Talk:Horses in warfare/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Institutional memory

OK folks, if we are going to get this article straightened out, it may help to know how we got to where we are. As the person who has been editing this article on and off for 2-1/2 years, I think I can provide it. The original version of this article, then called "War Horse," was basically a start-quality page about jousting and knights. It was almost entirely European in focus, unsourced, and had a lot of inaccurates. I think that when I first started editing it, I began with in the early version of the ancient history stuff and an early version of the Modern day material. Then Wandalstouring came along noted how bad the sourcing was, and after I got done kicking, screaming and holding my breath until I turned blue, (I get it now) I eventually came around to his way of thinking on the matter and began footnoting. He also pointed out some other problems with the organization and structure of the article, and from that came the bit about light weight/medium weight/ and heavy weight horses, how much horses could carry and pull, as well as other technical material. (So the first section is sort of a Montana + Wandal deal, originally) Somewhere in there the technology and tactics stuff also got started.

All along, there were complaints that the article was too Eurocentric, and bits of this and that were periodically added. Then along came Gwinva, who had research on how the destrier was NOT in fact a draft horse, and after she and I sorted out the details, she did a tremendous amount of work to whip what is now the Europe section into shape. She also, as part of this project, created the Horses in the Middle Ages Article, spinning out LOT of material from here. Somewhere in this process, someone we don't know came along and added the whole South Asia section, took some work to whip that into shape, but that was a big contribution to the piece. Everything else was sort of added in along the way, much of it by me, collaborating to varying degrees with other people who were temporarily interested in the article but dropped by the wayside. When Ealdgyth and Dana became active in Wiki, they made substantial contributions here as well, particularly in the footnotes and sourcing.

So this brings us to where we are now: Essentially, the critique that the article jumps around a bit is well-taken, though the solution is hard to figure out. Basically, the article started out as pretty much a general overview followed by a straight chronology. But then, the chronology was deemed to be too Eurocentric, so the material on other nations and cultures got added. So now we have a hybrid that still starts with general info, then goes into a chronology beginning with ancient history, but then takes a sharp left into bits on various Geographic regions before returning back to Chronology with the 20th century.

Now, what to do? On one hand, it will be really awkward to do either a straight geography, past to present, then the next region, past to present. Yet, it is also awkward to go all around the world over and over again in each chronological era (though if we must do one or the other, that IS probably the better route to take). To focus too much on technology or tactics outside of history or geography is to not really present the big picture. I guess my thinking at present is to continue cleanup of what we have, adding bits and pieces of what else is needed to fill out details, but then maybe once that's done we can do some rearranging, possibily to be more chronological. We might also want to do a little work on the general overview section to incorporate in some of the weaponry/tactics discussions that have been going on.

Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm just an anonymous, random reader without too much say in the matter, but I will say this: I just read this entire article from top to bottom and found it to be extremely informative and incredibly interesting, and it flowed very well. I had no continuity issues, no impressions that there was too much concentration on one specific area or another. I wonder if you have been working on the article so long that you're a bit pickier than necessary. :-) So, FWIW, it looks OK to me. At least, it reads well and seems to be a proper encyclopedia article (I can't comment on missing/incorrect information, if any, since I don't know much else about the topic). --24.190.217.35 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I think we ARE all are too close to it to have any sense at all and are starting to turn inward and pick at our own scabs! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 05:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Restarting discussion on Africa section

It would be great if we could get this article to FA status in the first few months of the new year, and it looks like the last main stumbling block is the wording and sourcing of the new Sub-Saharan Africa section. Because the last discussion got a little long and confusing, I'm going to restart it here with my comment, for everyone to chip in on. I'm going to start a new section down below where people can list other concerns that need to be dealt with before nomination.

Here is the section, as it is now, with the hidden comments unhidden, placed in parentheses and marked in bold.:

The first conclusive evidence of horses playing a major role in the warfare of West Africa dates to the 11th century when the region was controlled by the Almoravids, a Muslim Berber dynasty. During the the 13th and 14th centuries, cavalry became an important factor, coinciding with the introduction of larger horses and more widespread use of saddles and stirrups.(Still say it's embarrassing mention use of the saddle and stirrup 1000 years after everyone else got them) Increased mobility played a part in the formation of new power centers, such as the Oyo Empire in what today is Nigeria. The authority of many African Islamic states such as the Bornu Empire also rested in large part on their ability to subject neighboring peoples with cavalry. Despite harsh climate conditions, endemic diseases and unsuitable terrain that limited the effectiveness of horses in many parts of Africa, horses were continuously imported and were, in some areas, a vital instrument of war. During the late 19th century Scramble for Africa, the carving up of almost the entire African contintent by European powers, mounted warfare lost its previous importance.(Contradicted by other sources) Modern firearms used by native and European armies made cavalry tactics on the battlefield largely ineffective. (Contradicted by other sources) The internal warfare and raiding that was necessary to keep the slave trade active was put to an end by colonial authorities.(Slave trade decreased due to other factors, including less demand)

So, given the comments, here's my thoughts on a new version. Feel free to butcher:

Now have fun :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your statement means that it wasn't possible to breed horses in Subsaharan Africa. Could you please give the reasons why horses could survive, but not breed? Other issues are Eastern Africa(Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia) and Southern Africa(Boer, Nama). They should be covered for this article going to FA. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That the stirrup was introduced very late in Africa is quite possible. In the 13th century it wasn't universally adopted in Europe giving the Mongol invaders an advantage in light cavalry(the Christian light cavalry didn't use stirrups and for this reason had shorter bows). Muslim countries, especially in the West, were even later because the Quran takes a stance against stirrups(favouring leaping from the horse and back on it, will try to find the exact sure). While I'm not sure about the saddle, the culturs that provided them horses did have saddles. What makes me wonder, why didn't they get horses earlier via the Garamantes? Wandalstouring (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright, how about this:

Horses were used for warfare in Sudan since the 9th century, where they were considered "the most precious commodity following the slave." The first conclusive evidence of horses playing a major role in the warfare of West Africa dates to the 11th century when the region was controlled by the Almoravids, a Muslim Berber dynasty. During the the 13th and 14th centuries, cavalry became an important factor in the area. Increased mobility played a part in the formation of new power centers, such as the Oyo Empire in what today is Nigeria. The authority of many African Islamic states such as the Bornu Empire also rested in large part on their ability to subject neighboring peoples with cavalry. Despite harsh climate conditions, endemic diseases such as the African horse sickness and unsuitable terrain that limited the effectiveness of horses in many parts of Africa, horses were continuously imported and were, in some areas, a vital instrument of war. The introduction of horses also intensified existing conflicts, such as those between the Herero and Nama people in Namibia during the 19th century. The African slave trade was closely tied to the imports of war horses, and as the prevalence of slaving decreased, fewer horses were needed for raiding. This significantly decreased the amount of mounted warfare seen in Africa from the late 19th century on. Despite this, during the Boer War (1899-1902), cavalry and other mounted troops were the major combat force for the British, since the horse-mounted Boers moved too quickly for infantry to engage. However, the terrain was not well-suited to the British horses, resulting in the loss of over 300,000 animals. As the campaign wore on, losses were replaced by more durable African Basuto ponies, and Waler horses from Australia.

I've added in the information on horses used in the Boer War that was already in the section in a different paragraph, as well as information about the Herero-Nama conflict and horses in Sudan and eastern Africa. I tweaked the info on horse importations. The debate about the saddles/stirrups is not about whether it's possible for them to have been introduced late, but whether it's worth mentioning since all other cultures already had them and they were basically just the slow children in class, especially since we're beginning to bump up against length guidelines already. Thoughts from everyone? Dana boomer (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a few small tweaks to the above, but I'm good with it. Overall, everyone keep in mind not to confuse "Africa" with its two subsections, North Africa and Africa South of the Sahara. North Africa was horse-focused since antiquity--Ancient Egypt, etc... South of the Sahara, however, is far less hospitable terrain for horses, and no true equestian culture really developed there until first the Arabs, then the Europeans, came into the area. Even in North Africa, things like African horse sickness caused periodic epidemics that decimated the horse population. Eohippus may have evolved in a swamp, but Equus caballus does not thrive there. I say Dana can just pop her version in there (keeping the edits I just made if I didn't screw up anything) and replace what's there. Go for it. Montanabw^(talk) 02:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We may want to kick around if we need to add any more on the Mongols and/or horse archers. Any thoughts, sandbox here and make suggestions as to where you'd want them to go.

Organizationally, I'm thinking about if we want to make the "19th Century" section a worldwide one rather than a European section. Npt sure, it also makes sense to keep the geographic regions too...is it too confusing the way we jump back and forth between history and geographical organization? Makes no sense to "geographize" the 20th century nor antiquity, but in-between development was so uneven... Oh and Wandal, the Romans invented the solid-treed saddle, around 200 AD. The stirrup spread to different places at different rates, note the article text itself. Montanabw^(talk) 02:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And it fell out of use a few centuries later... I know that the stirrup spread at different rates, perhaps an issue to be highlighted, however very brief in the equipment section. Africa is fine by me. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped the new Africa section in, and done the formatting. I think it's much better now. Montanabw, I'll reply to your 19th century question in the section below, to keep things somewhat organized. Dana boomer (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Needs?

And here is the place to list things that each person thinks need to be done before the article can be of FA status. Have at it: Dana boomer (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Montanabw's question above, here's my opinion: We should leave the 19th century section as it is, as a subheading of the Europe section. There were enough uses of horses in warfare in various areas to make it feasible to leave this century under each geographic heading. We already have bits and pieces on 19th century horse warfare in the Africa section, the Europe section and the Americas section, and perhaps others as well. The 20th century works well as its own heading because there was not much going on with horses at that point, and so it can be easily summarized in a few paragraphs as it currently is. Other thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I mean, I was the one who created that section originally, and partly for that reason. But Espoucido's comment that is was a little confusing is worth listening to --she's a good editor -- so maybe rather than a wholesale redo, maybe there is a rephrase of either that section name or a rephrase of the next, so that we help cue the reader that we are ending Europe and going to a different focus? I guess it's a transition glitch we have here... Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a transition sentence at the beginning of the 20th century section that I think makes it more clear that we've switched to a global focus. Let me know what you think, and feel free to tweak. I don't agree with changing the title of the 19th century section, because most of the other Europe subsections are by time period, and I'm not really sure what we would change either that one or the "20th century" heading to. Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to sneak this in here because I don't want to cause a ruckus. I know someone had issue with the title of the The Middle East section, it could be called The Mediterranean Region, which is a little more geographic. - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. It's about the Mediterranean in Islamic times, but may be renamed and expanded to include Greeks, Romans, Gauls, Numidians and others who aren't covered in the Europe section. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored a variation of the original section title. We can debate details further, but THE POINT of the section is that the rise of Islam c. 700-1300 AD was distinct and clearly advanced equestrian technology and tactics. The article is not an "around the world with horses" article, it is a study of the military history of the horse. As such, the section on the Greeks and the Romans already was included under the earlier headings on tactics and technology (noting there isn't an "ancient world" heading, but maybe there should be). We could add in material on the Nubians, etc. into the proper historical period. I don't know how to integrate the legitimate need for a world focus with the need to stick basically to a chronological narrative, as some places, particularly East Asia and the Americas, sort of have their own unique features (I personally have never liked the South Asia section much at all, it's mostly a recounting of battles, but...) But until then, let's just keep the section titled about what it is focused on, and when we figure out the big picture we can tweak it again if needed.

