# How did horses behave in battle?



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Horses, being herd animals, have flight as their primary survival instinct. 

Training for any cavalry regiment consists of being ridden in pairs, fours and single file so they accept that as routine. 

In a battle situation horses would not be in pairs of fours but much more likely to be in a line with following lines behind. 

Horses do not like treading on something squishy so will avoid it if possible. With many fallen horses and riders there would be trampling because the fallen would not be seen or may be unavoidable. 

Being in a line it becomes a controlled panic, horses will want to stay with their own and would stick together. In that controlled panic they would go forward together regardless of what was in front of them. 

Probably the best one to help you with this is BSMS who has read many many books on cavalry regiments and training.


----------



## HorseResearcher (Feb 27, 2019)

*Explanation*

Thank you for your reply. I should have specified that the incident I am studying is the battle of Greenland Gap (now West Virginia), in which over 1,000 cavalry entered a literal gap between two mountains. This required charging down a path only wide enough for about 2 riders in column, fording a creek, then crossing a space of about one acre, then crossing the creek again to exit the gap on the opposite side. On this acre ware buildings next to the path, including a two-story church and a cabin, from which less than 100 defending troops fired on the attacking cavalry. They turned the charging cavalrymen several times, with the horses turning to the left or right and/or panicking, causing a delay of over 4 hours and several dead cavalrymen and countless dead horses. The cavalrymen eventually had to attack the buildings at night, dismounted, and burn them out or blow them up, in order to get through. It was a sort of Thermopylae, only with horses.

One of the leaders of the cavalry later stated that if only they could have charged in column of fours, and stayed in tight formation, they would have easily and quickly made it through and defeated the defenders. But the path was only wide enough for column of twos.

I find this incident fascinating and am trying to find behavioral reasons (on the part of the horses as well as riders) to explain it. Apparently, both riders and horses were “freaked out” to one degree or another, by horses ahead of them going down, or veering off to one side or turning around on the acre of land, causing mass confusion that broke up the too-loose formation. Only about 200 riders were able to get through at first, out of almost 2,000.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Wha idiotic commander would send cavalry into such a fatal situation?

Very different to what I thought was the usual cavalry charge. 

Horse would spin and turn and bolt in the opposite direction especially if there were a pile of dead bodies, human and Equine, in front of them that they couldn't get through without having to either jump or stand on them. 

In turning and bolting they would panic those coming behind. This would obviously make it much harder for the rider to maintain control let alone use a weapon. 

Animals can smell fear where it is from the same species or another. It would also, I assume put the fear of God into the troopers. 

A bolting horse is different from a runaway horse. The latter is just running away, a bolting horse is practically impossible to stop and is running blind, not seeing rocks, trees or fences in front of it.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Cavalry horses AND men would get very excited. Sometimes that was good. One Civil War vet said a charge was as different from a gallop as a hurricane was from a breeze, with both horses & men mad with excitement. 

"_Custer had grown into manhood during the Civil War, when the frantic, all-or-nothing pace of the cavalry charge came to define his life. "The sense of power and audacity that possess the cavalier, the unity with his steed, both are perfect," remembered one Civil War veteran who attempted to describe what it was like to charge into battle. "The horse is as wild as the man: with glaring eye-balls and red nostrils he rushes frantically forward at the very top of his speed, with huge bounds, as different from the rhythmic precision of the gallop as the sweep of the hurricane is from the rustle of the breeze. *Horse and rider are drunk with excitement, feeling and seeing nothing but the cloud of dust, the scattered flying figures, conscious of only one made desire to reach them, to smite, to smite, to smite!*"_ - "The Last Stand" by Nathaniel Philbrick, pgs 46-47

The Bible mentions it too:
_
Do you give the horse his might?
Do you clothe his neck with a mane?
Do you make him leap like the locust?
His majestic snorting is terrifying.
He paws in the valley and exults in his strength;
he goes out to meet the weapons.
He laughs at fear and is not dismayed;
he does not turn back from the sword.
Upon him rattle the quiver,
the flashing spear, and the javelin.
With fierceness and rage he swallows the ground;
he cannot stand still at the sound of the trumpet.
When the trumpet sounds, he says ‘Aha!’
He smells the battle from afar,
the thunder of the captains, and the shouting._ - Job, Chapter 39

There were many cases of horses bolting and racing mindlessly across battles. At the Little Big Horn, one horse bolted and carried his rider a couple miles, through the big Sioux camp, then turned around and raced all the way back. Amazingly, his rider held on and was reunited with his unit, although a few others were last seen (by whites) headed toward the camp - and THEIR riders were never seen again!

In one battle, Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest's horse was shot multiple times. He switched horses and returned to the battle. The badly injured horse broke free and ran after Forrest, following him for the rest of the battle. My guess is the horse associated "safety" with his rider and followed him in the belief that was the safest thing to do.

In another example, a cavalryman found himself surround by Sioux. He figured he was a dead man. He leaned over and kissed his horse goodbye. As the Sioux closed in, the horse exploded forward, carrying the surprised cavalryman through the Sioux. The horse raced across open country, pursued, and got back to the man's original unit. I'm guessing THAT horse ate well for a long time!

