Talk:Destrier

Comments on the article

20 to 24 hands tall? Isn't that just a little bit questionable?

Based on general observations of medieval art, the success of the Arab and the Spanish Barb, the conflicts between the Crusading knights and the Muslims, and some reading, I'm thinking the trained warhorse was probably somwhere in the vicinity of 14.5 to 16 hands max, with a bias to the lower end.

Who knows, though? I for one would like to see some archeological evidence and scholarly studies on the matter.

Should articles relating to knights include a few lines to help fight the image of the knight being lifted onto their horse with a crane? The heavy end of armours starts to top out around 80lbs, and throw in that most knights often rode one horse to a battlefield, and mounted another (this is not true for all warriors that fought from horseback, but seems to be common. A massive plow horse aren't needed, the issue of a horses strength being more important for quickly changing direction, shouldering against other horses, and trampling foot soldiers. The amount of force from the horse itself put into the lance in a charge is actually rather minor, (Charging someone while riding a light horse isn't much different in force than from a large one at the same speed, the issue of height however is a factor)--Talroth 02:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Horses back in those times were typically small, probably ranging from about 14 to 16 hands, as was said earlier. The reason for being called "great horses" refers to their powerful athletic build rather than their height. I highly doubt that they were much over 16 hands. A reason thaT these horses were typically small was due to the fact that in those times, feed was harder to come by. But, who really knows? I'm sure that there were large horses as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.0.140 (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read the article, you would see that we settled this particular issue about 9 months ago. And yes, you basically are on the right track, we found source material. Sorry to be a bit terse, but this was a long, tough round of reviewing research to figure it out, especially the problem of separating rumor and myth from what is acually verifiable... Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

As pointed out above, this article is in need of some work. I will weed out the inaccuracies and uncited POV comments, etc, and try and organise some framework. We've got more information across at Talk:Horses in warfare#sandbox for revisions, some of which might be brought across. I hope no one is offended if I seem a bit ruthless in my reoganisation, but even accurate stuff lacks coherency, perhaps because there have been so many editors. Gwinva 12:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been reorganised and (hopefully) corrected now. Other than formatting, I have done nothing with the discussion on cost; I assume it is accurate. Gwinva 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)