• The lead section is too long and full of historical information which merit their own introductory section called something like 'history' or 'historical background'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on the idea that the lead is too long. The lead is currently four paragraphs, of which one is fairly short and none of which are overly long. WP:Lead recommends 3-4 paragraphs of lead for articles over 30,000 bytes, and this article is currently over 100,000 bytes, which, in my opinion, calls for four paragraphs of lead. We have worked hard to make the lead a summary of the entire article, which is the point of the lead. Although it has been challenging to cover several thousand years of history in four paragraphs, we think we have done a fairly good job of not focusing too much on any one point in geography or time. If you have something specific that you think should be removed, please let us know here on the talk page. Thank you for your copyedit work on the article! Dana boomer (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh Fayssal! Dana is right! Per wikipedias guidelines, we just went through the "your lead is too SHORT" thing not more than a few months ago! =:-O The lead was rewritten, as Dana explained, to conform as precisely as possible to the parameters of the wiki MOS for leads. So, like Dana said... but if you have some structural suggestions, we sure are OK with further discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good and reasonable arguments Dana and Montanabw. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The horse artillery info needs to be dealt with properly. The coverage here is in no way adjusted to its relevance to the topic. Just about the only argument the section has going for it appears to be WP:ILIKEIT. And mounted archery is still basically ignored. Not even the "one or two GOOD sentences" Montana asked for have appeared (which would still be very minimal coverage).

The Africa section was re-edited based largely on critical comments concerning Law's conclusions, but without citing any other sources. Balancing one author's conclusions with that of others is fine, but simply removing Law's conclusions because you disagree with yourselves is not kosher. Contradictions should be based on at least minimal references.

Charles Martel is still claimed to have "stopped" the Muslim advance at Tours, which is a somewhat controversial issue. The statement, if it's really that relevant here, needs to be nuanced.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's go point by point here.

• I believe, as does Montanabw, that the horse artillery section is important to the article overall. This was an extremely important part of the use of horses in warfare. Also, it is a "tactic", but does not fit under either chariot warfare or cavalry, and so really needs its own section. As for the horse archery - some action has been taken on this. Montanabw herself added information on the Japanese horse archers in the East Asia section, and there are mentions of archers in many other sections. However, if you would like to draft up and sandbox here a couple of sentences on horse archery to add to the tactics section, we are all ears...uh, eyes.

• Also, keep in mind that the article is about horses, not weapons. In terms of use of the horse, tactics for archery and rifles have similarities. Artillery is not the issue with the horse as much as the role of the horse collar and the unique things about how they were hitched and used...riders on horses hitched to a gun, now THAT is interesting. What the thing was they were hitched to is not as relevant. Likewise, what is interesting about artillery isn't how much kick the guns had, its the fact that mules couldn't be used on a battlefield because they had the sense to say, "WTF? A critter can get killed around here!" while a horse would say, "I'm scared, master, but if you say not to run away, I won't." LOL! Montanabw^(talk)

As far as I can recall the two works I managed to find that are focused on horse artillery (see horse artillery main article) don't say that it's been particulaly important to horse warfare. So according to whom was this such an important tactic/unit type/innovation? Horse artillery is as much an issue of weaponry as is mounted archery. Considering the level of technology, probably even moreso. And even if you want to call a unit type a tactic, it's still just one tactic among many others, but still the only one getting separate attention. The choice to give it extra coverage seems somewhat arbitrary.

I also believe that much of the horse artillery information actually is mixed with information about logistical use of horses. Using horses simply to cart artillery is not a tactic. All of the horse artillery units I've read about used fairly light weapons pulled by usually no more than six horses. A team of 25 horses doesn't seem like it would be capable of rapid tactical maneuvers. Is Nofi actually referring to Congreve rocket batteries as horse artillery or might it just be mentioned in the context of how horses were used to transport artillery?

The mounted archery information is currently squeezed into a few indirect sentences, one of which is about a regional form of traditional martial arts (yabusame). That's like describing medieval knights by exemplifying them with Polish Hussars.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone comment the horse artillery issues raised here? Who did the research for this section?

Peter ^Isotalo 09:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read some of the literature about horse artillery training between WW I and II. It was a major part of ROTC programs in American universities between the two wars (as usual, preparing to fight the last war over again), and those ROTC programs also were important incubators of polo in America. Flying artillery was very important tactically, because it could be moved into position and then withdrawn much faster than other artillery. Besides gun wagons, there were horse packed weapons. Pack trains were somewhat important too, tactically, although they had limited use. It took rare training of animals and men, and first rate logistics, to operate an efficient pack train. Mules were used in the artillery, in some units, but they were the product of select training programs specifically for mules. Related to the flying artillery were the battlefield flying ambulance and the cacolet (neither mentioned in this article). The article needs more mention of the logistics of using horses in warfare; unlike vehicles, when stalled somewhere horses still had to be fed, and some armies in some wars did not have sufficient control of logistics to keep their animals in usable condition. --Una Smith (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the Africa section, we added (or actually moved from the Europe section) information that contradicted your author's claim that mounted warfare was made ineffective in the late 19th century. The Boer War was, according to our sources, conducted mainly on horseback. However, to make everyone happy, what if we reworded the second paragraph of the section something like this:

The African slave trade was closely tied to the imports of war horses, and as the prevalence of slaving decreased, fewer horses were needed for raiding. Historian Robin Law argues that this, combined with the Scramble for Africa and the introduction of modern firearms, made the use of horses in warfare largely uneffective and outmoded. Despite this, during the Boer War (1899-1902), cavalry and other mounted troops were the major combat force for the British, since the horse-mounted Boers moved too quickly for infantry to engage. However, the terrain was not well-suited to the British horses, resulting in the loss of over 300,000 animals. As the campaign wore on, losses were replaced by more durable African Basuto ponies, and Waler horses from Australia.

• As noted below, I added a variant of the above to the article. I also moved the whole section from before the Europe section to after it. My reasoning: Most of this section, just like the Americas section, interacts heavily with the material provided on Europe and thus the content will make more sense to the reader if these sections follow the Europe section rather than lead it. In contrast, the Asia and Islam sections can precede the Europe section because the innovations in those regions predated and in many ways were the catalyst for European development. Hope that all made sense...my brain is trying to keep the article in something of a chronological form, even if we have to occasionally take a back loop within a certain area to provide context. Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I reinserted the statement about the spread of larger horse breeds, saddles and stirrups. It's a explanatory cause for an important change, and I haven't seen any sources presented that contradict the statement. I also removed the specific comments about specific figures and types of horses used in the Boer War to reduce length.

Otherwise I'm generally content with the African section, except that Law comes off as something of a lone ranger. First off, Law drawns on the conclusions of other historians as well as adding his own interpretations. He's also writing about warfare between local powers, which made up the majority of wars in Africa, and he's commenting West Africa in particular. The Boer War was a war between European colonists and a European great power which means it was a rather obvious exception, and it took place in South Africa. Secondly, Law is describing a general decline, not an abrupt halt to all horse warfare. To a great extent that makes the Boer War oranges to Law's apples. This difficulty might all boil down to that we need more sources commenting Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, but no matter what, the Boer War does not contradict that horses lost much of their previous significance in African warfare due to firearms.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• As for Charles Martel - Peter, could you please give sources for historians that say he didn't stop them; whoever added the info, can you please give sources for historians that say he did stop them, and we can do a not-too-weasel-worded "Some historians say xyz (sources), but other historians say disagree and say abc (sources).

When I get home I'll look at a couple of my books on the Carolingians and see what they say about it. I think they are reasonably recent. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it isn't much, but the one work I have on the Carolingians mentions that Martel beat a raid at Poitiers, but doesn't describe the battle as a "highwater" mark or anything impressive. It does say that contemporaries celebrated the victory, but nothing about how modern historians see it. A book by David Nicolle says about Poitiers that too little is known about it to be sure of what tactics were used, whether the Franks were the attackers or were on defense, but says that traditionally the battle has been seen as a defensive effort by the Franks. Ellis (who we use in the article) says that the Franks fought on foot at Poitiers. Sorry I don't have more. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's try this: Does anyone have any references on how/why the Muslims stopped/were stopped when/where they were? One good source, please, saying anything? At the moment, the sentence isn't sourced to anything. And thank you, Ealdgyth, for looking :) Dana boomer (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki itself gives some idea: See Charles_Martel#Leadup_and_importance Section not well sourced, but shows us where to look. Battle_of_Tours has better footnotes, possibly mentioning cavalry, we might be able to swipe. Peter's position that Martel was overrated is simply one of three main views. Catholic Encyclopedia says he saved the world, or at least Christianity: here. Deb Bennett no help. She takes it to the Muslim defeat of the Visigoths in northern Iberia and then jumps over to discuss the crusades. My old juvenile standby, Marguerite Henry, mentions Battle of Tours 732 as where the advance stopped (p. 32 if you are desperate for a citation, and I think that may have been the original source on this back in time somewhere), but Ealdgyth says she's an inadequate source, and here, I agree. I'll drop a note to Gwinva, she may have something. I'll do a little digging but don't wait on me. Montanabw^(talk) 08:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia is out of date (it was written 1913), so it is not going to pass my muster. Neither is Henry for this, since it's a historical issue, and really needs current historical scholarship, something within the last 30 years or so. I have a visit to U of I scheduled for next week (after the artic comes and visits here) so I'll look there. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I have to say on these issues. Feel free to butcher, tar and feather. Dana boomer (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My position is that I've worked on this article for over two years and produced vast amounts of content for it. I have also had more of my content deleted (almost always for good reason! LOL!) than anyone else has contributed. So at this point, I say if someone wants material added, then put it up here in the sandbox and we'll take a look at it with the same eye we have been applying to every other contribution to date. And, yes there is a HIW cabal, clique, or otherwise a hard-working group of people who have worked their ass off on this article. Join us if you wish, but no whining from the sidelines. The African contribution was a good start and the edits were appropriate. In short, provide sources and proposed language and don't waste our time arguing. I'll throw Dana's proposed extra sentence into the article. It works for me. Sort of dovetails in style with our demise of the knight section where there are also dueling researchers. Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