I read an account last night of a battle prior to Cold Harbor. As evening fell, the horses got nervous, The men got nervous. The cycle continued until all heck broke loose, with the horses (and men) running away - from nothing. Made a big mess and humiliated the cavalry unit once it was known nothing was there.

There are endless accounts of how horses tried to avoid stepping on bodies. It wasn't always possible, particularly since sometimes the ground was covered in bodies. But more than one wounded man had hundreds of horses race over where he lay wounded without being stepped on.

Then there was the Charge of the Two Hundred Mules. In the Battle of Wauhatchie (October 28–29, 1863), "_A rumor circulated through the Union camps that Union mules stampeded by the fight had made the Confederates believe they were being attacked by cavalry, causing the Southern retreat; the Union soldiers joked that the mules be "breveted as horses_". - Wiki Grant's aide Porter wrote about it, IIRC, saying Grant actually laughed out loud.

"_‘Geary had been engaged for about three hours against a vastly superior force. The night was so dark that the men could not distinguish one another except by the light of the flashes of their muskets. In the darkness and uproar Hooker’s teamsters became frightened, and deserted their teams. The mules also became frightened, and, breaking loose from their fastenings, stampeded directly towards the enemy. The latter no doubt took this for a charge, and stampeded in turn. By 4 o’clock in the morning the battle had entirely ceased, and our ‘cracker line’ was never afterwards disturbed.’ - _General Ulysses S. Grant, U.S.A., Battles and Leaders, Book 3 Page 690."

The Battle of Wauhatchie, or The Charge Of The Mule Brigade.

The following poem was written at the time as a parody:

Half a mile, half a mile,
Half a mile onward,
Right through the Georgia troops
Broke the two hundred.

"Forward the Mule Brigade!
Charge for the Rebs," they neighed.
Straight for the Georgia troops
Broke the two hundred.

"Forward the Mule Brigade!"
Was there a mule dismayed?
Not when their long ears felt
All their ropes sundered.

Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to make Rebs fly
On! to the Georgia troops
Broke the two hundred.

Mules to the right of them,
Mules to the left of them,
Mules behind them
Pawed, neighed, and thundered.

Breaking their own confines
Breaking through Longstreet's lines
Into the Georgia troops
Stormed the two hundred.

Wild all their eyes did glare,
Whisked all their tails in air
Scattering the chivalry there,
While all the world wondered.

Not a mule back bestraddled,
Yet how they all skedaddled
*Fled every Georgian,
Unsabered, unsaddled,
Scattered and sundered!
How they were routed there
By the two hundred!

Mules to the right of them
Mules to the left of them,
Mules behind them
Pawed, neighed, and thundered;

Followed by hoof and head
Full many a hero fled,
Fain in the last ditch dead,
Back from an ***'s jaw
All that was left of them,
Left by the two hundred.

When can their glory fade?
Oh, what a wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made!
Honor the Mule Brigade,
Long-eared two hundred!​


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

From Porter's account (Campaigning with Grant):


----------



## whisperbaby22 (Jan 25, 2013)

The Last Stand is a fascinating historical account and a great read. The photos are great.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

You want to learn horse behavior but you'll also need to learn the military aspect and the training. Example, horses are taught not to kick, and most horses do not kick unless startled or aggressive.. a military horse may be taught to kick a living target on command. My LIMITED understanding of the civil war era was in the cavalry horses were mostly a means of transportation vs a weapon (as some other cultures used them as) this may be worth looking into as it would effect training and effect how a horse might act about say stepping on someone. Training a horse for battle goes against a lot of their nature and a lot of what "non battle" training is. A horse may be upset but still follow it's training if it has a rider it has faith in. And vice versa.

The most important thing in what you wrote is "panicked" a horse that is truly panicked there is no reasoning with and is 1200lbs of sharp teeth and hooves and muscle with no brain and no reason. Frightened horses can be reasoned with, even if it would slow something down, panicked horses are truly in a blind panic. The more upset/panicked a horse becomes the more blind they become and yes this can include running INTO danger if they feel they need to (and following other horses is instinct NOT a conscious thought.)

As far as specific questions I agree with what Foxhunter said.

ETA- another thought is while I assume the cavalry has minimum standards some people are better horse people then others. One person may be able to control a nervous horse while another may not. I'd imagine any of this type of situation would be at best controlled chaos, and that's assuming things are going WELL.

