What sort of mounts were the Mongol conquerors riding?

[Geriander]

I would say Geriander as he wrote that the mass of the horse was important in the charging

I was mostly thinking about mounted units charging each other, not infantry. The horses themselves will collide and the lighter ones will be the ones that topple and throw their riders. If the lancers are only for chasing down fleeing enemies or charging badly organized infantry in the flank it wouldn’t matter as much. When European knights charge, It would be better to fall back and do the Parthian shot rather than collide head on with weaker armour and smaller horses.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I was mostly thinking about mounted units charging each other, not infantry. The horses themselves will collide and the lighter ones will be the ones that topple and throw their riders. If the lancers are only for chasing down fleeing enemies or charging badly organized infantry in the flank it wouldn’t matter as much. When European knights charge, It would be better to fall back and do the Parthian shot rather than collide head on with weaker armour and smaller horses.

You are basically right but the Parthian shot wont work to well against knights of that era. Those been basically impervious against arrows from that angle.
What they preferable did was shooting into the right flank of the charging knight bulk (or back if possible) or let them exhaust their horses. There are also cases where they formed rigns around the knights.

This is however how they can quickly dehorse light cavalry trying to catch them.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

You are basically right but the Parthian shot wont work to well against knights of that era. Those been basically impervious against arrows from that angle.
What they preferable did was shooting into the right flank of the charging knight bulk (or back if possible) or let them exhaust their horses. There are also cases where they formed rigns around the knights.

One rign to bring them all and in the darkness bind them?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

One rign to bring them all and in the darkness bind them?

Tehehe thats the best smilie I have seen for ages ^^

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Tehehe thats the best smilie I have seen for ages ^^

The Paradox forum is a bit starved for variety regarding smilies with only a dozen offered. Luckily inserting images has become easier than ever since the forums update.

 

[Henry IX]

Steppe horses also differ from more modern varieties in that they can survive on grass. Most modern horses require grain as a feed (along with grass) as they get sick if you just feed them grass, even if it is not mowed and has its seed attached. The point of this is that horses are bred for different things. The steppe horses were bred for endurance and toughness, while the European destrier was bred for strength and speed over shorter distances.

 

[DarthJF]

This is what modern Mongolian horses look like and supposedly they haven't changed much since the days of Genghis Khan.

As others have pointed out. Mongols didn't do the kind of high energy cavalry charges people often associate with cavalry. The important thing for steppe horses was endurance and being able to keep moving for long times while showering the enemy with arrows. When the Mongol heavy cavalry entered into melee with the enemy it was only once the enemy were exhausted and their formation had been broken by archers.

There being multiple horses for each soldier also meant that Mongols could change horses midbattle to get fresh mounts when it was time to charge. Something their enemies were rarely able to do.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

There being multiple horses for each soldier also meant that Mongols could change horses midbattle to get fresh mounts when it was time to charge. Something their enemies were rarely able to do.

All cavalries brought along re-mount horses. You can't keep a horse going in the nerve-wracking high pitch of battle for very long before nervous exhaustion sets in. Re-mounts were very customary in all cavalries - not as many as the Mongols perhaps, but at least one. Otherwise, the cavalry has to withdraw from the battlefield every 15 minutes or so to rest and calm down.

 

[DarthJF]

All cavalries brought along re-mount horses. You can't keep a horse going in the nerve-wracking high pitch of battle for very long before nervous exhaustion sets in. Re-mounts were very customary in all cavalries - not as many as the Mongols perhaps, but at least one. Otherwise, the cavalry has to withdraw from the battlefield every 15 minutes or so to rest and calm down.

Interesting to hear. I haven't heard it mentioned much in other contexts so I'd imagined having re-mounts was rarer among common cavalry men in other armies.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Considering how expensive a trained warhorse was at this time it is hard to believe everyone had a few spares around. Shifting around saddles and horse armor isnt trivial and quick either.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Interesting to hear. I haven't heard it mentioned much in other contexts so I'd imagined having re-mounts was rarer among common cavalry men in other armies.

Really? Well, maybe it's too ordinary to mention. But they come up frequently in logistics calculations, as remount horses double as baggage carriers.

Considering how expensive a trained warhorse was at this time it is hard to believe everyone had a few spares around. Shifting around saddles and horse armor isnt trivial and quick either.

I am not sure how much a single warhorse costs. But a single cavalryman costs a lot precisely because a cavalryman needs more than one horse. And holding spares, shifting saddles, armor, et al. is what squires are for.

I can't guarantee that absolutely every cavalry army had remounts. But you see them enough. Any cavalry that is planning to engage for more than fifteen minutes or so must have remounts at hand. Of course, you may not plan to use your cavalry that much. Fifteen minutes is often enough to do a lot of damage before retiring.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I am not sure how much a single warhorse costs. But a single cavalryman costs a lot precisely because a cavalryman needs more than one horse. And shifting saddles, armor, et al. is what squires are for.

