Talk:Horses in warfare/Archive 2

Eurocentrism or not?

Comments are well-taken that the article is a bit light on warfare in Asian cultures. However, this is simply due to a lack of sources available to the editors of this article. As this article has GA status, we cannot add unsourced material, research must be carefully done.

I strongly suggest and encourage people who have SOURCED, VERIFIABLE information and want to improve this piece to create a section here on the talk page and put in some suggested draft language--WITH proper footnotes. We can clean it up, and then figure out where to insert it within the article.

As for the rest of the comments on the horse in antiquity, you will note most statements are carefully sourced. If you check the links on domestication of the horse, you will find more information. (And there is some --albeit hotly debated-- archaelolgical evidence of horses being ridden by at least 3500 BCE, so yes, they started using them for work as well as dinner pretty early on)

I welcome a source on the Mongolians and invention of the saddle with a firm wooden tree, if indeed that was where the Romans obtained it. There is always room for more and better information.

The WWI versus WWII argument has been debated here a great deal. What appears in the article can probably be improved upon, but there WERE traditional mounted cavalry units used in WWII, particularly in Poland.

At any rate, if you are willing to write so much here, please find some referenced, scholarly sources to add that prove your point and if they are sufficiently verifiable, we would be glad to improve the article. Montanabw^(talk) 16:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article. I'm not going to change anything because I'm a little "biased" my self, so I will give you only some information:
1) "[...] Technically speaking, in 1939, Poland had 11 brigades of mounted infantry and no units of cavalry as such" see Polish cavalry#20th century: World War II. Sound strange? Do you need an example of a battle in 1939 with such unit? So look here: Battle of Mokra
2) Look at German and Soviet units invading Poland in 1939, you can also find: 1st German Cavalry Brigade - Commanded by General Kurt Feldt and (for example) Soviet 6th and 3rd Cavalry Corps. (See German order of battle for Operation Fall Weiss and Soviet order of battle for invasion of Poland in 1939).
I propose to cut the whole "famous example" and write much more about the cavalry in east-front and before II WW and Russian Civil War (see Polish cavalry#20th century: the Polish-Bolshevik War).
Keep doing great job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.152.233 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Chariots and bows

I have removed a comment on bows which merely indicates that the source (who seems to be a genuine expert on horses) knew nothing about bows. The composite bow article has better information. Richard Keatinge 12:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding and fixing the dead link. Charioteers DID use bows, that is clearly documented on about every piece of art that has chariots on it. I think it does matter to mention it, though we can certainly tweak the text a wee bit, "longbow" even to me conjures up the medieval model, not the bronze age one, though the text of the source simply describes a bow too long to be effectively used from horseback, and indeed, it doesn't take a very long bow before you have a pretty awkward tool for use while mounted. In the future, a "cite" tag is better wikiquette than just removing things though, or maybe just removing the offending adjective... Montanabw^(talk) 16:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The source does seem confused on what size a bow should be. It may be a typo, but a one-metre bow is very very short indeed for even a small adult, and would not allow a full draw to the face. Most composite bows, designed for use from horseback, are quite a lot longer than a metre, and the Japanese bow is long by any definition. True, available evidence on Bronze Age bows does suggest fairly long models, but I notice that North American Plains Indians very quickly made shorter bows after they took to horseback, and I am therefore left with the suspicion that the bows would not have constrained the steppe peoples from horse archery. Rather, that they hadn't developed their riding skills to the point where horseback archery was practical, but would have developed short bows when the need arose. Entirely speculative and therefore unsuitable for the article, but I'd also suggest leaving out the equally speculative suggestion that the long bow design did compel chariot rather than cavalry use. HTH. Richard Keatinge 10:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and while I'm nitpicking, the Iliad does indeed describe the use of chariots as battle taxis, similar to Caesar's eyewitness accounts of chariot use in Britannia in 55 and 54 BCE. But the Iliad is separated from its sources by 4-5 centuries of oral transmission, and the fall of Troy is usually dated about 1250 BCE, long after the introduction of bow-armed chariotry to the Levant. I would think it unwise to use the Iliad as a source for the assertion that the chariot started as a battle taxi and only later became associated with the bow. If the Iliad is correct about the way chariots were used around the Aegean in 1250, and it's a big if, this may simply reflect a local development, maybe related to limited open areas for manoeuvre in Europe. Comments please. Richard Keatinge 11:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the best solution is to provide independent sources here on the talk page, and we can hash them over. We can't use one wiki article as a source for a different wiki article. Per wikipedia's verification guidelines, the article as it sits is adequately sourced. Given that we cannot posit our independent research here, if you disagree with the sources, what can be done is to look at the dueling researchers and if consensus cannot be reached, then present the controversy. This was a successful approach during earlier debates over other material in this article (the issue of the size of medieval war horses was quite a discussion, for example, but we got there, and found some great sources in the process).

(FYI, if you personally know archery and some things don't compute, I sympathize. I periodically get quite frustrated by certain historical assertions that were made by researchers who obviously were not knowledgable about horses...like the notion that they tried nose rings on horses before bits...or that they drove horses first, then rode them. It's baloney and defies logic (and some of the assertions about riding violate the known laws of physics!). But, I'm just a wiki editor, ...sigh...)

As for the riding versus chariot situation, it is very clear from certain excavations that riding itself existed a good two thousand years before driving, but oh, they dug up the chariots first, so...anything found later to contradict the prevailing wisdom is considered inadequate evidence! (Arrgh! I hate scholarly politics!) But, whatever. Either way, you are just plain and simple limited to certain types of weapons from horseback, especially if you don't have stirrups, which didn't appear until much later in history. (your comment on Native American bow length a case in point). For example, the lance didn't really come into its own until stirrups were around. Before that, you do have artwork of mounted warriors with spears and no stirrups, but they were lighter weapons, held in a throwing position (overhand hold). Oh, but I am going on and on. Dig up some sources and let's see what else there is. Montanabw^(talk) 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, in case we've crossed wires here, I'd only like to rejig a couple of sentences, presently: "In Ancient Greece, chariots are first described in Homer's Iliad as vehicles used to transport warriors to battle, but were not used for actual fighting. However, improvements in wheels and axles, combined with the design of bow used in Bronze Age warfare (a design that was best used while standing, not while mounted on a horse), soon resulted in chariots being driven in battle by almost all Bronze Age societies.[21]"

I suggest that goes beyond the sources. I'd like to change it to something like: "Julius Caesar in 55 and 54 BCE saw British charioteers throwing javelins, then dismounting to fight on foot. The Iliad, possibly referring to Mycenean practices of about 1250 BCE, describes the use of chariots simply to transport warriors to and from battle, rather than for actual fighting. However, the introduction of the chariot over most of Eurasia coincides with that of the composite bow, and most Bronze Age societies from China to Egypt fought with bows from chariots." Would that suit? Richard Keatinge 06:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Got a source, though? That would help. One problem is that Caesar didn't live in the Bronze Age, so we need to clarify. Also, keep in mind that "chariots" go back to the Kinshasa burials, c. 2000BCE and the compound bow article only notes history to about 1600 BCE, so that has to be clarified. But I think we are close. Basically, it appears (from artwork, anyway) that bows weren't the only weapons used by chairioteers. Try this--it ties into the existing source, and your material strengthens the section...

