horses into.

No, Rome did not fight these wars based on a faraway continent 5000km from any potential harm. Etruscans attacked many times to Roman territories they even besieged Rome. (Veii is less than 30km from Rome to begin with)

[cadbren]

Anglo-Saxon horses were not 'just ponies' - there was a very active trade between France and England and equally fine horses in both countries.

That may be but English horses in high status burials were on average smaller than those of the Normans by about a hand. Up to two hands smaller for regular English warhorses. A few horses crossing the channel compared to the active breeding of the Normans in Normandy doesn't compare.
It's one of the problems of cavalry figures that the horses for many factions, especially ancient period, are too big. Victrix, Crusader and Gripping Beast all do that.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

That may be but English horses in high status burials were on average smaller than those of the Normans by about a hand. Up to two hands smaller for regular English warhorses. A few horses crossing the channel compared to the active breeding of the Normans in Normandy doesn't compare.
It's one of the problems of cavalry figures that the horses for many factions, especially ancient period, are too big. Victrix, Crusader and Gripping Beast all do that.

A good argument for the use of British chariots against the Romans, long after everyone else discarded them, if the average horse was too small for big men to ride well.

[Ninefingers]

That may be but English horses in high status burials were on average smaller than those of the Normans by about a hand. Up to two hands smaller for regular English warhorses. A few horses crossing the channel compared to the active breeding of the Normans in Normandy doesn't compare.
It's one of the problems of cavalry figures that the horses for many factions, especially ancient period, are too big. Victrix, Crusader and Gripping Beast all do that.

But do we know that the high status person being buried is being buried with 'their' horse, or just 'a' horse?

[Freddy]

It's one of the problems of cavalry figures that the horses for many factions, especially ancient period, are too big. Victrix, Crusader and Gripping Beast all do that.

In general the protrayal of horses in wargaming is far behind the protrayal of weapons and uniforms. Not only the size, but the horse types and also the harnesses are sketchy at best.

[Elk101]

Just a note to say to keep this on topic please.

[cadbren]

But do we know that the high status person being buried is being buried with 'their' horse, or just 'a' horse?

Do you really think a high status person would be burried with an inferior nag? It's more likely the largest horse that could be spared was used. These high status people would have owned more than one horse, they likely had a favoured warhorse which was put out to pasture after it couldn't be ridden to war anymore. It's highly likely that such horses would have been chosen for inclusion in a burial once the master died. All supposition of course but more likely than a random horse from the farm being chosen.

[cadbren]

A good argument for the use of British chariots against the Romans, long after everyone else discarded them, if the average horse was too small for big men to ride well.

Agreed, it's likely why the British kept the tradition longer. That and they didn't work well against Roman style infantry. You don't hear about chariot auxilia so their use must have been limited compared to cavalry.

[Rick]

Wow - how many pages has this obsession with taking a circular chicken and egg argument and re-inserting the egg been going on? The idea that either the Romans or Anglo-Saxons didn't have access to the same horses that their opponents did so HAD to do without is spurious and not supported by the facts. The Anglo-Saxons didn't ride horses in battle so didn't need anything more than a smaller riding horse, not the big Warhorse that the French bred. Obviously there is something more at work here otherwise why did the descendants of the Normans dismount and fight on foot after 1138?
Oh and just to wee all over the argument proposed about the use of small horses for British chariots - these were the same horses that were used extensively by the British as cavalry against the Romans. By most sane and rational accounts it was more of a status symbol than anything else.

[Elk101]

OK, this seems to have run its course (though I'm sure there will be disagreement on this). I think we are done.