horned saddle

That's something specific of the Latène culture and the Romans. You should at least mention it shortly because it enabled to swing big swords before the introduction of stirrups. (See Saddle#Early Civilization and File:Roman cavalry lg.jpg) Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Right (I rewrote and expanded part of that section in the Saddle article, by the way, though sourcing isn't as good as here). Take a look at the technology section here and see what we have so far. I mentioned the treed saddle to some extent. The Roman saddle was most significant to the horse because it was a solid tree, allowing the horse to carry more weight -- a solid tree spreads out the pounds per square inch on the horse's back. The seat construction may have also helped warriors, obviously -- which again raises the question of the HORSE angle -- this is an open question to all here: How much to we focus on the human use of weaponry while on a horse (bows, lances, rifles, etc) versus the technology and tactics (horse collars, treed saddle, etc.) that allowed the horse itself to be used in more efficient ways? Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and a short comment to all on the archery issue. The mounted archery article here isn't horrible, but it is not very well sourced, so I don't know where all the info was obtained. I frankly do not have the time to go dig out stuff on this topic, but if someone else wants to, that is terrific. We can sandbox it for a bit and see where it goes. My main concern is the same as what I mentioned to Wandal, above -- that human-wielded weapons use may not be as relevant to a horse article except where there were changes in how horses were used or managed due to the use of these weapons, or where new horse technology allowed their use -- I fear getting bogged down in weaponry, especially in those areas like horse artillery where there already is an entire article on the topic. This is an open question, and I'm curious what the rest of you think. Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your concerns, however, you mention stirrups and they aren't much different from horns on the saddle. I don't mean to overdo it with this, but a brief mention and how it affected riders in case the horse went down. They couldn't get out of the seat very easy, thus the rider was very dependent on the well-being of the horse for his survival. What else came to my mind is the Parthian and Sassanian technique of fastening the lance on the neck and hinterleg of horses. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Both stirrups and saddles are described in the technology section of the article, I think -- not sure what you are concerned about? Can you clarify? Riders getting hung up in equipment -- whether a horse falls or just the rider -- can happen with a bareback pad, and I can't imagine the disaster that India Toe Loop must have been (lots of retired warriors going around without big toes, I bet!) =:-O I have seen paintings of people with their legs twined into a surcingle -- talk about disaster waiting to happen! The four-horn saddle had obvious technological limitations, and the swelled pommel largely replaced it before too long, I think. Not disagreeing with your concerns, just trying to figure out what to fit in and where. If the concern is horns and projections, note the modern western saddle where due to the presence of the horn, there STILL are people getting killed when a horse falls and rolls on them. The horn was removed from the modern saddle bronc rodeo saddle in part because people were getting their belts hung up on the horn, among other problems... What shall we put into the article and where should it go? Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss the various horns and their advantages and problems in the equipment section where the saddle tree is introduced. That the horned saddle posed special problems is from a work about Roman equestrianism. Wandalstouring (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have the work, feel free to sandbox some proposed language here. I'm cool with looking at this info, either here or in the saddle article. Also if you have more photos, can you toss us any other links to show us what you are looking at? Also, I must inquire (in a friendly way) to see if you misunderstand the purpose of a "horn," in riding: People don't hang on by them, they are used to attach stuff (on the modern western saddle, it's a lasso or various trail riding equipment.) They also are of little value in staying on -- it's the way the rider sits, the use of their legs, the saddle's seat construction, including any swells or pommels that helps the most. Half the time a horse moves fast, you are in the dirt before you can even THINK about "pulling leather" on any saddle. Again, it's rider skill plus, to some extent, seat construction -- for example, look at the thigh swells at the Australian stock saddle. My humble opinion is that the Aussie saddle is about the most secure design for a rider that I have ever seen! What photos I have seen of Roman "4-horned"saddles, as in the link above, they look like a cross between an early swell, an early high cantle and a disaster waiting to happen! =:-O Later, the knight's saddles had cantles so high that they were also scary. A saddle that does not allow a relatively uncomplicated diamount (voluntarily or otherwise!) is very hazardous. Stirrups act to assist a rider differently from a saddle. See show jumping or eventing riders -- they ride a flat English saddle and they use stirrups to a large extent to get off the horse's back and avoid interfering with the animal (you CAN jump bareback, but it's pretty tough to do so over any serious height!) Montanabw^(talk) 07:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I will look up things on friday. As I said, it was an equestrian writing that the horned saddle did help to swing swords. Possibly, you have to think about a different way of seating with the riders lower legs horizontally, so his knees and his feet are under the horns(that would be possible with the horned saddles I saw) and it's only a position for mounted combat at close quarters. I saw a picture of a riding style with horizotal lower legs in an illustration about Skythian warriors (possible based on the fact that they had a kind of 3/4 armour), however they are ussually shown as riding on just some cloth or another human's skin. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Weaponry of riders

A spinoff of Wandal's horned saddle questions above is this: To what extent do innovations in saddle design belong here and which belong at saddle? In terms of sheer length, I vote for more info going to saddle, but I'd like a consensus as to where we draw the line. For example, the solid-treed saddle itself clearly benefitted the horse and made major changes in how people were able to utilize them. Likewise, the stirrup also had significant technology-shifting benefit. On the other hand, structural changes in the seat of the saddle or design of pommel and cantle may or may not be relevant--these adaptations seem to have helped riders wield different weapons, but to what extent were they of "epochical" significance? (I have a similar concern with horse archery -- again, we are talking human weaponry used on multiple platforms, and something with a whole article about it) This is a question from me to all. Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Islam"

It seems very inconsistent that only one section on regional differences should be focused on a specific religion. "The Middle East" worked much better, even if it overlapped other regions a bit. Such transgressions are unavoidable, and switching the coverage to a religion really doesn't solve anything. It just means we'd have to include any and all Islamic powers from West Africa to Indonesia, which is merely impractical. And while we're at it might as well also call the European section "Christianity".

Peter ^Isotalo 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that "The Middle East" is probably a better choice - if we're going to go geography, we need to stay geography and not suddenly switch to religion. I understand what we're trying to cover with this section, but should probably stay away from confusing and potentially controversial section names. Dana boomer (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Under no circumstances can Spain be included as part of the Middle East. This whole section has to be moved to Europe. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. What do we think about "The Islamic Empire"? Other suggestions, Wandal? I really don't think we want to split this section up...it would make for a lot more repetition in trying to explain what we were talking about, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There's the old suggestion to call it the Mediterranean because the eastern parts of the Islamic Empire don't get mentioned there and are already covered with Central Asia and India. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd forgotten about that one. Allright, I could be convinced. Other thoughts? (I know it seems like I'm waffling and jumping around, but really, I was just uncomfortable with "Islam" and would go for just about anything else; just hadn't gotten around to mentioning it yet...) Dana boomer (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with 'Mediterranean' but do we have to merge it with 'Europe' section then? What about 'Middle East'? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, if I understand Wandal right, we'll rename it Mediterranean and leave it separate from the Europe section. Middle East has been discussed about two posts above; please read through the thread before you post. Dana boomer (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Mediterranean seems like the best fit. - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not like, but could live with "Mediterranean" if two issues are addressed: 1) We are only talking here about the mediterranean region from about 700 AD forward, the ancient Greeks and Romans are discussed earlier in the tactics section. 2) The ONLY thing this whole section talks about is the impact of Islam. This is NOT intended to be a geographical article, it is a HISTORY article. Montanabw^(talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If one takes one of the primary horse-oriented overview sources for this article, Deb Bennett, as well as other horse authors, the division of "horse history" (for lack of a better term) breaks down this way: Domestication on the steppes north of Mesopotamia, the spread of horses into the Fertile Crescent, the rise of the chariot in Sumer, then Egypt, Assyria, Babylon etc... This is followed by a discussion of the Hittites and Persians, with a brief departure to the somewhat minimal equestrian innovation by the Greeks and Romans. Basically, the ancient Persians became the supreme horsemen of the ancient world and were only supplanted after the rise of Islam basically brought Persian horsemanship west. In the meantime, the innovations of Asia that occurred in China and India were spread into Eastern Europe by the Mongols. When these two threads combined, you see the rise of Spain and the supremacy of Spanish horsemen that lasts for centuries. Hence, whatever you want to title the "Islam" section, you need to understand the historical underpinnings of how we get there. Comments? Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I get your point, but I just don't think "Islam" works, for all the reasons stated above. I think we have all been racking our brains trying to come up with something better. I think we realize that this is not about geography but in that particular part of the article a geographic subtitle fits and "Mediterranean" includes all the countries mentioned in that section. To make it work could we start out that section with something like, As the various Islamic empires moved west through the Mediterranean region towards Europe.....? Somehow mentioning the fact that these battles were fought as the Muslims pushed west from the Middle east toward Europe and Africa through the Mediterranean. - Epousesquecido (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The Mediterranean isn't goint to work. Particularly Southern France and Italy stand out as being firmly in the tradition of Christian Europe rather than the Islamic Middle East. I still think that "Middle East" worked fine. The problem is that there was a bit too much information on the Iberian peninsula, and then someone added West Africa just for the hell of it. Regions aren't always super-rigid, so I don't see a problem with mentioning neighboring regions that were heavily effected. It's unavoidable in some cases, as for example Central Asia or India.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would still stick with the Mediterranean because the Italian islands were in Muslim hands and thus most of this region was Muslim or under strong Muslim influence like the Byzantine empire(also covering southern Italy) and Sicily. We can mention that there was a shift towards more European influence, but on the other hand we have light cavalry with javelins in the late Medieval Burgundian army what makes me wonder whether this doesn't go back to Spanish and Moorish influence. Plus, the Spanish did rule large parts of the Mediterranean after the Muslim downfall and were essentially influenced by the Muslims. Same for the light Greek cavalry of Venice. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So shall we go with "Mediterranean", then? Here's how the opinions stack up as I see it: Wandal, Epousesquecido, and I like the idea, Montana can live with it, and Peter doesn't like it. Since we don't have another idea with such a large proportion of the editors behind it, this looks to be the best choice at the moment. Everyone good with that? Dana boomer (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument so far seems to be that the southern half of the Med has had (some) Muslim influence, but for that logic to hold I think you need to completely ignore that the northern Med consisted of states that were mostly in the Christian European tradition. Are there actually sources that describe a common Mediterranean horse warfare tradition? If not, it would be a rather dubious choice.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I'm not understanding why you keep insisting that we're only discussing the southern part of the Mediterranean in this section. We discuss the Middle East (eastern Med), north and west Africa (southern Med), Spain and France (western and part of northern Med), and the Ottoman empire, which reached almost as far as Vienna in current-day Austria (which takes up most of the rest of the northern Med). We've got the whole sea surrounded in this section. There is a common tradition of Muslim mounted warfare in this area, which we discuss. We describe, as has been said earlier, the Ancient Greeks and Romans in an earlier section, and Europe has it's own large section; you cannot reasonably argue that we're leaving the Christians/non-Muslims out. Now, I'm going to change the section heading to Mediterranean, and if any editor other than Peter has a problem with this (and sorry Fayssal, I forgot to include you in my earlier listing, you are of course allowed to comment), please let me know and we'll continue discussing. Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes are groovy with me. (Also fun to find an excuse to say "groovy." You know how old that makes ME! LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly discussing more than the southern Med, but I don't see any attempt at explaining how Muslim influence = dominant Muslim-type cultural/traditional unity. For example, what does the horse warfare in Southern France and Italy (and not just the briefly Muslim island of Sicily) have in common with Egypt and the Levant? I'm sure the Med is a very convenient geographic boundary in some cases, but I have trouble seeing where all those common denominiators are. That's why I'm asking for support for this in reliable sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, if the section was called Middle East, would you be satisfied? Just curious. - Josette (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If the objective is to describe the martial horsemanship of the major Muslim powers, which is what the current section does, then yes. I never understood the reasoning that deemed "The Middle East" unsuitable in the first place. Yes, the text technically goes a bit outside the Middle East, but it's focused on the warfare spread by a culture centered in the Middle East. With no added information it suddenly became a "Mediterranean" section. No one has tried to explain what regions like Provence, Andalusia and the Levant actually have in common, other than bordering the Med.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you said it - what "Provence, Andalusia and the Levant actually have in common, other than bordering the Med." - What they have in common is that all these regions border the Mediterranean, and we felt that it was a good description of the area that was being described in the section. Fairly simple, maybe too simple? We were thinking strictly along the lines of geography. If others agree that Middle east is a better heading, I will not object. - Josette (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Various new edits

OK, a couple of comments on the edits that have happened today.

• In the Middle Ages section there was a sentence that originally read "the Islamic invaders who attacked various European nations from 700 AD through the 15th century." Fayssal changed it to "the Muslims who invaded various parts of southern Europe from 700 AD through the 15th century." and Montanabw changed it back. I kind of like Fayssal's version better, as it sounds less POV against the Islamic invaders - could both parties give their reasoning?

• In the Africa section, there is a section that says "The terrain was not well-suited to the British horses, resulting in the loss of over 300,000 animals. As the campaign wore on, losses were replaced by more durable African Basuto ponies, and Waler horses from Australia." Peter wants it removed, Montanabw wants it kept. I think it is probably a little too much "fun fact", and should probably either be removed or trimmed. Peter's reasoning (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it is extraneous information, interesting but not necessary. Montanabw?