The Iliad, possibly referring to Mycenean practices of about 1250 BCE, describes the use of chariots for transporting warriors to and from battle, rather than for actual fighting. (insert footnote to source of info) Later, Julius Caesar in 55 and 54 BCE saw British charioteers, who still utilized Bronze Age technology, throwing javelins, then leaving their chariots (you don't exactly "dismount" from a chariot) to fight on foot. (cite source) However, widespread use of the chariot in warfare across most of Eurasia coincides with the development of the composite bow in c. (year--1600?) BCE. (Source). Further improvements in wheels and axles, as well as innovations in weaponry, soon resulted in chariots being driven in battle by Bronze Age societies from China to Egypt. (keeping ref to existing footnote because the wheel and axel stuff mattered too).

That's a little awkward, probably needs one more tweak, but if you can plug in refs and fix any inaccuracies in the rewrite, that will get us pretty close. Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've given it a go, also re-ordered it for chronology and section. Comments? Richard Keatinge 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Central Asia Cavalry Sandbox

This section if to work on edits so that the subsection is more streamlined and concise, with proper citations. Also creating red link for potential new article that has more detail, perhaps titled Cavalry in Central Asia? Montanabw^(talk) 06:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to name it History of cavalry warfare in Central Asia. While the political influence of mounted warriors is interesting, we should keep it out of this article as long as we don't describe any attested general trends. What is of value for this article, is the origin and early design of stirrups in this region plus the training methods for horses. Can the author provide more info on this subject? Wandalstouring 14:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Another issue would be social history how elites of mounted warriors formed in agricultural societies. There we can mix the different histories and create subarticles to deal with more specific regional issues. Wandalstouring 14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What now is below is the "long" version as last edited by Satbir, for future reference. My shortened edit is now in the main article, it still needs some work. I do think this below is enough for a whole new article, if we can agree on a title that isn't too horribly wordy. Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cavalry in Central Asia

The Indian literature contains numerous references to the cavalry forces of the Central Asian horse nomads like the Sakas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Pahlavas and Paradas. Numerous Puranic texts refer to ancient invasion (16th c BCE) of India by the joint cavalry forces of these five nations, called five hordes (pañca.ganah) or or Kśatriya hordes (Kśatriya ganah), which had captured the throne of Ayudhya by dethroning its Vedic king Bahu .

The Mahabharata, Ramayana, numerous Puranas and some foreign sources numerously attest that the Kamboja, Saka, Yavana cavalry-troopers were frequently requisitioned in ancient wars. All these sources also agree that the horses of the Sindhu and Kamboja regions were the finest breed. JAOS observes: "Most famous horses are said to come either from Sindhu or Kamboja; of the latter (i.e the Kamboja), the Indian pseudo-epic Mahabharata speaks among the finest horsemen" .

Mahabharata (950 c BCE) speaks of the esteemed and wrathful cavalry of the Kambojas, Sakas, Yavanas and Tusharas, all of whom had participated in the Kurukshetra war under the supreme commandership of Kamboja ruler Sudakshin Kamboj .

Mahabharata and Vishnudharmotari Purana especially styles the Kambojas, Yavansa, Gandharas etc as expert cavarymen . In the Mahabharata war, the Kamboja cavalry, along with that of the Sakas, Yavanas and Tusharasis, is reported to have been enlisted by the Kuru king Duryodhana of Hastinapura and they all fought the war under the command of Sudakshin Kamboj .

Herodotus (484 c. BCE - 425 c. BCE) attests that the Gandarian mercenaries (i.e. Gandharans/Kambojans of Gandari Strapy of Achaemenids) from their twentieth strapy were recruited in the army of emperor Xerxes I (486-465 BCE), which he led against the Hellas. Similarly, the men of the Mountain Land from north of Kabol-River equivalent to medieval Kohistan (Pakistan), figure in the army of Darius III against Alexander at Arbela with a cavalry and fifteen elephants. This appears to refer the Kamboja cavalry, found south of the Hindukush.

The Kambojas had always been famous for their horses, as well as riders (asva-yuddha-Kushalah). On account of their respected position in horse (Ashva) culture, they were also popularly known as Ashvakas, i.e. "the horsemen." and their land was called as "Home of Horses" . They are also called the Assakenoi and Aspasioi in the Classical writings, and the Ashvakayanas and Ashvayanas in Panini's Ashtadhyayi. The Assakenoi had faced Alexander the Great with 30,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry and 30 war elephants.. Scholars have identified the Assakenoi and Aspasioi clans of Kunar and Swat valleys as a section of the Kambojas. These tribes had offered resistance to Alexander (326 c BCE) during his campaign in the Kabul, Kunar and Swat valleys, and their fighting ability was noted by Alexander’s historians. These highlanders, called the "parvatiya Ayudhajivinah" in some accounts,. were rebellious, fiercely independent and freedom-loving cavalrymen who never easily yielded to any overlord .

The cavalry forces of the Shakas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Kiratas, Parasikas and Bahlikas had helped Chandragupta Maurya (320 c BCE - 298 c BCE) defeat the ruler of Magadha and placed Chandragupta on the throne, thus laying the foundations of Mauryan Dynasty in Northern India as attested by Mudra-Rakashas..

The cavalry of the Hunas and Kambojas is also attested in the Raghu Vamsa play of Sanskrit Poet Kalidasa.. Raghu of Kalidasa is believed to be Chandragupta II (375-413/15 CE) (Vikaramaditya) of the well-known Gupta Dynasty.

Categories

Any reason this article is in Category:Types of horses? Ealdgyth | Talk 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because it is about War horses, and it was sitting in the breeds category for a while. "Types" of horses is sort of a catchall for anything that isn't a breed and such. Montanabw^(talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Horses in warfare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I am unsure however whether this pass for GA or not, and am going to seek wider community opinion on the issue with a formal Good Article Reassessment. I have left a list of my comments below to illustrate the areas I am having difficulty with.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

The lead is too short and should attempt to summarise the article better. This is a related problem of that of length (see below), as I think the sheer volume of information here makes a representative lead difficult.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article keeps flipping between BC and BCE, please choose one and stick to it.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Many of the online citations are improperly formatted, see citations section below. In addition, the sections "Medium-weight horses", "Training and deployment", "Islamic world" , "Renaissance and Early Modern Period", "Historical reenactment" and "Equestrian competition" are very thin on citations. There are also tags in "Riding equiment" and "20th century"--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

It is certainly broad, but a lot of the tactics and ideas discussed should have their own articles (many already do). These should be more clearly linked from this one as being a wider assesment of that particular topic.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• The issue of length: Although not actionable and not a barrier to this article retaining GA status, the article has a length problem. With so much to discuss on what is a very complicated topic, the article is quite overwhelming even for me, who is used to lengthy articles. I strongly recommend that the article be split at least in half, with everything from Types of etc. down to History in one article and the history section in another. This will make the article much easier to read and digest.
• I notice there are some comments within the text asking questions that have not been answered, these need to be addressed.

Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The web sources are now standardized. We're working on the missing page numbers. (Hint hint Montana). Should see a marked improvement in the sourcing, although there are still a few rough spots. The lead will be worked on shortly, as soon as things calm down with the citing of things. I'm going to try to hunt through some other references to find citations for the last bits on the historical section. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Montana knows she has to paginate several articles! My bad...intentions excellent, though we know what road is paved with those. Patience begged. Montanabw^(talk) 17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Community GA

Here are comments from the community GAR:

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Horses in warfare/1

Overkill and have some patience please!

I am in the process of responding to this over at the other page, for crying out loud, it's been less than 48 hours since you tagged this and you are already tearing it apart without so much as a "what can you do" to myself, the lead editor on this article, nor anyone on wikiproject Equine, which has been supporting this article for months!

I only ask that you please cool your jets until we can look your comments over and see what we can do. It could be a week or more before we get all our editors together, I am pretty busy with real life, Gwinva is on vacation, Ealdgyth is still on the road, and Dana is up to her ears with trying to get another article to GA. We will address the concerns that you raise, but can you be so kind as to hold off on the race to delist? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GA delist?

OK, so you have to skewer this article in THREE different comment pages within less than 48 hours? There are active editors on this article, but we are all very busy people (two on vacation), so it would have been a courtesy to give at least one of us a heads up. Some of your comments are well-taken, (we certainly can improve on the refs) but others reflect a lack of understanding of the topic (Horses are ALWAYS measured in hands, for one thing). I am asking some other WikiProject Equine editors to comment here because I am lead editor and a little too close to the article to sort out which comments are helpful and which are simply nitpicking. But PLEASE cool your jets before delisting this article, which reflects the efforts of a number of very capable other people besides myself. Have some patience to allow us to review your comments before slamming the hard work of a lot of folks. It easily passed GA as the standard existed at the time, I know the standard is getting tightened, but we aren't putting it up for FA yet, and I would be appreciative if you would recognize that GA does not mean "perfect." Montanabw^(talk) 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be home...

Tonight and hopefully will be able to work on addressing a few of the concerns brought up. As far as hands, I'm fine with giving equivlent heights along with the hands, but horses ARE measured in hands, it is their measurement. Just like gold is weighed in troy ounces, horses are measured in hands, so measurements in horse articles should be in hands first, with conversions. We shouldn't have issues with fixing most of this, it is just going to take a bit of time, as the main editor is currently away on vacation. I have most of the sources used, so it shouldn't be that much of an issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the main editor is me, and I can only WISH I was on vacation! Having more the opposite problem. Darn that real life. LOL! But the main editor on the medieval stuff IS in fact on vacation (Gwinva), and she has the best stuff for info on Knights and such. However, we can also steal stuff from Horses in the Middle Ages for a few things, in fact I already have... IMHO, that section on India that was added does need some help; I trimmed it down a lot when it first went in, but it may need more work, and the sourcing is iffy. However, it is also good to try and preserve in some form to keep the article multi-cultural and not just Euro-centric. Montanabw^(talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments and Update

Ok, so I've spent a good chunk of the day going over the article, and here's what I've done and my comments:

• I've added convert templates to everything I could find that needed it, mainly weights and hand measurements. I agree with Montana and Ealdgyth that hands is how horses are measured, and this is the way that they are described in every other article on Wikipedia. See Thoroughbred which is FA and Appaloosa which is GA for examples of this. However, like I said, I have added inches and meter conversions to all instances where the hand measurement is used.

• I've gone through and converted all of the citations to template format, with short cites for book and journal articles. This format is what is used at other Wikiproject Equine GA/FA articles. The only citations I haven't converted are in two categories:
  • Some citations in the Central Asia and India subsection in the History section completely confused me, and I have no idea what is going on with them. Can someone else figure them out?
  • There were a couple of dead links that I couldn't easily find replacements for, so I tagged them as dead and left them as they were.

• There are a few short book cites (the in-text ones) that need page references. Not many...but if possible they should be added.

• I realize that there are several book citations in the references section that are missing vital information such as the publisher. This is due to whoever originally wrote the citation not adding the material, and not me deleting it for some random reason. I started trying to find the information today, and will probably finish this tomorrow.

• The two cites in the Bibliography section were there when I started, and as far as I can find, they are not used in the article. If these don't end up being used as we're re-GAing the article, they should probably be deleted, but I am going to leave them as is for now, in case they end up getting put in.

• I don't believe the article is too long. It's sitting at 66k right now, while there are many that are similar or longer. Thoroughbred is FA at 67K, Congestion pricing is GA at 65K, Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007-08 is GA at 78K...you get my point. Yes, there might be areas that could be trimmed, combined, or reworded, but wholesale sections of the article do not need to be taken out, IMHO.

As a heads up to other editors, I'll be going offline in a few minutes and won't be back online until at least 8AM EST. I'll check in and reply to any comments then, and probably spend a good chunk of tomorrow making prose and reference tweaks and trying to cite some stuff, as long as I'm not interfering with other editors. Have fun tonight, ya'll! Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dana. The stuff on horses in India was added by someone who I think is from India, see also Horses in South Asia. The cites were not up to even my admittedly sloppy standards, and the editor has not updated them. We may be able to dig up some ISBNs. However, I can dig through the article history and see if I can figure out who is was that added the material and give them a heads up on their talk page. We may have to independently verify some of the material there. I'd hate to have to cut it altogether, but if we can't verify it, I suppose we could transplant it into a sandbox here until it can be properly cited.

As for the stuff that is mine, GBE and Bennett in particular, I will take responsibility for paginating, though as you know, I am prone to dragging my feet (but I will try not to do so this time!)

The two books listed were not ones that I used, so I have no clue about their uses, though if they are in Google books and text is available, we might be able to use them to cite some stuff in the text that is tagged. Both look useful. Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs et al

Let me know when we have reached a stable point with the editing, and I'll try to work in the refs I have. I dug out a bunch of my stuff and should be able to source a bunch of stuff. What I can't source, I'll try to list here later so that it can either be eliminated/reworded, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Working source issues

After working on sourcing stuff...

