Re: [RC] Top five endurance horses-appys - Truman Prevatt
I believe the British also thought it "unsportsman" to kill a horse
during the revolutionary war. Of course the colonial militia were
literally fighting for thier lives as if there were no tomorrow and if
they had lost there probably would not have been. They fought a war of
resistence - using whatever guerilla tactics would work even if mean
not being all that "sporting" (today they would have been called
"terrorist" in the British press but that's a different kettle of fish
).
They were very effective in stifling Cornwallis in the Carolinas giving
George Washington a chance to regroup and the French the time to come
to our aid.
At some point military strategy changed (and for the life of me I can't
put my finger on - although I at one time knew (old age is hell) when
this came about) and the horse was viewed as a military asset and like
all military assets is a valid military target.
Truman
Ed & Wendy Hauser wrote:
If I remember my Medieval history
properly, these type of actions were very effective against the peasant
foot soldiers. The peasants usually ran away. Part of the reason
Henry of England was able to win at Agincourt was that he had trained
his peasant Pikemen how to protect the longbowmen while they showered
the noble knights with arrows. The Pikemen were trained to use the
pikes on the horses. By the way, there were recent History Channel
presentations on both Agincourt and Crece. Recent research would
indicate that the battles were more complicated than most history books
indicate, but I digress into things not endurance related.
Before this time, partly because
horses were so valuable, it was considered unsportsmanlike to try to
kill a war horse. There would always be a peasant back home to replace
those trampled by the noble knights, but horses were hard to come by.
Ed
Ed & Wendy Hauser
2994 Mittower Road
Victor, MT 59875