If the involved parties could comment on these, it would be great! Dana boomer (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no real kick with "Muslim" versus "Islam." Whatever is considered more correct use is fine with me. I did think that "southern Europe" is a little off, however, and the original language should prevail. Arguably, southern France IS "southern Europe" but I think just "Europe" will do. As for the South Africa section, there may be a place to reword a bit, but the point is that Africa is a tough place for horses in general unless they have landrace adaptations, and this is an example, not merely a "fun fact." Note I kept all of Peter's changes in the previous paragraph that mention similar problems elsewhere. One of the questions here is that we don't spend enough time hitting every geographical region, and the reason there isn't much to say about horses in Africa is because they die pretty easily there. Montanabw^(talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. So if we worded the Fayssal's contribution something like "the Muslims who invaded various European nations from 700 AD through the 15th century." it would be OK with you? My focus in the wording was part of the original language that said "invaders who attacked", which, while true, has a little more of a tinge of "Muslims bad, Europeans good", even if not purposefully worded that way (which I'm sure it wasn't). As for the ponies, that explanation works for me...Peter, thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the Muslim/Islam thing. Or at least tried to. Montanabw^(talk) 00:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The detailed comments on the Boer War is about the war itself, not the African context. It's another example of a specific conflict (which once again just happens to be between Europeans) that gets detailed attention, while others are not even mentioned. I don't like arguing from the standpoint of how much or little of an editor's content is kept or removed, but I should remind that information that was far more general in nature was removed from my first African draft. Since the suggestion to forego the regional info was rejected, we still have a very large amount of information that could use trimming.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, back to the difference between Fayssal's choice and Montanabw/my choice in the Middle Ages section. Fayssal seems to want to it to be "southern Europe" because it's more precise. Forgive my lack of knowledge of the history of this area, but was France the only nation invaded? Or France and Spain? If so, could we just say "invaded France and Spain in x time period"? Fayssal, please discuss here rather than just continuing to change it on the main page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Muslims (represented by the Moors and Umayyads) conquered large parts of the Iberian peninsula, some parts of southern Italy (by Aghlabids and Fatimids) including Sicily (Emirate of Sicily), and nowadays Malta (see timeline). As for nowadays France, Muslims were defeated att the Battle of Tours.

The version of Montanabw (large portions of Europe) is misleading and readers may think that Muslims reached other parts of Europe apart from southern Europe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no such thing as "nations" in medieval Europe. Political power was highly decentralized and lacked stable political instutitions. Kingdoms were mostly very weak and based on personal allegience, not abstract loyalties to states. Spain and France in the modern sense did not exist as anything other than geographic regions.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree and I am keen to use the term 'nowadays' for that reason. However 'Europe' is a term which has been used since Greek times. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright, I can live with these arguments, and you make good points. Montana seemed to indicate above that she could live with "southern Europe" if she had to, so I think this should be OK for now. Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Various Muslim groups took over most of the Iberian peninsula and tried to invade what is today southern France. They ruled various parts of Spain until finally ousted by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. I can live with "southern Europe," though from a historical and political view, the significance was that the Muslims entered "Christian" Europe at all. regardless of where. Which was what I was after. (Crossing at Gibralter from Africa into what today is Spain is, of course, the logical place to do so due to geography). Here, it is accurate to say these nations as we know them today were not structured the same way back then, so we have to refer to them as geographic regions. But again, I am OK with the edits made. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Central Asia, India, East Asia Vs. Europe, Mediterranean, Sub-Saharan Africa and the The Americas

I've just noted that we are having 3 separate sections for Central Asia, India and East Asia. Per consistency matters these sections should be merged into a single one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll see from this diff that up until a few days ago they were all level three headings under a single level two heading. Peter changed them, and as it had been somewhat discussed before (see the hidden text that was removed in the edit), I don't think anyone felt like arguing over it. Are you asking for them to be all in one section as in no subheaders, or as in levels three's under a level two? As for combining them into one section with no subheaders, I think this would work, except that it would make the section a little longer than all of the other sections. However, the second paragraph of the India section consists mainly of descriptions of various battles, with nothing said about how this affected the use of horses, so could probably be removed or at least significantly trimmed. Thoughts from other editors? Dana boomer (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff Dana. I believe Montanabw's version was fine and I don't think it will make it a longer section. My argument is about consistency and nothing else. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dana, if you want to make the changes and put the subheaders back the way they were, I of course am fine with that. I also agree with your analysis of the India section, so if you want to chop some of that, that's OK, but I DO suggest anything you remove should go over to the companion article on the History of the horse in Southern Asia. I put in the original subheaders on purpose so something was in the TOC that helped a lot with the old "this article isn't worldwide enough in focus" thing --it allows people to quickly and easily see that we discuss different parts of the world. So I do not favor removing them altogether. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Asia-heading doesn't seem have any useful purpose. Yes, it's technically all the same continent, but the various sub-headings don't have much in common. The individual Asian sections don't have more in common with each other than they do with the European section. Going strictly by geographical boundaries has nothing to do with historical interaction between various regions. (Just try dealing with the Middle East/Islamic/Mediterranean section in any meaningful way on a stric continent-by-continent basis.)

I was thinking that since we have no information about Eastern Europe we could describe this in the same Central Asian section, since these two regions are very similar. Both are part of the same giant region consisting of grass plains, and the armies for long time consisted mostly of mounted troops (see Hyland, for example). It would also be a good compliment to the European section, which is actually only about Western Europe.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fresh eyes

Much discussion of section headings, as is the case here, often is a sign of something not working in the organizational structure of the article. Looking at the article, I see an almost entirely a-historical perspective. I suggest making the article structure, at least for the parts that now deal with geographic area, primarily (and explicitly) chronological. Within each major period there were hot-spots and scopes of influence. Within a chronological structure, a section about the Mediterranean during a certain timeframe makes sense. That would make the late 19th/early 20th Century content much more intelligible: transitioning from wars in Europe, to the US Civil War, back to Europe for WWI and II. In terms of technology and use of horses, the US Civil War had far more in common with the more immediate prior wars in Europe than with the various Colonial periods. --Una Smith (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been mentioned before (I think it's in Archive 4), and there was some support and some opposition (I think I was the main one against). How about this: this evening I'll work on a subpage to rearrange the article chronologically, and everyone can see what they think about it then. This way we're not destroying the main article while arguing over the fine points of the possible new arrangement. Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, check it out at User:Dana boomer/HIW test. I don't like it, because you're still jumping all over the place in time to explain why something was happening at a specific time and place. Feel free to play with the sandbox as much as you want - I still like the geographic organization better at this point. Dana boomer (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On User:Dana boomer/HIW test, I touched nothing except the BC section, which I reorganized and expanded. Now a chronological theme emerges: peasants on foot yield to mounted raiders; mounted raiders yield to chariots; chariots yield to cavalry with new doctrine. Now I think it is easier to see the holes in the story. --Una Smith (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I agree with Una's point that there is possibly room to improve organization. AND I agree that we need to START with an essentially historical organization, which was the way I originally developed the article and what I have been promoting above. However, the structure in the sandbox is not going in a direction I am comfortable with. We just keep literally going around the world and around the world, it's the thing I feared with a straight chronological approach. Must material is going to be tossed out. Also we have a lot of material that doesn't ft neatly into chronology. You guys really don't have a fundamental understanding of the flow of world history here; I do, I've taught it. You can't break this stuff down into easy categories like was done in the sandbox. For one thing, there weren't "peasants" until AFTER you had civilizations and hereditary nobility, which took place AFTER the domestication of the horse. Please, let's figure out a structure before we start destroying a Good Article, I'd rather abandon this FA push altogether than make such massive changes that are going to take MONTHS to figure out. This article has been massively worked on for over two years, much of what's here is the result of dozens of delicate compromises. This was almost at FA other than a few minor concerns. Montanabw^(talk) 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw, please tone down the hyperbole (eg, "destroying"). Do not presume to characterize other editors' expertise and knowledge. You may have taught world history, but that does not make you our teacher and us your dull students. Finally, "delicate compromises" are weak ones. This article has been fiddled with for over 2 years, yet I find it nearly unreadable. The paragraphs in isolation are mostly okay, but as an article it is incoherent. Eg, the BC material: there is a long digression into political history in India, without mention of horses used in warfare, and now it is apparent that there is a lot of missing content. Wouldn't you rather help us work it out here on the talk page, not in public during the FAC? --Una Smith (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't help thinking about the suggestion made by Wandalstouring. Even if it doesn't have to be along the line of sedentary vs nomadic people, it could still be a more generalized. The region-by-region method is constantly showing weaknesses, and no matter what we do, we seem to be forgetting one corner of the world or another.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I thought about that, but aren't the nomadic peoples a small part of the story? I agree with Montanbw that her "rip" job (diff) is a complete mess; her result is quite unreadable. I don't get her point either; messes are easy to make. I would continue from where I left off, at this version. Dana used arbitrary 500 year intervals, resulting in some awkward breakpoints (Eg at 0 AD), but I thought it was a reasonable first pass. A section on 500 BC to 500 AD is reasonable, though. That permits dealing together with ancient Persia, Greece, and Rome (a geographic cluster); plus the contemporaneous Terracotta Army in China. Following that, I would like a paragraph or two comparing and contrasting the technology evident at that time in China vs in Persia/Greece/Rome. Eg, chariot horses in both regions then wore bridles with a frentera, in contrast to the ancient Egyptian bridles with cheekpieces attached to the bit arms. --Una Smith (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is an extraordinary work because we don't have any work about the development of horses in warfare we can rely on. I'm an archaeology student with focus on European prehistory. I hope that explains my POV. We have several regions with independent chronologies in East Asia, Europe+Mediterranean+Near East and India connnected via Central Asia. Equipment for horses is an important clue for puzzling together all these chronologies because all improvements for horses were passed on more or less via the steppes(or stayed regional like the Roman horned saddle). Exceptions are the Americas, Australia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the time from the Late Roman Empire(clibanarii, cataphract, horse archers and war horse breeds) to the Islamic(light cavalry and tactics, new breeds) expansion and crusades(breeds and light cavalry, turcopoles)with a direct transfer from the Near East to Europe. However, these can easily be treated on their own. I personally like the introduction before it breaks up in geographic sub regions. My position is that we should keep these regions for limited topics like the new worlds, but combine the ancient world into one narrative developing the picture of technology, breeding, training and tactics. Another idea would be to use the UN world regions(=complete coverage) and meticulously tell what in each region happened, but that makes it hard to give the reader a bigger picture. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I really don't like what the article looks like in the sandbox - either my version or the version that Montana created. You keep bouncing from area to area, having to go back in time to explain why something is happening in a certain area, etc. To be honest, there is one editor arguing about headings - that is Peter. The rest of us can have a discussion, have several of us agree on something, and then move onto something else. I like the article structured the way it is now, and although there is always room for improvement, I don't believe that a chronological structure is improvement. Wandal - perhaps you would like to throw something together that illustrates your point? You are welcome to use the sandbox in my userspace if you would like. Dana boomer (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I will do that at the weekend. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To all: No argument from me that we have brilliant sections, but a problem with overall flow. But we have no consensus on a solution, and frankly, I have sincerely been racking my brain on this for a very long time and not reaching a solution. I have played with the article offline in a word processor, printed it out and cut it up with scissors to manually rearrange sections, etc and still no solution! The best structure I have seen for a horse history BOOK is Deb Bennett's Conquerors, and she confines herself to a straight chronology from Mesopotamia to Spain to America (with a brief digression to the Crusades) without bringing in other cultures at all. We are trying to do MORE in less space! To have a worldwide focus from the dawn of time to the Modern age is unquestionably daunting.