• Current ref three to the Devereux ref .. I cannot find this information in the reference at all. It appears to have come from the Gaited Horse magazine article that is buttressing the article. I think we need to replace this reference.
• Problem in sourcing. Chamberlin Horse p. 109-110 says that the Scandinavians invented the Horse collar in Europe. We have it as invented in CHina. Could be an issue.
• This source http://www.easterndrafthorse.com/History/historydyn.htm is borderline. Probably would pass muster at FAC, but it'd be work. I'll see if I can replace it with something better.
• We need a source for current note 9 about the traction force in newtons. I am NOT a physcist, so it'll have to be someone else
• The Medium weight horses section is mostly sourced to this: http://www.usdf.org/about/about-dressage/history.asp which is really marginal as a source for FAC. Probably need to replace.
• Current ref 14 "Davis, The Medieval Warhorse" is lacking a page number... the information sourced is "Some historians believe they may also have carried the heaviest-armored knights of the European Late Middle Ages," which we really need to get sourced to that ...
  • I've added another set of sources for this. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 24 is this source http://www.efanational.com/?Page=369&MenuID=Sports%2F11757%2F0%2F%2CDressage%2F11732%2F0%2F0 which is sourcing "In most cultures, a war horse used as a riding animal was trained to be controlled with limited use of reins, responding primarily to the rider's legs and weight;" and "The Haute ecole or "High School" movements of classical dressage taught to the Lipizzan horses at the Spanish Riding School in Vienna have their roots in maneuvers needed on the battlefield." This is a marginal source, we should probably replace.
  • Replaced one part Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'd like to see a backup source for http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-07/21/content_70825.htm for the information "then later a single stirrup was used as a mounting aid, the first set of paired stirrups appeared in China about A.D. 322 during the Jin Dynasty."
  • Backup source added. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.computersmiths.com/chineseinvention/index.html is an unreliable source. Need to replace for the information "By the 7th century, thanks primarily to invaders from Central Asia, stirrups spread across Asia to Europe."
  • replaced Ealdgyth - Talk 18:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.silk-road.com/artl/stirrup.shtml is a marginal source and would benefit from backup sourcing for the information "Use of stirrups was widespread in Europe by the 8th century."
  • Replaced with a David Nicolle source Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Chariots were used in China as far back as the Shang dynasty (ca. 1600-1050 BC). The earliest evidence of chariot warfare in Asia was shown by ceremonial burials. As had occurred earlier in central Asia, horses and chariots were found entombed with their owners so as to be with them in the next life." and "and in response to nomadic raiders from the north and west, the Chinese of the Han Dynasty (202 BC-220 AD) developed effective mounted units." are sourced to the Kentucky Horse park. Probably marginal source, might consider replacing.
  • Replaced. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta's_Trip_Three.html unreliable source. Needs a new source for "Relations between the steppe nomads and the settled people in and around Central Asia were long marked by conflict."
  • Replaced Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• I would not consider http://www.allempires.com/ a reliable source either. Needs replacing to source "The nomadic lifestyle was well suited to warfare and the steppe cavalry became some of the most militarily potent peoples in the world, only limited by their frequent lack of internal unity. Periodically great leaders or changing conditions would organize several tribes into to one force, and create an almost unstoppable power. These included the Hun invasion of Europe, the Wu Hu attacks on China and most notably the Mongol conquest of much of Eurasia."
  • Added buttressing citations. Would still like a bit more, I think, so that we can pull out the website completely. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Muslim invaders traveled north from Spain into France, where they were stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in A.D. 732. Arabian and other light oriental horses captured in the wake of this defeat were crossed with local stock, adding agility to the heavier animals." is sourced to http://www.percheron.org.uk/about/ which is probably unreliable. Needs replacing.
  • Replaced with Ellis and Hyland Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.horsequest.com/bredshow/andalusian/andalusi.htm is unreliable for "The Destrier was a horse of somewhat greater height and weight to accommodate heavier armoured knights. For example, the horse ridden by William of Normandy in the Battle of Hastings in 1066 was said to be an Iberian-type animal such as the modern Andalusian, at about 15.2 hands (61 inches (1.5 m)) tall." and "The great horse was both smaller and more agile than the modern draft horse, with breeds such as the Andalusian," it would be reliable for the information that the Andalusian claims descent, but not the information on the size of the destier.
  • • Replaced for both instances.
• http://www.classicalfencing.com/horsetraining.php is a fencing site. Probably not reliable source for "Larger horses, possibly as tall as 17 hands (68 inches (1.7 m)) and 1,500 pounds (680 kg), with the strength to carry both a knight and stylized plate armour were developed."
  • Replaced with Clark Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Some claim the invention of gunpowder and the musket rendered the knight obsolete," is sourced to http://www.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCGI.exe?IDCFile=/spring/DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=545,DATABASE=objects, We can probably improve on the source, and it should probably have two historians as the source...
• I would consider http://www.trivia-library.com/b/military-and-war-weapons-the-longbow.htm an unreliable source. Need to replace as a source for "while others date it earlier, to the use of the English longbow, which was introduced into England from Wales in 1250 and used with decisive force in conflicts such as the Battle of Crécy in 1346." As above, two historians would be ideal.
  • Replaced source with Ellis. Would still like another historian, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• We should probably source to something besides Henry's All About Horses which is a juvenile book.
  • Replaced with Ellis Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/1939.html would be considered unreliable source. Need to replace as a source for "Second, the most famous Polish cavalry charge during World War II was a successful charge against German infantry near the town of Mokra, part of the Battle of Krojanty, on the first day of the war. The Polish cavalry was eventually driven off by Armoured personnel carriers with the loss of 20 soldiers. Nonetheless, Nazi propagandists used the image of dead horses and tanks which arrived after the battle to ridicule the efforts of the Poles."
  • Okay, this information may be inaccurate. Ellis Cavalry says on page 183 that the only authenticated charge of cavalry he can find in Poland in the first days of WWII eliminated a brigade of cavalry that never managed to reach the tanks. It appears that the Polish Army had 40 regiments of cavalry, of which probably 90% died in the war. Probably need to remove this information unless a better source can be found. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I was thoroughly trashed about the head and shoulders by the military history sorts until we got to what's in there now. I'm all for getting this one as accurate as possible as it's an edit war trigger. Maybe there is a WikiProject Poland bunch who can help?? Montanabw^(talk) 17:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Replaced the citation with one from Norman Davies's work on Poland. Basically says the same thing, only more concisely. So it's sourced and correct, just more concise and to an Oxford University Press book instead of a self-published website. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.indiapolo.com/Polopedia/Genesis/Indian_Army/61st_Cavalry/61st_cavalry.html isn't a very reliable source, need to replace as a source for "With the rise of the internal combustion engine, horses in formal national militias were displaced by modern tank warfare, which is sometimes still referred to as "cavalry." Today, formal combat units of mounted cavalry are in almost all cases a thing of the past, with horseback units within the modern military used for reconnaissance, ceremonial, or crowd control purposes. The only remaining fully horse-mounted regular regiment in the world is India's 61st Cavalry."
• I wouldn't consider http://www.policensw.com/info/gen/u7.html a reliable source... need to replace as a source for "In rural areas, law enforcement that operates outside of incorporated cities, such as the county sheriff in the United States, may have mounted units. Horses are an ordinary means of transportation for police in some countries while also seeing specialized uses in remote areas, such as border patrolling, drug farm searching, search and rescue and recovery of stolen or mistreated livestock."
• http://www.maharaj.org/tentpegging.shtml is probably not reliable either. Need to replace as the source for "The modern sport of tent pegging is specifically designed to train the horse and its rider in the skills of mounted combat."
• Current ref 66 "Oakeshott A Knight and his Horse is lacking a page number.
• Stylistically, I think the article may have a few too many illustrations, especially at the end. I'd rather see more older stuff with less modern pictures, I think

There are also "citation needed" tags on the article that I haven't had time to source out yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Further -

• "Over time, this type of breeding gave rise to the powerful but agile medieval war horse known as the Destrier." this is sourced to Hyland, p. 146. Unfortunatly, this page doesn't say a word about this. Going to have to delete it, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• "It is also hard to trace what happened to the bloodlines of destriers, as the type seems to disappear from record during the seventeenth century." this is sourced to Prestwich Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages which I own. I've been unable to discover anything of the sort in the book. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Found it! Finally... ugh. (beats Montana with a wet noodle for NOT using page numbers...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't own Prestwich, that one I swiped from Gwinva, yell at her for pagination on that - unless I borrowed her cite wrong from HiMA, in which case the wet noodle is deserved and I'll take my lumps!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Done

I've sourced what I can from my sources. I think its time to pass off to someone else.. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow!

