As a lover of horses and historyI couldn’t help noticing long ago that horses have often been used successfully to put down peasant revolts. (The most recent example in England was at Orgreave Colliery.) I often wondered about this. After all, cavalry, while important, did not play a decisive role in most battles between armies. Many other factors came into play.

Three things could normally defeat the cavalry.

1. Other cavalry.
2. Firepower, or archery power.
3. Well-trained infantry: the Roman tortoise, the Saxon shield wall, the 16th and 17th century hedgehog, Wellington’s red squares.

So they were not invincible.
Why did they always seem to defeat the rebellious peasants? They were lucky?

Upon investigation, I soon discovered that the rebels were often undisciplined and poorly led.

• They used to run towards the enemy, especially if they believed they had the advantage in numbers. Running into a mounted enemy never works. The trick is to stand still and attack at the right time. It is impossible to time your sword, spear or ax strike correctly when running. You can’t judge the speed of an approaching horse, while moving too.
• The opposite is not true. A cavalryman is always good at timing his strike against an enemy on foot, either running or standing.
• If you’re on foot, the numbers advantage works best if you stick together. Running almost always means getting out of formation and letting the men on horseback take you down one at a time.

Class war?

• The above point is even more true when you remember that cavalry were almost always professional soldiers or men of the ‘noble’ warrior class. Men who spent most of their time practicing fighting on horseback.
• Peasants were often in part-time forces and their quality varied. They were usually used to being led by their social superiors, who were naturally on the other side when they rebelled.

And this explains why the Bible forbade or discouraged horse ownership (eg Deuteronomy chapter 17 verse 16).

The reason for the rather negative view of horses in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, is believed to be that God did not want Israel’s leaders to employ horsemen or charioteers, because they would use them to oppress the people and because he would be tempted to to participate in unnecessary foreign wars. On the other hand, an infantry made up of local volunteers would be more difficult to use that way. (I don’t think God was against owning horses as such. So there’s no need to feel guilty if you own a horse.)

I learned all this a long time ago. However, one big question continued to bother me for a long time.

Why did the peasants not try to form their own cavalry, even temporarily? It’s okay. They didn’t have horses and they didn’t know how to ride! (Much farm work was done by oxen until the 18th century.) But surely they could have stolen some horses, even if they didn’t have any of their own. And at least some peasants must have been reasonably competent horsemen?

When the answer occurred to me, I was annoyed that I hadn’t thought of it sooner. As so often I find. It is due to a certain physical property of horses.

When horses were the main form of transportation, many people probably rode from town to town, but few would have needed to learn anything advanced. Most beginners find riding at a walk relatively easy, though trotting can be quite uncomfortable until you get used to it. A canter is usually easier, until the horse stops or turns!

People would have found a real difference between basic driving and more advanced stuff if they were involved in a battle, even a skirmish. Tight turns at high speed are difficult. In everyday situations, you would probably go in a straight line, or something like that, most of the time. In battle, maneuverability is usually everything.

The reason horses were so useless to peasants is a result of the way they move.. At a trot, a horse moves diagonally with its feet together. Left front and right rear, and vice versa. At a gallop, a diagonal pair breaks, making a three-beat rhythm: front front leg, diagonal pair, another rear leg. In a circle or curve, the animal will balance better if its front front leg is inside the circle. To mount a figure of eight, you need to change the guide, and therefore the pattern of the other legs, in the middle. This may sound a bit fancy, but wild horses often change direction at a gallop in curves or zig-zags, although many have a favorite direction, such as being right or left handed.

In the past, most people may not have fully understood all of this, but you can do the practice correctly without understanding the theory. Any professional cavalryman would know how and when to mount a change of leader. A peasant would not.

If you try to make a horse make a sharp turn on the wrong leash, there are several ways you could respond:

• ignore the stupid instruction
• make a very wide and gradual turn
• move up to a jog (this can be very unpleasant if you don’t expect it)
• try to change direction and trip or even fall (I have known this to happen)
• make an orderly change (if it is an experienced and agile horse)

You can guess that you would not like any more than the last option. You might find even the last one a bit annoying if you weren’t prepared. If you are wearing any kind of armor and carrying weapons, it is very heavy and is more likely to fall off or cause the horse to stumble. In battle, any mistake can be fatal. You don’t want to grope.

I believe this explains, at least in part, why a handful of trained horsemen could normally defeat many rebellious peasants. Don’t blame the horses!