I deliberately did what I did in the sandbox to show what was going on with the proposed structure, my intent was not to organize it but rather to illustrate the problems with the existing approach taken there. Dana meant well and made a sincere attempt to play with some solutions, but seeing it play out showed precisely the problem that approach has. So, I think we are going about it all wrong to do a rewrite until we have a structure figured out. I favor trashing the sandbox and just letting this whole thing cool down for while, and then try to get some people who TOTALLY outside the article and have not been involved at all to look at it with fresh eyes to provide us some new ideas. (Which was what we were looking for at the last PR but didn't quite get) Espousido (Josette), your comments HAVE been helpful, by the way, you are an example of a totally outside person who had good input. So is Fayyad.

The other point here is that Wandal is one of the editors who, along with me and Gwinva, crafted the early form of the article and got it to GA the first time. Like me, Wandal has been an editor on this article for over two years. Whoever added the India part is long gone, but we kept it because it DOES have useful content, no matter where or how it eventually gets structured. The sections on types of horses and technology are largely inspired by Wandal's suggestions, and some of the original draft language was his. I agree that we DO have a little bit of a problem in that about a third of the article is thematic, reflecting Wandal's approach, about a third is a historical chronology, reflecting the influence of myself and Gwinva, and about a third is geographical, reflecting a legitimate concern raised by a number of transient editors (and presently backed now by Peter) that we need to be sure to have a worldwide focus to the article. Up against all of the above are repeated concerns that the article already is too long as it is (entire BOOKS get written on subtopics!) even through there are at least five or six spinoff or linked articles (cavalry, chariot, horses in the middle ages, horse in south asia, etc...) I do not know the way out of this morass, but to just willy-nilly start a rewrite risks degrading an article that has survived TWO GA reviews and is ranked A-Class by the military history wikiproject. We need to think this thorough. I suggest a cool down for at least a little while. Maybe not a month, but perhaps until the first of February or so?? Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Deb Bennett's book was written for an American audience, and as she wrote it she queried equestrian forums to find out what topics American equestrians had some knowledge of and thought was interesting. And naturally the resulting narrative was one of several possible stories of the history of American horsemanship. That is a pleasing but highly biased, narrow POV, not suitable for a world encyclopedia. I like the book as a source, among others. I find it ironic that when pushing an article through GA Montanabw argues that in effect GA quality is far below FA, but now we are supposed to believe that GA quality is just short of FA? Can't have it both ways. I and others think the article needs major work, now it is getting work, and I see no reason for a "cool down" period. Both Dana boomer and Montanabw have declared their opposition to a chronological structure, so may I suggest that these two editors refrain from disrupting other editors' work on that? Give others a chance. --Una Smith (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this diff, Montanabw trashed the sandbox to make a WP:POINT. --Una Smith (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, she is just upset about that most editors feel a different direction would be better. That is hard to take, but at the same time, you cannot claim an article (WP:OWN), but that does not mean that newcomers can be gentle with the editors that have been working a long time on this. Using strong language can make this article very soon a serious battlefield, where it is just waiting for the warhorses to arrive. So, if everybody would be so kind to tone down a bit. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw and Dana boomer have been especially gracious and fun to work with, they have both asked for and welcomed criticism and input from all of us. I don't find it helpful that someone pops in wanting to shred an article to pieces that has passed GA review twice and better yet has been given an A-Class from the Military history WikiProject. We need to continue to discuss the changes that need to be made and be respectful while doing it. - Josette (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down please and some ideas

He, I have been following this page for a while, but have not actually commented on anything in a very long time. Can I suggest that everybody sits back for a while and relaxes a bit, because the discussion is getting very heated. The Fresh Eyes section is anything but fresh eyes as far as I can tell. (don't kill me if I am wrong).

Anyway, sometimes, when people are stuck at their own islands, you have to take a few steps back and see if you can gain some more perspective. Personally, I think the article is rather unreadable, because what it does, it gives me short history of that region all across history, but if I want to obtain the larger picture, I need to read everything before I can see the cross connections for the world. Something that works great in a book focussed on a single line of ideas (for example the Conquistadors book mentioned elsewhere), does not work at all for a much wider article.

What I miss is the synthesis. What happened first that made subsequent steps possible? To get to that, maybe what we have to do is first make a list of essential steps, each with what, where and when (for example: Horse learn to walk on two legs; UN horse protectorate; 10.000 AD). If we can agree on such a list of essentials, my guess is that the flow of the article will follow quite easily. What do y'all think? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

O, to add. I think many more detailed articles dealing with specific regions are just plainly needed for a topic this large. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And to add more, maybe this article needs to be split in two main articles to start with. Horses in warfare and History of horses in warfare. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kim, good to see you around again! Anyone else lurking who wants to weigh in? Can ALL the active editors agree to sit back for a week or two and only fix vandalism in the interim? LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kim. The "fresh eyes" are my own. The problems with the article that you see I also see. You mention there need to be more separate articles; in fact there are other articles, and I find this article is rather stuffed with tangential thumbnails of other articles, rather than its own content. --Una Smith (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and that is why I suggest to make a list of the essentials that determine the use of horses in warfare. We do not have to cover all details, could any of you tell me what the crucial steps were in the use of horses in warfare? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good idea. One essential is a working definition of "warfare". Raiding by bandits circa 4000 BC might not constitute warfare. --Una Smith (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Warfare:

Warfare refers to the conduct of conflict between opponents, and usually involves escalation of aggression from the proverbial "war of words" between politicians and diplomats to full-scale armed conflicts, waged until one side accepts defeat or peace terms are agreed on. Warfare between groups, and even more so between military organisations, require a degree of planning and application of military strategy to be conducted effectively in reaching their stated or assumed objectives and goals.

Sounds good to me as a working def -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. --Una Smith (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Another essential: use of horses per (apparent) military doctrine, not merely incidental. Eg, some soldiers happen to own horses and use them to get to the battle; others don't. That would not qualify. But a horse or string of horses required as part of a soldier's equipment would qualify. --Una Smith (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Raiding was and still is an essential part of warfare(high gain, low risk). Look at the Peloponnesian War for example or most modern conflicts in Africa.

The defintion of being a required part of a soldier's equipment is problematic because most of the time you have mounted infantry mixed with light infantry mixed with cavalry and changing into one or the other and another problem is that most of the time we have nothing to talk about because mounted infantry dominated the battlefield(that would mean leaving out the Muslims because they were very much mounted infantry).

I suggest to define it as a horse used to transport warriors(not organized in the sense of a soldier) or equipment(carroballista, horse artillery, supplies) in battle or to battle. However, the transport to battle issue should be summarized briefly. Transport of warriors to battle didn't change much over time(the solid tree saddle helped) and for transport of equipment it's important to mention the invention of wagons(wheel) and the cold blooded European draft-breeds while in other parts of the world the role was fullfilled by less specialized horses, camels(Asia and Africa) or handcarts(China).

This provides us with the important issue to cover: horses in battle

You need to control the horse, thus you need equipment and an intelligent partner(differences in average intelligence of breeds? heard that the Arabian horse was very clever)

You have to be able to fight from a platform(chariot) or from horseback(saddle, stirrup) or mount and unmount easily(for some time competing doctrines, the un-and mounting theory pushed by the Quran)

Here our scope is to say where something originated and how it spread and competed with other ideas.

As far as I know, there are few horse breeds that became essential for war horses. because of the reduced bone mass, agility, intelligence, endurance and such. We should highlight this. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, raiding often is a part of warfare, but that doesn't mean that all raiding is warfare. Doesn't it boil down to what is doctrine, and what is not? --Una Smith (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Above, Wandalstouring refers to a third essential: the war horse. Only certain breeds or types of domestic horse have been used, and some species other than the domestic horse have been used. This is the very first section of the article but there is no mention of how doctrine changed over time, with resulting preferences for certain types over others. What about the remount purchasing programs? And the government studs? --Una Smith (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Your issue about the government studs is perhaps too specific, however, noteable. What a warhorse was is a defintion that changes over time and region and there's certainly overlap because war usually results in chaos and shortness of goods, animals and supply. Let's better talk about the horses used in war and under what capacity. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? In 19th to early 20th C in the United States and some European countries there were horse (and limited mule) breeding programs to produce animals for use in war. --Una Smith (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that on a regional approach we can discuss specific problems with horses in warfare like the diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa or the jungle in South-East Asia and so on. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The challenges of using horses in warfare varied somewhat over time as well, and in some cases even at the same time but in armies having different doctrines. Eg, differences between the French and English forces in the Crimea. --Una Smith (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguments accepted. Let's give the general picture what were the effects of certain landscapes and what were factors that did interfere, no matter under what doctrine. More specific issues like the effects of French and British doctrine during the Crimean War are certainly to be discussed in seperate articles. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Breaking out the history info into a separate article is probably the best solution suggested so far.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree. --Una Smith (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion of regional specifities of horses in warfare can be branched out, but what is the content of this article if all history about horses in warfare gets removed? Nothing. So please rethink your measures and what exactly your scope is. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. What remains are mostly sections that are thumbnails of other articles, piecemeal. Many of those sections include historical information. Several people are saying what we have here is a history article, and I take Wandalstouring to mean that the history is the heart of this article; that without the history all that would remain is the intro and sections 1 and 2 (types, training). I have more to say about that below, in reply to KimvdLinde. --Una Smith (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh

Is it really so hard for everybody to come down of their high horses, aka their rock solid ideas about what should happen and just reiterate that? This is about the warhorse, not all the details about how when and where which horse was used exactly, and the minute differences between its usage in place A and B. That is why I asked (without actually getting an answer), WHAT are the essential steps in the evolution of using horses in war? If we get that line down, we can still add a single section about regional aspects that affected warfare, which is interesting, but really not much to do with the history. And we can then devote a whole seperate article about the History in detail, and many articles about the various regions. What about that?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were all asked to step back and take break from this for awhile. Plus Wandalstouring asked to have the opportunity to take a pass at the article this weekend. I suggest we all wait to see what comes of that. Of course Peter or Una or anyone can also copy the text into a sandbox and make the changes they would like to see made. - Josette (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think sandboxing is a good idea, personally. There are a lot of differeing ideas of what to do and how to go forward on this, so personal sandboxes might be the best method to experiment without necessarily causing too much stress. Note that I'm more involved in this article in terms of checking sourcing, and won't be participating much with the actual writing, unless we touch on an area I've studied. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(reply to KimvdLinde) This article definitely needs a clearer scope. This article apparently started off as about the "war horse" itself, but now it has a far broader scope. I think the title fits that broader scope, though. To draw back to the war horse per se, I suppose the core would be the intro and sections 1 and 2 (types, training). There would be room to include details of breeding horses and mules for war (those remount programs and government studs I mentioned). --Una Smith (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I urge people to work on their own PRIVATE sandboxes, not needing to be linked here and starting multiple talk page discussions, and think through this whole article. Once people have some ideas sorted out on their own, they can make proposals to the group here. This article is GA and A class already. It needs to stay that way and not get massively edited until such edits can move it from GA to FA. I recommend that [this version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horses_in_warfare&oldid=265402826] be set and the article given full protection for a week so none of us can edit Then, we can all discuss actual, constructive changes to the There is no need to reinvent the wheel; the question of what a "warhorse" might be was worked out a long time ago, and so have many of the other issues. There are at least three active editors (one of whom is on vacation at the moment and won't be back for a bit) who have been working on this article for over a year, and two others who have been working on the article for at least a year. Peter has started weighing in here in the last couple of months, whenever his posts start, everyone else has come in during the past week. For this article, the active, constructive editors need to reach a reasonable consensus that does not involve a "false consensus" created by a few editors who are all new to this article. Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Please, if you add information, make sure it is cited also. There is nothing worse than having to find a source to fit someone else's edits. Unsourced information is a problem at FAC and will probably just be axed if it can't be sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please tag whatever seems to need a source; that helps a lot! --Una Smith (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted Una's edits. We have all been respectful of each others work here. We have decided that the sandbox is the place to make changes (except for very minor ones). I do not think Una should come in and just take over. We have all been working as a team here. Una, please join the team and discuss changes you think should be made and see if you get consensus first. - Josette (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not respectful to revert another editor's good faith edits. It is also not respectful to trash the sandbox, as Montanabw did. --Una Smith (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be easier for me to swallow if you had respected the editors here and asked for consensus first.- Josette (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would second Josette's actions. This article is so large and has so many people working on it that unilateral additions or deletions of material (especially unsourced material) should not be made without first gaining consensus. I would also re-emphasize the request for everyone to take a week or two off from the article. If everyone wishes to work on their own personal version of the article in sandboxes, that's fine. However, the main article should be left alone while everyone takes a break, and can come back with real fresh eyes. Dana boomer (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to request full protection of the article version as last edited by Josette for a week. Montanabw^(talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Montanabw requested full protection and suggested which version to protect,[1][2] and the request was denied.[3] --Una Smith (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me promise that if the regulars start edit warring, I have no problem on protecting it randomly at the moment I find it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Kim, if you do need to block, kindly respect the last stable version, which would be Josette's edits, which will keep this article at its status quo position of GA. Montanabw^(talk) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We have consensus. Reversion of edits that take the article away from the consensus version is not edit warring. - Josette (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why all of a sudden there is all of this hostility. We had already established a consensus of discussing any changes that were to be made to this article. That is easily confirmed by just reading the talk page. - Josette (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Personalities shouldn't be getting involved in this article, and I am trying to not get personally "hooked" at the moment, (with varying degrees of success) but I think that there is a little of this going on. Not sure how to have a thing where the personalities involved can meet elsewhere and figure out how to hold hands and sing "Kum Ba Yah, but I'd be all for it if someone can help. Montanabw^(talk) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time for me to move on. My edits to the talk page far exceed my edits to the article and this is not normal for me. You all know where to find me but for now I think I have said more than enough. - Josette (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Tweaking WWI section