Wow! That was INCREDIBLE! Good work, All! I am finding it tough to figure out the details of all the edits from the above, so maybe if there is stuff still a mess, just put more tags in the text that you want someone else (like me) to deal with) But to what I can figure out is still needing work:

1. Some of the stuff I grabbed from Gwinva's sources used in Horses in the Middle Ages, I don't have Hyland or Oakesott myself. If some of these things that don't match up, how about just cutting bad sources if multiple, and just note the questionable stuff with a "fact" tag about unreliable source and I will see if I can dig up material (I know that somewhere I have sources on that Standard of Ur stuff, it's not OR, but must find old books from my Ancient Near Eastern History class...)
2. See horse collar for China ref, I think. Or maybe HiMA. Chamberlin is pretty good most of the time, (heavens know I use him) but not always perfect.
3. Don't say "and others." say et. al Please. Oh pretty please. And that one is Bennet/Benett with either one "n" or one "t" isn't it??? (Not to be confused with Deb Bennett) For some reason, Safari won't let me do a find and replace inside wikipedia text editing boxes, so can you touch up that one??

Oooh! Safari! And et. al, like op. cit, isn't really supposed to be used. It's WP:Footnotes#Style recommendations that tells us this. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Gwinva and I had a long discussion and a bunch of study on the "knights rode draft horses" thing, pretty much concluding that most research does not in fact support the destrier as a draft horse. (See HiMA) There is inconsistent stuff on this throughout the article, I'll see what I can do (however, the Percheron Horse Society DOES claim their critters descend from the destrier...but so do 10,000,000,000 other breeds...)
2. Wandalstouring is the source on all that physics stuff on traction force, etc... Ask him about it... it's gibberish to me. (Or I can ask him)
3. Gwinva can probably get the rest of the medieval stuff on knights, etc., when she gets back from vacation.
4. As for FAC, we should discuss at WikiProject Equine which articles we want to prioritize. Seems like there are several in the pipeline. My only concern on this one, personally, is keeping it at GA for now. I would have let this sleeping article lie had it not come up for reassessment. (Have other crises...)
5. I am hesitant to toss material with iffy sources. Just tag it. If we go FA sometime, I'll take the heat or else do the fixing.
6. Frankly, I don't get the problem with web-based sources. Frankly, referencing only to relatively obscure hardcopy books leads to a greater risk of fraudulent citation, IMHO, as others cannot necessarily double check some references (voice of experience here, caught an editor on another article deliberately using hardcopy sources completely out of context...spent three hours in the library proving it, and was I ticked!) But show me the link to the guideline...far be it for me to question the consensus of the wiki-gods.

The problem with web sources is that SOOO many don't cite their sources, or are self-published. We can't use self-published stuff unless the person writing it is a REAL expert in the field. Not just "will be hired to write for the local tack store free newspaper" but "Monty Roberts" level expert. Hey, I don't write these policies! However, I did write a good chunk of the explanation of them... Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I get it about the self-published web sites, though what about things like the "hi, here is who we are and what we do" sites, such as those for search and rescue groups? Sort of a gray area?? Of course, IMHO, "Monty Roberts" and "expert" in the same sentence is an oxymoron! LOL! Montanabw^(talk)

That, I think covers what I have. I'm just blown away by all your hard work. Both Ealdgyth and Dana! Thanks for your help! Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New stuff, and some cleanup

I dropped in some more bits and pieces about other places (a bit on Japan, some on the Romans, etc) and did some cleanup on wikilinks. We were getting a bit dense. Probably didn't need to wikilink Dressage and destrier in successive sentences... Also decapitalized Rouncey, Destrier, Courser, etc. As I understand it, they are types, and not formal nouns, so they shouldn't be capitalized. We're now down to 36k readable prose, which is getting there. Note I'll probably be gone tomorrow during the day, busy with some research, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I think I got all the BCE's... double check for them? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wordsmith a bit. I question the need to say "didn't use cavalry much" in any of these sections because infantry always outnumbered cavalry due to the expense of keeping horses -- some things never change! Mind if I chop that bit?? Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have save you, Montana, I replaced the Rice ref to the Scythians book with a book we were already using. No change in the text, just switched out the refs! Yay me! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit more on China to the Far East subsection. I'm currently printing a huge pile of articles that I culled out of the library today, will attempt to work these in also. Someone REALLY needs to write a new lead section... at this point we've got to decide if we move the history section first (which I kinda think we should) and the lead are the main issues from the GAR? Anything else I missed? If we can knock those out, the filling out of tidbits on all the various global types of cavalry, etc. can wait for the run up to FAC... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the new section, may do minor wordsmithing, but good additions. I agree the lead needs a rewrite. I like what you did with the Polish cavalry section!

Personally, I don't know for sure about a wholesale move of the history sections in front of all the stuff on tactics and technology. I'm not saying not, I'm just saying that I wouldn't do it just because GAR recommended it, I think there is room for debate. It may be more typical wikipedia formatting, but without a background understanding, I fear that readers will keep saying "what is this? why is that?" in the history section...there may be some redundant material to be combined...I just am not sure. Also, the modern applications sections really do seem to fit nicely at the end, but it would be weird to have the technology and form to function sections in the middle...plus we also have overlapping cultural stuff, so a straight timeline just doesn't work (I know this because it was what I originally tried...) It's a readability issue for me. Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of town...

Just a note that I'm going to be out of town with no internet access for most of the weekend, starting in about 20 minutes. I hope the start that we've made on fixing the article will prevent it from immediate delisting, and I can't wait to see all the changes that have been made by the time I get back online on Sunday/Monday!

Ealdgyth...are your concerns above just for FAC, or do you think they need to be replaced for the article to stay at GA? I think our biggest concern right now should be doing everything that needs to be done to stay at GA, then we can worry about what needs to happen for FA. However, I do agree with everything you said :)

Montana...I think our biggest worry right now is getting all of the fact tags gone from the article. Pagination is probably secondary to fact tags right at the moment, IMHO, although both are nice.

See ya'll next week...have fun playing with war-horsies without me *grin* Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the marginal sources probably dont' need replacing for GA. The unreliable ones do, though. GA has close to the same standard on sources that FAC does, ideally. I'll try to work some on replacing this stuff this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Updates

My major contribution today was dropping in a new lede. Hope everyone likes it...please feel free to tweak as much as you want - I know the prose isn't perfect! I also moved some of the pics around, changed one out, and removed one. Please revert or change again any of it, I was going for an easier to read article with MOS compliance and pictures that corresponded to the section they were in - I'm not totally sure if I helped or hindered in this regard.

A question on the external links - do we need all of the ones that are there? For example, the Spanish Mustang Registry... I'm not sure if all of these links were added with a specific purpose in mind, so I thought I'd just toss the question out there. As far as moving the history section around goes, I would agree with Montana on leaving it where it is. All of the definitions and explanation at the beginning make for more understandable reading in the rest of it, IMHO.