I can't guarantee that absolutely every cavalry army had remounts. But you see them enough. Any cavalry that is planning to engage for more than fifteen minutes or so must have remounts at hand. Of course, you may not plan to use your cavalry that much. Fifteen minutes is often enough to do a lot of damage before retiring.

Dont get me wrong, the average knight brought several horses. But they been usual pack and riding horses.
I dont doubt however that most nobles if not broke could bring spare warhorses.

That said, a state of the art warhorse, a trained stallion, was very expensive. You propably get two dozen riding horses for one.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Dont get me wrong, the average knight brought several horses. But they been usual pack and riding horses.
I dont doubt however that most nobles if not broke could bring spare warhorses.

That said, a state of the art warhorse, a trained stallion, was very expensive. You propably get two dozen riding horses for one.

Not sure what you mean by "expensive", or how you come to this calculation. These aren't market gee-gaws. Expense is in the food, space & time to raise and maintain them. And there's economies of scale. A noble stable that holds one warhorse can often hold two or three without much more expense. A large warhorse may eat more than a riding horse, but not two dozen times more.

In logistic calcs, the re-mount carries the fodder for both. It is perfectly functional. There's no reason to bring along a dozen riding horses - who also eat and which you won't use - instead of a second or third re-mount, that you actually need.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I'm not aware of 18th century style state armies bringing multiple mounts per cavalryman at least. Thought they did appropriate remounts during campaign since the attrition for horses was larger than that for men.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Not sure what you mean by "expensive"

The price to obtain them.

 

[gagenater]

Not sure what you mean by "expensive", or how you come to this calculation. These aren't market gee-gaws. Expense is in the food, space & time to raise and maintain them. And there's economies of scale. A noble stable that holds one warhorse can often hold two or three without much more expense. A large warhorse may eat more than a riding horse, but not two dozen times more.

In logistic calcs, the re-mount carries the fodder for both. It is perfectly functional. There's no reason to bring along a dozen riding horses - who also eat and which you won't use - instead of a second or third re-mount, that you actually need.

The 'expenses' which you are measuring are maintenance. The major expense of a warhorse is training, and selection. It would take years of training, and several rejected attempts (horses that training was attempted on but found unsuitable) before getting a properly trained warhorse.

Edit; another issue is that horses for combat purposes ‘wear out’ astonishingly quickly. Between movement in bad weather, overloading, stress and fatigue related health problems, not to mention actual combat a cavalry mount was only ‘prime’ for about 5 years from 5-10 years of age assuming they live that long. Younger than that and their skeletal structure is still forming and they aren’t suitable for heavy loads or long working times. Older than that and they become much more susceptible to a wide variety of muscle and skeletal issues that reduce their endurance and load capacity. Those horses might be fine for pulling wagons or for ‘normal’ riding but not for carrying the load of a knight or soldier with equipment for long distances. In the early modern era we have plenty of info to go by, and the typical military horse would only last 2-5 years in service before dying or becoming lamed. This is even after discounting the extreme circumstances of WWI.

 

[Henry IX]

Remounts were often of inferior quality to the 'primary' mount. It was common for a 'lance' to consist of 3 men and perhaps 4-6 horses of which only one would be a fully armoured knight mounted on an armoured warhorse. All the rest would function as logistical support and back up. Hence if dismounted, or if the horse was blown, the knight could use one of the other horses, but these would not be armoured or trained to the same level.

Of course for a high nobleman there might be plenty of trained and armoured remounts, but that would not be typical.

It is worth noting that for most battles of the medieval period the actual time of the engagement in hand-to-hand combat would be fairly short, often only a couple of minutes due to the lethality of combat and the physical difficulty of sustaining this sort of combat for more that a couple of minutes. Hence, the need for a remount due to the horse being exhausted was probably not a primary concern in the European model of battle. For a Mongol, who might expect an extended period of skirmishing, including false advances and retreats, the exhaustion of their mounts becomes a far greater issue.

 

[KPJ]

Yeah I saw a documentary a while back about medieval British armies; they talked about this remount thing.

The idea was that they would bring their warhorses on carts, and use a cheaper and more common variety for travelling and pulling the carts. This was important because warhorses were too valuable to twist a leg while travelling or get tired out before the battle.

I can't find a lot about it online so maybe it was bad information. Was just a TV documentary.

 

[gagenater]

Yeah I saw a documentary a while back about medieval British armies; they talked about this remount thing.

The idea was that they would bring their warhorses on carts, and use a cheaper and more common variety for travelling and pulling the carts. This was important because warhorses were too valuable to twist a leg while travelling or get tired out before the battle.

I can't find a lot about it online so maybe it was bad information. Was just a TV documentary.

Knights, and other mounted warriors definitely refrained from riding their primary battle mounts while travelling, but they also never put them in carts. Even if somehow in theory this were desirable, in the pre modern era roads and trails simply weren't good enough to move around with carts at a reasonable speed and not hurt the horses severely. Horses in particular can easily be hurt even in modern horse trailers on smooth paved roads because of the serious difficulties in ensuring their safety in a wheeled vehicle going over bumps, potholes, etc.