A small number of specific contributions to one section of this article were reverted:

• 17:37, 22 January 2009 Dana boomer Reverting edits by Tenmei to last version by Josette - we are trying to trim this article down, not bulk it up; please discuss additions on talk page
• 17:32, 22 January 2009 Tenmei →World War I: tweaking text
• 16:31, 22 January 2009 Tenmei →World War I: adding greater specificity + in-line citations

As suggested, I'm now posting additions which, I believe, may be construed as helpful:

1. Nearly 500,000 British horses died in World War I.<:ref>Chew, Peter. "The Painter Who Hated Picasso," Smithsonian. October 2006.</ref> The post-war "Canadian War Records Exhibition" at the Royal Academy included a large number of war artist canvasses which highlighted the unsung importance of horses;<:ref>Sir Alfred Munnings Museum: The Artist.</ref> however, great changes in the tactical use of cavalry were a marked feature of this war.

2.Early in the War, cavalry skirmishes were common, and horse-mounted troops widely used for reconnaissance.<:ref name="WILL46">Willmott, First World War, p. 46; Art Gallery of New South Wales: Munnings, A Canadian Soldier (1918).</ref>

[NOTE: The only addition here was to the in-line citation, not the text.]

3. Cavalrymen from the Canadian Cavalry Brigade were used to fill gaps in the infantry lines in 1917; and these units re-mounted as the war evolved. In what is known as "the last great cavalry charge" at the Battle of Moreuil Wood, Gordon Flowerdew was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for leading Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) in a successful engagement with entrenched German forces.<:ref>Canadian War Museum: Munnings, Charge of Flowerdew's Squadron (1918);Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) Society: History of Regiment.</ref>

In my view, the addition of specific detail enhances the force and effectiveness of a pivotal section in which the importance of horses, not only in cavalry, evolved signficantly. I note that the substance of this article is primarily based on scholarly overviews which have been further distilled by serial Wikipedia editors; and such small points as are presented here were considered helpful, even necessary by those published authors.

A further, not-irrelevant point is that the above citations link to digitized, on-line images of a unique war artist painting in museums in England, Australia and Canada.--Tenmei (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tenmei, here's the deal: We just finished going through this article and chopping out about half a gazillion examples such as the ones you propose. We had these in the Middle Ages section, the early modern section, etc. If there was one single, repeated whine we endured during GA and FA reviews, it is that the article is too long as it is. It has been proposed that yet more sections of this article be broken out into new articles, in the way that [{Horses in the Middle Ages]] was broken out from here a while back (and we are still debating if more should be cut! LOL!) So, I personally think the idea of creating an article about horses in WWI sounds extremely cool, and all this stuff could go there. If we wanted to put in another sentence or two to the WWI section, however, the article could probably manage it without crashing wikipedia! (grin) And maybe the section would benefit from a rewrite if it stayed roughly the same length. The other thing you could do is what was done in the Americas section, where off of a sentence, we also added a commentary note in addition to a reference, mentioning how many horses died in the conflict.

So, Tenmei, long story short, because this article is in the middle of some editing spats right now, we are asking that everyone work on some basic changes offline and when they have a decent draft, propose their changes here on the talk page. We'll chop on it for awhile and generally destroy your hard work (grin), and if we have a consensus to put in te new material, the parts agreed-upon go in and we sometimes fight about the rest for awhile (this has already happened with the Sub-Saharan Africa and Americas sections). Hope this explains matters! Montanabw^(talk) 19:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Dana boomer's explanation for undoing my work did give me reason to think again. I didn't adequately appreciate the on-going discussions this article had engendered. As you suggest, I will create a stub with a link to this article's WWI section. I have no interest in exacerbating problems. --Tenmei (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an endless quagmire over here, Tenmei. An absolute swamp! You have set an excellent example for the rest of us, however. If we all were as polite as you, maybe it wouldn't be a quagmire, perhaps more of a beautiful mountain meadow of a talk page! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Horses were a real problem for the German forces during WWI because they didn't have the resources to resupply their troops adequately and motorized vehicles were also short, not to mention oil. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Strategic re-appraisal

Montanabw -- It may well be that Horses in Warfare (HIW) presents an intractable problem, but perhaps a novel strategy may prove helpful ... or at least worth mulling over ...?

Consider this minor point which I've developed from another article's talk page:

It is unsurprising the World War I is an unwieldy article. In hopes of making a modest contribution, I suggested that an editing process might draw lessons from the more tightly articulated article about World War II -- see Talk:World War I#Parsing this unnecessarily LARGE subject. This was not intended to be more than a plausible step in a constructive direction.

From what I can gather, the comparatively disciplined nature of the WWII article was the result of an extensive effort which seems to have exhausted the participants. Regrettably, this doesn't bode well for the prospects of a shortened WWI article (nor, perhaps, for an improved HIW article); however, Climie.ca (a/k/a cam) contributed an excellent idea which I found very appealing. He suggested reconfiguring the WWI article in a manner which mirrored the table of contents of any of the survey books published by any well-known author.

This struck me as a likely genesis. In a sense, the table of contents created collectively by Wikipedia editors is a kind of "original research" -- and in light of WP:OR, this is something the general consensus has agreed to eschew. Expressed differently, if an article were to mirror the pattern of a table of contents found in a published source, the result would more fully comply with WP:V. In the WWI context, Cam proposed the narrative and analytical arc might be taken from Wilmott's 2007 book --

• H. P. Willmott, H.P. (2007). World War I. New York: Dorling Kindersley. 10-ISBN 0-756-62967-5; 13-ISBN 978-0-756-62967-0; OCLC 52541937

I wonder if the narrative and analytical arc of HIW might be improved by adapting the table of contents of any published book or books garnering a consensus agreement? For example, I found the following using the GoogleBooks search engine:

• Gilbey, Walter. (1900). Small Horses in Warfare. London: Vinton. OCLC 1327766

In no sense am I suggesting that Gilbley's schema is better than any other; but the table of contents is at least illustrative of my point -- see here.

I hope this musing comment will provoke a useful discussion and that it will be perceived as potentially helpful. --Tenmei (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it isn't a useful example. We would gratefully accept any work that really deals with all aspects of horses in warfare, but we didn't yet find such a work during 2 years of research. For WWI and WWII there are plenty of works. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My comment was not focused on any specific book -- rather, I hoped to introduce the notion of using one or more published table of contents as a point-of-reference for focusing discussion which moves towards a consensus editing strategy. --Tenmei (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried. I wish. Basically, there are only a few books on overall horse history, and all are imperfect. Marguerite Henry's All About Horses has an extensive history section, but it was copyrighted in 1967 and written for sixth-graders. Chamberlin's Horse is short, vague, romantic in tone and not well-documented (though better than nothing and not blatently inaccurate, just oversimplified). Bennett's Conquerors is very good, but departs in 1492 for America and never returns. This is why we are having so much trouble. There is no "official canon." Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not consult the military history literature? Until recently, use of horses was important. --Una Smith (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, have you noticed that this article has over 200 footnotes? That would be from a wide variety of sources, including a great deal of military literature. Montanabw^(talk) 08:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The goal here is a model for the structure of this article; Montanabw, have you looked at the TOCs of the more likely military history sources you provided? --Una Smith (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh gee duh, what's a table of contents? OF COURSE we look at these things, and note I am not the only editor here. If you will review the references list, most books with solid content are targeted at specific periods of history. The best we can do for an overall structure is use a typical layout from college and high school level World History textbooks, tweaked to reflect the way history articles are organized on wiki to make linking easier, and to also depart from the canon when there are ways horse history diverges a bit from the course of human world history (i.e. for example, the Romans weren't that innovative with horse stuff, they were more fond of Infantry). All this stuff you raise was discussed and settled a long time ago. What we are doing now is letting Wandal figure out some organizational stuff, which is he doing pretty well so far, and I say leave him alone other than really minor comments and let him do it. IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

sandboxes

Can everybody who wants to edit the article in a sandbox list him/herself here and give a link to the sandbox plus a short description what the scope of his edits is. Thank you. This way we can compare the current progress and copy good ideas easier. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• User:Wandalstouring/sandbox is my sandbox where I will try a new arrangement and focus of the development. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My only concern is generating multiple talk page discussions that create a false sense of consensus between only a few editors. Maybe just alert us with a link when you have a major question and want the group's feedback? Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I finished the new structure with remarks in the layout for moving most of the text to an article about the history of horses in warfare that can have branches of regional and time specific articles. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

IS that the direction we want to go? If so, how do we create a good overview? Maybe what we need is a breakout article on Tactics and keep this one primarily focused on history?? Seems like most of the complaints are that we aren't doing enough on weaponry, tactics, etc... Just thinking Montanabw^(talk) 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring, I like a lot of what you have done in User:Wandalstouring/sandbox. I added a couple of headings. Could you explain more of what you propose to do with the sections under the headers "redistributed" and "moved"? Redistributed and moved where? --Una Smith (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The redistributed part will be worked into my new structure and thus remain part of the article. The moved part will be another article about history of horses in warfare. This will be split in several geographic subsection telling the regional stories until being merged into a big section for modern times when local variety isn't that big. I know, that gives us two articles and is a step away from FA, but I don't see any measure to achieve FA with the current structure. It stated all well, but this mix of general principals and regional specifities doesn't work well. You have to choose between one or the other and that's why I seperated both of them. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I like that you are keeping the old stuff split off. And I think you are on the right track to discuss various aspects of tactics, technology, etc. On the stuff you are working on, my emphasis will be mostly on accuracy of content once the organizational structure is set. If the split occurs, I think we can keep the GA status on the history section with a tweaked intro and fleshing out of the ancient history stuff (which happens to be one of the things I have reasonably good resource materials on in my own book collection!) I saw a couple areas to expand the history section, as now the technology and tactics stuff basically merges in a lot of ancient history without really saying so. I added a couple of headers to your sandbox that reflect my thinking on the matter. I don't have time myself to flesh them out at the moment, and if I do, I'll probably do some of this in my own sandbox with a heads up when I am ready for comment there. Montanabw^(talk) 19:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Take your time. I'll keep a low profile for two weeks because of exams. I still hope that we can agree on one structure. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Poitiers/Tours

I apologise for my brief appearance: I'm about to go on holiday, but have grabbed a few books off my shelves. Don't all agree. Take them as you will.