I think our final hurdle for the article to stay firmly at GA is the remaining fact tags. Even now, the article is better sourced than many GA's, but I guess that's what increasingly tough standards are all about :) I'm going to keep adding in refs as I find them, and it shouldn't take long for us to finish this up.

I'm headed offline now, but I'll be back on tomorrow morning to play around some more. Have a great night! Dana boomer (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've mined out everything I possibly can. I threw in some citations, some tidbits and a further reading article that's really quite good. There are still a few bits that need citing, but we are still well within FA size regulations (42K of readable prose, not bad for such a LARGE topic...). Now we are just waiting on Montana to cite page numbers...

Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Montana is finally here, is doing a review. But folks, do we keep GA now? Pretty please? Montanabw^(talk) 01:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference Issues

First off, I think that this article is probably fine to keep as a GA at the moment, but that will be up to the original re-reviewer to decide.

Next up...here are the updated reference issues. This is mainly a list just for reference (no pun intended), to check off as we complete them. Its a combination of things I found and things that Ealdgyth has expressed concern over with my comments. Please feel free to add to the list, or strike things off as you find new sources for them.

Fact tags - Done

• Types of horses used in warfare, 1st paragraph - Done

Rearranged, different issues now

• Types of horses used in warfare: Light-weight subsection, 1st paragraph

Expanded cite, some remaining parts still need something

Removed rest of sentence, it can be added back in if we find a cite for it.

• Types of horses used in warfare: Medium-weight subsection - ref added
• Training and deployment, 4th paragraph - Sentence removed
• Europe and the Americas: European knights subsection, 1st paragraph - Ref added
• In the military today: Reconnaissance and patrol subsection

What remains was added by someone other than I, doesn't really matter, though probably a cite proving the various nations have horse units would be a nice thing to find. This article periodically gets hit with whines that we are insufficiently worldwide in focus...?- MTbw

I took out the sentence with the fact tag, as I can find no sources that verify this information. As for the international bent - I added a tidbit on the Nepalese having a ceremonial cavalry, and will add in other cavalries, both useful and ceremonial, as I come across them in my reading and web-surfing. Hope this works. Dana boomer (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Needing page numbers - Done

• #4 - Devereaux (see problem refs below) - Replaced, see discussion below
• #22 - Davis - There was another cite, so just tossed this one (but Gwinva has the book)
• #99 - Oakeshott - Removed from intro sentence, which didn't need a cite, put where relevant (explaining Rouncey)

Problem refs

• #3,4 - Whittington/Devereaux - Info doesn't appear to be in Devereaux ref, Whittington ref is marginal, along with not really backing up info (could be seen as synthesis/OR) - Replaced

Whittington cites Deveraux. I can look to see if I can find a copy of Deveraux or someone similar. - MTbw

I have an edition of Deveraux and I couldn't find it in mine. What is the exact cite from Whittington? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote from Whittington:

The U.S. Calvary published “The Cavalry Manual of Horse Management”, by Frederick L. Devereux, Jr., in 1941. He recommended that the collective weight of rider and gear not exceed 20% of the total weight of the horse. These were horses in top condition whose riders’ very lives depended on the horse's ability to carry them long miles, often at speed. It stands to reason that if they were to incorporate a margin of error, it would be on the side of the horse being overly capable of carrying its rider, rather than less so. Comparably, a study of 374 competitive trail riding horses compared horse/rider weight relationships. They concluded that these horses can easily carry over 30% of their body weight for 100 miles and not only compete, but compete well. As would be expected, good body condition and bone structure were found to be paramount. Bone structure was evaluated using the front leg cannon bones as representative of general structure.

From this, we have in our article "horses can carry approximately 25% of their own weight", or something along those lines. My thought is that this is serious original research, and we should really just find the information elsewhere than Whittington if possible. Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of books on endurance riding at home, I'll try to look in them. I can confirm that I could not locate anything like that in my copy of Deveraux, but it's a reprint edition, and may have been edited. Note I'm on the road, so it'll be Sunday before I can look into the books. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on endurance riding sparked a thought process, so I started looking through the AERC (American Endurance Ride Conference, the main US governing body for endurance riding) website, and found the digital edition of their rider's handbook (which I think I have someplace in print form at home, but w/e). I found their take on the subject (30% of weight, give or take depending on bone size) and tossed that in. I'm pretty sure they're reliable, so I think our Whittington/Devereaux problems are taken care of simply by replacing them. Dana boomer (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• #8 - International Museum of the Horse - Ref doesn't back up information - Source tossed

Page has changed, original link was to the old IMH site, we will need to find a different source -- MTbw

I've tossed this link, since it says nothing about this subject, and added a fact tag and hidden comment instead. - Dana

• #9, 11, 12 - Eastern Draft Horse Assn - Marginal source (may be reliable, appears to be the main web source for draft horse/pulling information)

Not a lot of other material out there that I can find, though I think there IS better material somewhere, I just don't know where. (Maybe ask Richard New Forest, he's the draft horse guru??) I say it's good enough for now. --MTbw

• #10 - Note needs source, and I'm not totally sure why this note is needed anyway. Tossed it, notes have now renumbered -MTbw
• #21 - United States Dressage Federation - Marginal source (this was actually only the source for the last sentence in the section...is it an OK source for this?)

Better than no source at all --MTbw

• #34 - Equestrian Federation of Australia - Marginal source (this appears to be the Aussie equivalent of the USEF, which I think we would consider reliable...comments?)

As reliable as USEF, yes --MTbw

• #81 - All Empires - Not reliable (backed up by book source, does this make it OK?)

Possibly. Check with Ealdgyth. Probably two sources makes it kosher --MTbw

• #116 - Springfield Armory Museum - Could be improved, should have two historians (already have one)
• #146 - India Polo - Not very reliable - Replaced

Have fun editing! Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the results. Hope the reviewers are. Someone want to say we are done?? Montanabw^(talk) 03:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're pretty much done, although I'll keep working and tweaking today, and try to find cites for the last couple of things. I'll drop a note on the original re-reviewers talk page asking her to come take another look. Dana boomer (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting section

What would you gals think of rewriting the intro section of the "Types of horses used in warfare" section. I was reading over it today (for the 80th time) and it seems to me that there is quite a bit of information that is unneeded in an article about horses in warfare.

Here's my proposed rewrite (you can see the original on the article page, I haven't actually changed anything yet):

Horses used in war also varied in size, depending on the type of work, the weight a horse needed to carry or pull, and the distances traveled. A fundamental principle of horse conformation is "form to function." Therefore, the type of horse used for various forms of warfare depended on the task at hand.[1] Weight carried affects both speed and endurance. In some cultures, warriors would travel to battle riding a lighter horse of greater speed and endurance, and then switch to a heavier horse, with greater weight-carrying capacity, when wearing heavy armor in actual combat.[5] Various cultures and armies had different ideas about how to use the inverse relationship of weight and speed. The Moors rode light horses and placed a greater value on speed and endurance, while European knights rode slower horses that were larger and more powerful and provided greater leverage for their lances.(new IMH ref)

Horses used for pulling vehicles varied in size, but also traded off speed for weight and power. Light horses could pull a small war chariot.[6] On the other hand, supply wagons and other support vehicles needed either heavier horses or a larger number of horses to perform the transportation duties required support military operations.[7] While all horses can pull more than they can carry, the weight that horses can pull varies widely, depending on the build of the horse, the type of vehicle, road conditions and other factors.[8] The method by which a horse was hitched to a vehicle also influenced how much it could pull: Horses could pull greater weight hitched to a vehicle with a horse collar than they could with an ox yoke or a breast collar.[13]

Let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kind of. You make a point that the section is awkward and your draft here is on the right track to cut down size, though maybe is a bit too drastic. What's in there now was the resolution to a series of fairly contentious disputes between me and Wandalstouring way back when the article was first made into something halfway decent. It also came out of stuff, no longer in the article, that was resolved by Gwinva's hard work researching the issue that draft horses actually were NOT the original medieval Destrier (they were more like Andalusians). However, one of the points is that light horses preceded heavier ones, that the animals developed as different warfare tactics evolved. I would avoid using "Moors" and "Europeans" as specific examples, because the principles apply worldwide -- and Europeans actually had horses of all sizes (the Rouncey was basically a rangy light horse with a fair amount of endurance). Hmm. I guess I'm not coming up with specifics here, let me mull it over. Maybe tweak the above and we can sandbox it here into a better section?? Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My memory is returning (or we could check the article archive). I think the whole section came out of two things: One was some earlier, rather horrifying, material in an early version that was pretty much in the "war horses were draft horses" mode, with a lot of inaccuracies. The goal was to explain that there were LOTS of different kinds of war horses, not just the knights. There was also a big discussion over how much horses could pull or carry, and a simple form to function argument wasn't cutting it. Then, as the article was starting to get cleaned up, Gwinva came in and was extremely helpful with the medieval research, clearly showing that medieval destriers really could not have been 17 hand Shires, no matter how prevalent that belief is today. Anyway, I will pull some of this into the article, see what you think. Montanabw^(talk) 06:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked. I honestly don't know what to do with all that detail on weight carrying and pulling. It settled a nasty edit war. Consensus can change, but I'd hate to have to dig all that stuff up again later the next time someone challenges us for details. Montanabw^(talk) 08:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and let's not go into the heavy-horses-and-lance-thrusts thing. That's also been debunked. Long story, ask Gwinva... (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 08:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I like the way you've reworded (and cited!) the first two paragraphs of the section. My suggestion on the last paragraph would be to move it here to the talk page, with its references, so that if the issue comes back up in the future we won't have to go looking very far to find it again. Honestly (IMHO), the whole paragraph is fairly off topic to horses in warfare. Dana boomer (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I cut about half of what was there and incorporated the rest into the preceding para. Hope that works. Keeps the better refs, I changed some refs. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I've tossed the ref to the IMH, since the page doesn't back up the info, and will work on finding a source for that sentence today. Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy, now if anyone cares that we did all this work. Montanabw^(talk) 00:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class/Peer Reviews

What would everyone think about putting this article up for an A-class MilHist review and a peer review? They would give us some good ideas to work on on our way to FA, which this article is probably fairly close to being. Yes, I'm being ambitious...we just got highspeed wireless internet at our house (yay civilization!) and I'm edit-happy right at the moment *grin* Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mil Hist A class reviews are generally pretty comprehensive, so you shouldn't need a peer review as well. Note that there was an A class review in 2007, but I suspect you have sorted out the problems mentioned there. If you were tempted to head to FA, then the rennaisance and early modern section really needs work: it's fairly general and not particularly accurate (probably not what you want to hear right now, after all your work??!!). I can probably help out a bit (Montanabw is doing her best to drag me into this!). I had every intention of bringing Horses in the Middle Ages to FA as well, but I've gone off the boil there... perhaps that comes next? Gwinva (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My thought on having botb an A-class review and a peer review was to get as much input as possible on the article before we took it to FA. However, if it is best that we only do one or the other, my vote would be for the Milhist A-Class. I realize that there was an A-class review in 2007. The main issues seemed to be the same stuff our reviewer for GAR was the most worried about (the lede, missing citations, etc), and so I think most of that stuff has been sorted out. If there are sections that are not accurate, please go ahead and do whatever you need to do to get them up to par. It's not my area of expertise, and so I'm afraid my contribution will be more in the way of general copyediting, making sure that sources are formatted right, and that sort of thing. Horses in the Middle Ages could come next after this aticle, or we could jump it ahead in the line, if you are more intersted in working on that article. Either one is good. Montana and Ealdgyth, thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for it, what the heck, I've only been able to get on wiki every 4-5 days as it is, so everyone else is going to have to do all the real work! LOL! (grinning, ducking and running!). I also am of the opinion that if the military history folks bless it as A class, FA could then be a breeze after the military gauntlet. Montanabw^(talk) 04:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Allright, sounds good. I'm putting it up for A-class review right now...as soon as I do a little research and figure out how *grin* Let the chaos begin! Dana boomer (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, the review page can be found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Horses in warfare. Dana boomer (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Great; saw it come up at MILHIST. Have my eye on a few cavalry books locally; when I get a chance, I'll see what I can do for the 18th/19th C stuff. Gwinva (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck for the A-class review. You're doing good work here and I'm sure you will improve the article as required. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Breezed through the A class review: so much for my comment that it'll provide enough constructive feedback! Despite the suggestion by one reviewer that it's near FA, I do have a few niggles. As mentioned above, the 17th-19th C stuff is a little thin: discusses the decline of knights, mentions a few cavalry matters, then skips on. This needs fleshing out a bit. Also, this is about horses, not cavalry: the early modern armies depended on horses for all sorts, so I think we can broaden this section out, as per the others. Moving on, one of the A-class reviewers mentioned the use of horses in the Pacific WWII, so that will be worth investigating, and making some reference to. The article also skips over the Roman/early European period as well. Knights get a lot of air time, but I guess that's what everyone thinks of when they hear "war horse" so that's pretty essential. Another thing I noted was that the article sometimes repeats itself, so that needs watching. I've got a stack of books to work through, so I'll get on to that at some point. Let's push forward on this since it's got the momentum: then you can all help me out on HitMA! Gwinva (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay on the A class! That was...unexpectedly easy...! Gwinva, I like your suggestions. My only concern is that we've already had comments about the article being too long. We're going to have to watch this as we continue to add stuff. However, as you say, there are areas where the article repeats itself, and if we can catch these, we might be able to take out some duplicate information as we add new stuff. However, if any particular section threatens to get too long, we may have to think about splitting it out into a new article and only leaving a summary here. Dana boomer (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I bought Hyland's Equus: The Horse in the Roman World for a reason, I guess. I'd also suggest a PR AFTER we do the expansion, so we can get some help with the prose tweaks and stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think length is a trouble if you eliminate the parts where you repeat yourself. There is also the possibility to move content to different articles and provide summaries here if it is really too long. Knights could be cut and large parts moved to horses in the middle ages. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If the article passes the MILHIST A-class review I can fetch you a good copyeditor. MILHIST has set up its own league of copyeditors.Wandalstouring (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The article passed A-class last night, so that part's finished. Per the above discussion we're working on a few spots that need to be revamped or expanded, and then at that point we'd welcome a copyeditor to take a last run through things before FA. Actually, we welcome copyeditors at any point, but it sounds like some sections of the article may be changing significantly in near future, and so it might be better to wait for an all-out copyedit until the main editing has been completed. Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have watchlisted you, so just tell me when you're ready. Well, I didn't yet check the A-class reviews, but that is a nice surprise. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