Ann Hyland Medieval Warhorse: From Byzantium to the Crusades p. 59

At the battle of Poitiers in 732 Charles Martel's foot put the invading Moorish horse to flight by maintaining a solid mass of infantry against which lightly armed Moors using traditional sting and retreat methods could do little. That Martel forbade his troops to chase after the Moors showed common sense. The relatively few horses of the wealthier leaders were unsuited to the thorough harrying which can deter an enemy from regrouping and this must have accentuated the need for a higher concentration of mounted troops.

David Nicolle Medieval Source Book: Warfare in Western Christendom p. 77

The classic interpretation of Charles Martel's victory over a Muslim raiding force at Poitiers maintains that the Christian Franks allowed their enemy to dash themselves to pieces against a stern but static defensive array. Yet this is probably quite wrong; for the evidence could equally be interpreted as the Franks charging and overrunning the Muslim-Arab camp in a sudden and unexpected asault. There were, in fact, few changes in Carolingian battle tactics over the next two centuries - at least wehn compared to the great development in broader strategy.

Bennet et al Fighting Techniques

(p 19)Few battles are remembered over 1000 years after they are fought, buta n exception is the battle of Poiteirs in 732, where Charles Martel turned back a Muslim raid that, had it been allowed to continue, might have led to the conquest of Gaul. (p 20) The Franks established themselves across the Muslim route back to Spain, in the angle of two rivers at Moussais la Battaille. Although he possessed both infantry and cavalry, Charles dismounted and thus stiffened his infantry. He also avoided his cavalry being drawn out in rash pursuit by the Arabs' feigned flight tactics. The Arab commander Abd'er Rahman attacked, at first exploiting his superior missile capability and then by assault. The men of the North stood firm in their battle line 'like a wall of ice' After a day of desperate assaults the Arabs abandoned their tents and set off for home without their booty. We hear little of infantry in the Frankish Empire, but they certainly did exist, not least because of their role on siege warfare. (p. 71)Despite the success of Charles' infantry at Poitiers, a short time after the battle he began to reorganise his army to provide more heavy cavalry, and to train them to provide an offensive impetus to match the defensive skill of his infantry. Thsi reorganisation continued throughout his reign...The changes are not only seen in increased narrative accounts of heavy cavalry use, but also in the seizure of a large number of church lands by Charles Martel after the battle of Poiteirs, the Frankish mustering of the army from March to May when forage was more readily available to horses, (p 72) and teh replacement of the Saxon tribute payment in cattle to payment in horses. What prompted the tactical shift? Historians once thought that even though the battle of Poitiers was won by Charles Martel, he was very impressed by his opponents' use of horses in battle and thus became determined to reorganise his army to mirror it. That view seems to be countered by evidence that Muslim armies did not fight with large numbers of cavalry until the second half of the eight century, perhaps responding to their encounters with the Frankish armies and not the other way round.

Bradbury, Medieval Warfare. p. 110

Aquitaine under Duke Eudo allied with Martel to halt the advance. The Muslims retreated from Tours and were caught approaching Poitiers. The Franks stood like a wall, their infantry holding Muslim attacks. Abd al-Rahman was killed and his army broke and fled. The sources differ over whether or not there was a pursuit. The effect halted the Islamic threat to Francia and extended Martel's authority in the south. This battle was once seen as the critical moment for turning to the stirrup and cavalry, a view no longer held.

I also have a good 8-page analysis by Carey et al, which I'll need a little time to summarise: about to dash out now. It details quite extensively Frabkish and Moorish use of cavalry in the battle. Sorry to be so brief; hope this helps to start. Bibliographic details can be found at User:Gwinva/Library. Gwinva (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Carey et al Warfare in the Medieval World

(p 42) Abd ar-Rahman's army was not an army of occupation, but rather a large expeditionary force of between 20,000 and 25,000 cavalry, supported by a small contingent of infantry. Teh high percentage of cavalry present indicates a raiding rather than occupying force, rebutting a popular belief that the Muslims were bent on including western Europe in their empire. [...] The Muslim army that marched toward Frankish territory in 732 was a well-armed, disciplined and experienced army of plunderers. Islamic cavalry in teh eigth century comprised both light and heavy units and was relatively lightly armoured and mobile. Heavy lancers balanced by stirrups were not yet common in north Africa so mounted shock combat consisted of charges with sword and light lance. And unlike classical heavy cavalry and their Byzantine counterparts, Muslim heavy cavalrymen were comfortable dismounting and fighting n foot next to their infantry. Light cavalry were also present, using tribal weapons such as javelins and bows as their primary offensive arms. But the famous Islamic horse-archer using the powerful composite short-bow was mostly a product of Islamic conversions of Eurasian steppe nomads, most notably the Seljuk Turks, and was not a decisive factor in this expedition north of the Pyrenees. [details of cavalry tactics follow: can provide if needed]. (p 43) Charles Martel's army [...] total number varies from 30,000 to 80,000, but only 15,000 to 20,000 were actually mounted, and it was this mounted contingent that actually rode toward the Arab forces in early October 732. Most, if not all, of the Frankish nobles and their retainers were mounted, which gave Charles the strategic mobility he required to move from Austrasia to the area near Tours in pursuit of the Muslim army. The Frankish army that faced the Muslim horsemen at Tours was in the process of evolution. It was no longer the purely infantry force that met Narses at Casilinum in 554, nor was it a force that fought from horseback. Charles Martel's army was primarily a force of mounted infantry who dismounted to fight. [...] Martel did possess some heavy cavalry as shock troops, perhaps as many as a few thousand. [various battle tactics, and description of battle, including Frankish horsemen] (p45) He {Martel] understood the strength and weaknesses of his own army, and those of his enemy. On word of teh Muslim expedition, Martel quickly organised and dispatched an intercepting force, mounting it for greater strategic mobility. [...] Unwilling to meet the more experienced Moorish and Berber cavalry on the field, he dismounted his own troops and placed his veterans in the forward ranks of the shield walls, giving his troops the ability to withstand a full day of Muslim cavalry charges. Most importantly, he seized the initiative when he saw the Muslim charge falter on word of a successful Frankish [mounted] attack on the Muslim camp. This decisiveness chanegd the momentum of teh battle and carried the day. The Frankish victory at Tours was also a great strageic victory for Christian Europe, blunting a significant raiding expedition into Southern Gaul. However, (p 47) the victory in itself did not save western Europe from the onslaught of Islam. Charles Martel would face other Muslim raiders in [etc].

All well footnoted, so if you consider anything controversial, I could find the primary source. Sorry I don't have time to interpret (and provide the required sentence!) I shouldn't be here now! At least you have all the information before you. Hope it answers the debate. Gwinva (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As an update, I used the Fighting Techniques reference for pages 19 and 20 to reference the questioned sentence in the article. Since the original sentences was "Muslim invaders travelled north from Spain into France, where they were stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD.", and the sources seem to agree that this is indeed what happened, I just left the wording as it was and added the reference. Dana boomer (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted however that the muslims did penetrate into the carolingian square, and they only retreated when they heard rumors of an attack on their baggage train. That could be the biggest reason why the carolingians became primarily a cavalry force Polish Winged Hussar (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Polish Winged Hussar

Use for transport, train horses

Just for the record, I realize this was removed because I failed to provide a reference, but I am afraid you cannot consider this article in complete unless there is a discussion of military horses used for transport under "Modern uses", "Active military".Fwiiw, here is a web page on the site of the Swiss government documenting the purchase of thirty train horses ni 2007. The legal regulations regarding horses in the Swiss army date to 1999, accessible here (in German). On the same note, the article in the context of early modern warfare needs to link to Tross. --dab (𒁳) 07:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

These are sources about very recent examples. Can you provide information about more ancient use? Under these circumstances an inclusion of tross can be discussed. I can translate the German text, however, if I you pinpoint me what specific sections need translation I would be very grateful. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have yet another thing for the uses or tactics sections? I"m not opposed to adding stuff on a unique modern use if relevant, if someone wants to propose language here, go for it. Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My status...

I'm in the process of moving, so as of this morning, all the horse books are packed up and inaccessable for a few days at the very least. I still have internet and will be weighing in on things as needed, just no sourcing available until the move gets done and the horse books get unpacked. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hussars

This light cavalry formation developed in Central Europe has a separate Wikipedia entry, but here it has been totally ignored. Another interesting question is who brought the stirrups to Europe. This article attributes its spread accross Europe to the Vikings, a people, who carried out most of their raids coming from the sea or sailing down rivers (qv. the RUS). The other population carrying out raids throughout Europe at the time of the Vikings were the Magyars. Their own historians attribute their military successes at the time against the heavier European cavalries to their use of stirrups as well as their mounted archery skills and other nomadic warfare tactics. Some Hungarian historians go so far as to claim that stirrups were invented by ancient Magyars who lived at the time on the plains north of the Caucasian mountains. If not that, then at least they claim that they were the ones who brought the stirrups into Europe in the 9th century.

Eravian (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And we haven't covered the Mongols enough, we are short on archery, we could write a book. If you can find a spot in the Europe section to toss in a wikilink to Hussars, we might be able to do that. As for stirrups, they were invented in Asia and spread to Europe, probably via multiple sources. See also Stirrup, linked from this article! Montanabw^(talk) 02:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I added that one sentence about the hussars because I felt it a bit unfair that other cavalry formations were mentioned, namely the sipahis (spahis) of Turkey, the cossacks of Russia, the cuirassiers and the dragoons. Further down, the Americas section contains a lot of references to actual war events. Similarly a few outstanding events in the history of hussars could theoretically be mentioned. I realize though that this page is primarily about horses and only by way of necessity about cavalry.

In terms of stirrups I will try to find some references. As it may well be known, the current territory of Hungary was the abode in the heart of Europe of a succession of steppe peoples starting with the Huns then the Avars, the Magyars later on the Pechenegs, Cumans and Iaziges. If anywhere in Europe there can be found graves of warriors buried with their horses and horse paraphernalia, it would be in Hungary. Numerous such graves have been found but I do not know the details, I have to do research. At any rate, the statement about the Vikings being first and foremost responsible for the introduction of stirrups into Europe, while it may well be a 100% true, was to me a bit surprising. As was the section about the stirrup controversy. My understanding was that stirrups would offer some military advantage in terms of mobility, horseback-mounted archery etc. but that they would have been a means of major social change is a novel concept.

Eravian (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

the "stirrup" theory of social change is one of those theories of medieval history that hasn't yet been proven or disproven. Likely, there is some truth in it, but it's not the "one true theory that explains everything" either. I think it was Lynn White that proposed it? I can't remember ... Dark Age history isn't my strong suit, honestly. Certainly other theories, if documentable to reliable sources, are welcome. We just need sources for them so that we avoid original research. (Now I'm going to have to dig up my copy of White's work.. it's somewhere in here...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The stirrup article talks about it more than here. It's *A* theory, and an interesting one. I think the source material on it is pretty scholarly, there are some critics of it too. Gwinva may want to weigh in on this, as she's our medievalist, but my main point is that the technology itself originated in Asia, probably DID get to Europe via more than one route, (I was kind of surprised about that Viking stuff myself, I thought the Mongols first hit eastern Europe too...I guess trading by sea versus conquest by land... hmmm) but the bottom line is that whichever place they have, to date, dug the oldest stirrups out of an archaeological site will get the credit...