So far so good, I did restore the Ur standard bit, doesn't seem to be duplicated now other than as an image caption. Agree that the source on the bridle stuff appears to have changed since last access and is not going to be able to stay, but it's a launching pad to other sources so reinserted it but also kept fact tag (Eadldgyth, isnt there a "questionable source" tag?) ...will need to find a new source on the bitted Derivka stallion and all that. It think we may be able to more some of the stuff on knights to HiMA as long as we keep the high points, but Gwinva is definitely the expert on all that. The original War Horse article was once about nothing else but knights, so it makes sense that it's still a big chunk. As for the rest, I'm thinking that we may wind up doing an expansion of some sections and then a couple of spinoffs. We have history of the horse in South Asia and Horses in the Middle Ages articles; I can easily see expanding the "horses in the Ancient World" sections into a new article too (i.e. Ancient Near East, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome). I'm probably most up on the Ancient Mesopotamia stuff, less so Greece and Rome. Could be fun. Montanabw^(talk) 20:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Gwinva's the expert"? Ha! Anyway, rather than mucking about with the page here, I've started throwing down a few things in my sandbox as I come across them. Feel free to drop in and heckle. Hopefully there'll be something of use there, eventually. I like the idea of splitting out new articles as needed. (But no, that's not me committing to more work.) Gwinva (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I've discussed this with Monatanabw before, but we need to look at Keegan's cites carefully: pretty much all of the "renaissance" section is wrong/inaccurate. With the development of muskets and other light firearms in Europe during the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, light cavalry again became useful for both battles and field communication, using fast, agile horses to move quickly across battlefields. How does this follow? "Thus, the heavy armoured horse of the medieval knight no longer had use in combat." Not quite. Try Napoleon's cuirassiers in the 19th C, for a start.. Although the former knightly class attempted to preserve their mounted battlefield role by developing ever more complex maneuvers and incorporating the use of firearms while on horseback... (actually, they became officers in the regular army, and still mounted, just ways of fighting changed) ...firearms-armed infantry, especially where combined with pikemen, were able to counter cavalry with relative ease throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. Total nonsense. Why was the Infantry square developed? Because cavalry were DEADLY. Read any account of cavalry against infantry in line, up til mid 19th C. prior to this, musket range was pathetic, and did little against charging cavalry. Pikemen, yes, like bayonets: but only in tight, defensive formation. Break it, and it's carnage. Thus, European cavalry moved from a central, "shock combat" role to a flanking role, used mainly to harry and to disrupt artillery from being deployed freely. Um, no, shock combat used as much as ever. In fact, (total guess here) I bet there are more accounts of massed cavalry charges from the 18th/19th C then there were from the middle ages. Flanking/reconannisance was important, of course, but that was hardly anything new. Anyway, I'm working on it... Gwinva (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't own Keegan, and didn't put it in the article. Came from someone else, maybe not even connected with the Equine project. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all of the Keegan stuff was added by an outside editor that I've never interacted with before and never seen working around other horse articles. Feel free to toss/replace. Montana, the stuff on the Standard of Ur is duplicated. It's repeated once in the Technological Innovations section of the Harnesses and Vehicles section, and once in the intro paragraph of the Tactics section. We should probably take one of these out, although I don't think it really matters which one. I've added the "magic" tag to the bridle spot. Dana boomer (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to figure it out (must go in five min, won't have time to fix now...) I agree that text duplication is bad, I'll see which one is best to toss. The one by the picture made sense to keep at the time, but I'll try and find all three and review. And yes, Gwinva is to be trusted -- she's not a horse person, she's a medievalist, so has no breed bias to promote! I DO trust her, no matter her disclaimers! LOL!Montanabw^(talk) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC) FOLLOW UP: Fixed. Ur now shows up only in intro and one other time. Montanabw^(talk) 23:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence! For the record, John Keegan is an extremely reputable source (and knows an awful lot more about these matters than I do!) so it's a little surprising to see him cited for those statements. I can access his books through my library, so I might follow them up. Haven't forgotten my promise to work on those sections -- I just don't seem to have as much free time as I would like! Gwinva (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Free time? You mean real life interferes with your Wiki-life? I'm shocked, shocked! (grin) Probably, as we have found before, being an excellent historian doesn't always mean one gets it about horses! If you can follow up, that would be quite helpful, actually! Montanabw^(talk) 03:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know, real life, eh. Who needs it? Anyway, I have Keegan before me, and can confirm he was unfairly maligned, his comments twisted slightly. His two cites (not all of the quoted paragraph was his):

Although the former knightly class attempted to preserve their mounted battlefield role by developing ever more complex maneuvers and incorporating the use of firearms while on horseback, firearms-armed infantry, especially where combined with pikemen, were able to counter cavalry with relative ease throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.[Keegan, p. 341]

What he really said:

Cavalry, challenged by shot, sought to perpetuate its battlefield role by adopting an ever more elaborate horsemastership -- akin in its complexity to the furusiyya of the Marmelukes -- which, by a routine of wheeling and caracole, was supposed to facilitate the use of firearms from horseback (the routines survive at the Spanish riding school in Vienna). The experiment was not successful. Firearms and horses do not mix, and in case the infantry responded by elaborating its own tactics so effectively as to rob the horsemen of the chance to catch musketeers at a disadvantage. That was indeed part of the reason why armies retained pikemen, in a proportion of one to two against musketeers, well into the seventeenth century. Pikemen could deny room to manoeuvre to cavalry that threatened a battle line with sword or pistol, while protected by musketeers who held their fire to contest a charge.

Not exactly "relative ease"! He also goes on to describe the static battles fought without pikemen. In other words: pikemen were essential (replaced by the bayonet infantry square).

Thus, European cavalry moved from a central, "shock combat" role to a flanking role, used mainly to harry and to disrupt artillery from being deployed freely.[Keegan, p. 344]

What he really said:

Increasingly mobile and quick-firing field artillery offered the only certain means of shaking the solidity of drilled infantry formations; its safe deployment, however, could be threatened by the timely unleashing of cavalry, which was increasingly committed to that subordiante activity, and to charging against infantry disorganised by artillery fire or harrying fugitives driven to flight. The opposed properties of these three elements of eighteenth-century armies, musketry, artillery, cavalry, thus brought about a strange equilibrium on pitched battlefields.

I shall investigate his book further (plus the rest of the huge pile I retrieved from the library) and continue constructing something to cover the 17th-19th centuries. Gwinva (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A confusing statement.

The article says that lance sword and revolver sports practised on horse back are poular in the UK but I was under the impression pistol shooting was completely illegal in the UK (The Olympic article mentions special changes for the pistol events of 2012), could someone reword it? I would do it my self but I can't think how.(86.31.187.246 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

Section that goes into unnecessary detail

Law enforcement and public safety does mention lots of details about an Austarlian mounted police unit. Should this serve as an example than please point out how and why, otherwise remove it. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This detail was added by an anon IP this morning and has already been removed. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)