On the Hussar issue, I'm going to commit sacrilege here, I suspect (grinning). But after reading the Hussars article, I fail to "get" what was so unique about them other than the courage of the people themselves as an ethnic group. This is a sincere question. They weren't the first light cavalry out there, so what was different from the Scythians that lived 1500 years earlier, other than having gunpowder?? I'm not trying to cause trouble and I know from other sources that the Hungarians have an impressive horsemanship tradition, but my point is this: What was UNIQUE about them from all other forms of light cavalry and what distinguished them, in terms of their use of horses, from both nomadic light cavalry (say, for example, the Mongols) and from assorted other forms of light cavalry, like maybe the Australian Light Horse or something? Help me understand how they were unique and special in terms not simply of the humans or their victories (for example, the Romans were successful too, but their contributions to horse warfare were minimal) but in terms of unique horse-based warfare tactics that improved upon older tactics (or revived them, maybe) and what of their innovations spread around the world. And a nice, scholarly source that backs it up! Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 04:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. Just doing a casual Google search turnes up hundreds of articles about Napoleon's Hussars, British Hussars, Prussian Hussars, Danish Hussars, Boliviasn Hussars etc. In some countries like Hungary and Poland they were The cavalry from the 1600-s all the way to the 19th century. As I noted above, I just did not think it completely fair to have mentioned Russian Cossacks, Turkish Spahi (what was special about their horses or horsemanship?) or the emphasis on cuirassiers and totally ignore the Hussars. According to this website: www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspc.com/cavalry_tactics.htm#cavalrycombatintroduction (I hope I got this right)"The Hussars were the most known and popular of all the light cavalry". Mobility and speed were their trade-marks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eravian (talk • contribs) 01:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I get you to add the requested information for your references? I formatted them to fit the rest of the article, but some are missing important information... especially page numbers. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I added these as general references about Hussars and their warfare tactics. I will work on the missing information about publication dates etc. In terms of page numbers it would be good to know which part of the statement needs supporting by specific page numbers. Alternately, the sentence could be rephrased with wording more specifically correlated with actual quotes from my references. Looking closer, I see that this is a very neatly organized article with all the appropriate page numbers etc. and I do not wish to mess it up. Probably the best way to do this would be to dig a bit deeper in my references and coordinate the parts of the statement with specific page numbers from my references. This may take some time though, a bit of patience is requested.

I could not finish my notes above which I started a bit earlier and since it is getting late here, I'll do it some other time.

Eravian (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm still waiting on Montana to get some page numbers into a few other articles, so you'll be in good company... And more detailed information on Hussars, and what separated them from other light calvary would be great. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much just lifted the sentences from the Hussars page. I did this Hussar thing at the suggestion of Montanabw above who responded to my initial criticism. I am having a little trouble with showing that external link (my second reference, from Encarta a respectable encyclopedical source) at the bottom amongst the references. Just as an interesting little experiment - and this is not science, and it does not mean anything, just curiosity - I did Google searches on different terms of different cavalry disciplines and noted the number of hits. "Hussars"=1.09 Million hits; "hussar"=1.9 Million hits; By way of comparison "light cavalry"=302 thousand hits; "Australian light cavalry"=283 hits; "Australian light horse"=66.3 thousand hits; "Cuirassier"=239 thousand hits; "cuirassiers"=401 thousand hits. Of all military formations only Dragoons and Cossack show a similarly large number of Google hits. Isn't it possible that most European light cavalry was actually called Hussars at sometime or other? In terms of comparisons to Mongols I would guess the main differnce is what comes from the historical time difference and how weapons had evolved. Mongols still shot bows and arrows. 18th century Hussars shot carbines and pistols. Wouldn't this require a different temperament and training for the horses as well? It would appear that the age of the Hussar - e.g. fast light cavalry charges against cannon emplacements from the flanks etc. - was associated with the age of front loading firearms (While musketeers or cannoneers reloaded there was a real chance of overrunning them on fast - and brave horses -). By the age of automatic firing weapons - machine guns - Hussars', light cavalries' usefulness was finished.

Eravian (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the Encarta link, but it's a little dubious compared to the other sources we are using in this article. The issue isn't what is a popular form of cavalry in a Google search, it's what people/places/tactics/technology were significant in the use of horses. So, the Hussars appear to be, in part, a full circle back to light cavalry from the heavy cavalry of the mounted medieval knight, so that's significant. The ways they adapted to use of gunpowder may well be significant. But what we need are speifics of their uniqueness backed by good, scholarly sources. This particular article is on a slow road to FA and we have to have be really, really anal. Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have searched through my shelves: no references to Hussars in any book of mine which came to hand. However, Osprey Publishing is the place to go for any specialist military info; best of all, they post a lot of their stuff on Google books. There's Hungarian Hussar, 1756-1815, Napoleon's Hussars and Polish Winged Hussar 1576-1775 which might offer some better info. Haven't time right now to go through them. Gwinva (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Could a Wikilink be threaded into an existing sentence rather than me trying to add a separate little passage? For example in the "Europe, Early Modern period" second paragraph there is a sentence: "Light cavalry continued to play a major role." Could this just list a few light cavalry disciplines? E.g.: "Light cavalry, such as, Hussars, Chasseurs a cheval etc. started to play a bigger role from the 18th century on". This way the separate passage about hussars could be eliminated. The main thing is that Wikipedia has a substantial Hussars page and a link to it would be appropriate, just as Montana originally had suggested.

I found this extremely detailed and authoratative website on the Napoleonic wars, which among many things lists the number of various cavalry regiments. Chasseurs had the greatest number, cuirassiers had 14 regiments at the peak, hussars a few years earlier had 12 regiments.: http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/French_cavalry.html#frenchhussars

Eravian (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tucking in a few more wikilinks, if it can be done gracefully and all that, is fine with me. Maybe give it a try. If it's awkward, I can wordsmith and if it needs citations, we can tag. Ealdgyth can tell you if that web site passes muster or not. See also Horses in the Napoleonic Wars if you want to see if you can swipe yet more sources. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I doubt that site is going to pass muster, as I get this when I click it. I don't have a problem with the solution, just need good sourcing for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the little section about hussars. Put the wikilink into the sentence : "During the early modern period the shift continued ..." etc. The individual Wikipedia pages on light cavalry, Hussars, Chasseurs a cheval etc. explain it all. All questions regarding the specialness or relative importance of the individual light cavalry disciplines can be discussed on their respective pages. I hope this approach now is acceptable. Originally I did not want to change an existing sentence, but now I see this as the best way to accomplish Montana's original instruction: "Throw in a Wikilink into the Europe section". It is funny with the napoleonistyka page. You can get there from Google. But if you just put the same address into your browser's addrees field you get a redirect to the main atspace page. Napoleonistyka apprently cannot be used as a reference by wikipedia. Yet it is a most interesting website with greatly detailed information about all the horses, weaponry, tactics etc. of all the armies of all the participants in the Napoleonic wars. For example as a curtesy to the rest of the world they give all the horse heights in centimeters. as well.

Eravian (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Elegant solution. I tossed in one of the refs from the earlier material to back it up, hope it is the best source to use. Did a little minor wordsmithing. I have some sympathy on the Nepoloenistyka page, I ran across one like that on the Andalusian horse that was very well done and appeared to be quite accurate, but with no sources or footnotes, it couldn't work here. Frustrating, but there you have it.  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 22:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Montana. I will try to do some research on the Avars and stirrups, but that would be for the separate stirrups page. A Hungarian internet source says the earliest equestrian grave with stirrups found in present day Hungary was discovered at Keszthely and it contained coins from the reign of Roman Emperor Gratianus who ruled from 367 to 383AD. I just need to find citeable sources for this. Also, I do not know the exact rules for quoting non English language sources.

Eravian (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

{{WP:CITE]] is the basic handbook and User:Ealdgyth is the guru on citation. Basically, foreign language sources are strongly discouraged, though there are limited instances where they can be used. The stirrup clearly originated in Asia and then came to Europe, so "earliest" grave might be "earliest European grave..." but other than that, just find the best neutral, verifiable sources you can. Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This summer I will be visiting some museums in Hungary where these equestrian grave finds may be exhibited. I will try to get more information there about stirrups and saddles. If I find anything significant I shall report back to you towards the end of the summer.Eravian (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Montana, in the meantime you might want to take a look at Wiki page Treasure of Nagyszentmiklos. The nomadic warrior there rides with no saddle or stirrups yet the horse's harness otherwise is shown in great detail. Just something to muse about.

Eravian (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I found some sources of really high scientific standard regarding the early history of stirrups. I would like to make some minor changes to the Equipment/stirrups section and maybe add these also to the stirrups page.

1. It is now generally agreed that the Avars brought the stirrups into Europe starting in the late sixth and early seventh century. The greatest number of early Avar-age stirrup graves have been found in the Carpathian Basin (present day Hungary and surroundings). (Florin Curta: The Other Europe in the Middle Ages, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, and Cumans pp297-321);(Nic Fields: The Hun: The Scourge of God, 375-565 p.50).

2. The claim that Vikings spread the stirrups into the rest of Europe may be a bit exaggerated. They certainly introduced them to England and parts of Northern Europe, but it already spread to parts of Germany, Northern Italy directly drom the Avars. A map in "Viking Stirrups from England and their background by Wilfred A. Seaby and Paul Woodfield questions whether the Vikings actually had any direct connection to Asia and in fact shows stirrups spreading from southern Germany towards the north into Scandinavia.

3. Eric Christiansen: The Norsemen in the Viking age.: Chapter about horses and horsemanship.: here he writes: A number of graves with stirrups have been found (in Scandinavia) probably those of high ranking individuals, dating from 820 to 890. (I.e. About two hundred years later than the early Avar-age stirrup graves in the Carpathian Basin.)

On the horsemanship of the Vikings he says that the Vikings did not fight as cavalry, they just rode to the battle-field, dismounted and started slashing away.

Christiansen also claims, the Vikings made their raids into England to obtain horses from the more settled populations.

These sources are all recent with a great number of the most detailed scientific refences included.

Eravian (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your argument that the Avars were first with the stirrup, followed by the Vikings has considerable logic to it, particularly when viewed geographically. As for the horsemanship of the Vikings, or lack thereof, not really sure we need a section on every culture in the world that rode horses other than in those areas where they contributed an innovation of some sort. To add this material you've found, here's what we need: FULL CITATION, i.e. look at WP:CITE and give us everything we need to (at least in theory) go find these works and look it up ourselves and verify it. This would include ISBN and page number. If any are in Google books or otherwise online, do provide a URL too. But at least get enough that someone could convince their friendly local librarian to get the book via ILL or something! Montanabw^(talk) 05:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope these minor changes are satisfactory. The question of stirrups in the early middle ages is a serious archeological one, more so than a question of military history. Let us acknowledge poor Avars, they did not survive as a nation but they did leave a great number of stirrup graves. (The Huns did not, there is no evidence that the Huns used stirrups), The Vikings raided parts of Euorope by sea and along rivers of Russia some two hundred years after the settlement of the Avars. Eravian (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit to restore sourced material you inadvertently deleted (big no-no to toss other sources unless they are wrong or actually improved upon) But essentially I like what you added, and you may also want to use the refined version here to further tweak the stirrup article also. Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)