ETA again- sorry just read your description of the battle. It is interesting if not suprising, I'd imagine it would be very chaotic with cavalry or infantry. One thought is about the creek they needed to ford. I believe we are picturing them charging full speed down a moutainside, however second thought is likely they weren't actually charging, especially if they needed to slow down for a creek and that there was at no point an actual "charge" of a group racing together at full speed and adrenaline going. Adrenaline is a pretty amazing thing.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

A charge rarely started at full speed. Depended on distance and terrain. The Charge of the Light Brigade took 6-8 minutes, one way:








https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade

Typically, the military (being the military) assigned people to various branches with little concern for natural aptitude. Size was important. A typical cavalryman weighed 140-150 lbs because a horse also carried another 100 lbs in gear and feed - not in a charge, but for daily movements. The picture below was taken in World War 1 of British Cavalry:








That obviously was not for fighting, but for moving across country. I posted the quote below on my journal, about Gen Grant and his horses & Civil War time. The statue was one Grant posed for sitting on his favorite horse, so it may be realistic concerning how he rode. It seems similar to wartime sketches of him riding:



bsms said:


> *Ulysses S. Grant and His Horses During and After the Civil War
> *​
> In later years, during the Civil War, Grant's horses were objects of intense public interest. His oldest son, Frederick Dent Grant, tells of the horses Grant owned during the War.
> 
> ...


Porter spent several years riding with Grant daily, and he chose this drawing to illustrate Grant on horseback:


----------



## HorseResearcher (Feb 27, 2019)

Thanks guys, I really appreciate the responses. I spent much of yesterday taking measurements of the actual "battlefield", which is truly tiny. And yes, there is no way the multitude of cavalry could have charged at anything approaching full gallop, as the creek they had to cross, to even get onto the 'island", is approximately 30 feet wide, and requires care to cross. And this under heavy fire from buildings about 150 feet away. One of the buildings stood not 6 feet from the side of the path they would have had to take, after crossing the creek. And the path was about 360 feet from one ford to the next, all of this distance in easy fire range of buildings. After taking a careful look at it, it is obvious this must have been harrowing for both riders and horses. The idea that less than 100 men could have kept over 1000 horsemen at bay and unable to cover a distance of 360 feet, is both amazing but now completely understandable.

The ford was clearly only wide enough for 2 or 3 horses side by side... and same for the path across the patch of land. Does anyone know how long it takes a horse to reach full gallop? The equivalent of asking how long does it take your vehicle to go from 0 to 60? Perhaps the horses would have been at full gallop by the time the reached the side of the main building, about 150 feet away. Is 150 feet sufficient to reach full gallop? Of course, they would have had to have come to a full stop again to ford the 'exit' ford, about 200 feet later.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I'm pretty sure my spooky Arabian mare could hit a full gallop in a stride. Maybe not a FULL gallop...but it takes very little time for a horse to hit high gear! She'd spook, do a 180 turn & beat it the heck out of Dodge on a 6' wide trail between cactus. Hanging on was MY problem...and she was bred for straight line speed & endurance.


----------



## jgnmoose (May 27, 2015)

It seems unlikely to me that cavalries used a "full gallop" as a default speed in a charge. An fast lope is plenty fast especially in close against opponents on foot or even another rider. 

In the context of the Civil War in the American South I can see a full speed charge only to close a large open distance against artillery. More speed the better. Coming in from a much shorter distance concealed by tree lines on the enemy's flank or rear would make a whole lot more sense, and I'm guessing was what usually happened. 

Another problem I see with it is that it is very hard on a horse's canon bones to go that hard. They can build up tolerance to that like a race horse does and would have certainly been in top physical condition to have the air for it, but going 100% for just a little too long will cost you later. I could see managing soreness/lameness being a very real part of it.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

almost any cavalry charge I've ever seen depicted in film, or read about in print, has the horses in line, side by side, in much larger numbers than just 2 abreast. 



what a sad episode of history.


I enjoyed reading about General Grant. I read the very extenstive biography of him, and it did go into detail about how adept at horsemanship he was, and how he and Pres. Lincoln rode out together, and that though Lincoln looked gangly on a horse, he was a respectable horseman (not like Grant, who was a centaur)


----------



## HorseResearcher (Feb 27, 2019)

Thank you for that. Evidently it would be no problem for the riders to have gotten their horses up to a good speed, therefore making themselves less vulnerable to fire, though it would be difficult to avoid some casualties when being shot at from only a few feet away! 
I want to attach photos I took of the gap and ford but I don't know how.


----------



## rmissildine (Feb 1, 2019)

HorseResearcher,
If you want to post pictures, look at the bottom of the "quick reply" box. You'll see "Go Advanced" Click on that, another page will come up with only the text box. Up at the top, look for the "paper clip", click on that and you'll be able to browse for files on your device to upload.
I for one would love to see the pictures..


Roger


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Length of time to reach full gallop WITH A WILLING HORSE AND RIDER is still extremely dependent on the horse and rider and training...extremely. Add multiple people to that mix and it makes it more difficult. I doubt at any point there was a "full gallop" or anything that could be considered an actual "charge" (military terminology excluded... horses at a slow canter/trot simply are not charging.) That said with proper training and riding most horses can go "fast" pretty quickly. I'd imagine they trotted or cantered to the stream (medium speed) carefully crossed, got attacked, then had people trying to carefully ford a creek with all hell breaking loose on the otherside and the people on the otherside being in complete chaos and either trying to fight or get away. They could proceed but surely they would also want to attack the people right there too. It's not like they're going to regroup and ride on while ignoring the heavy fire right there.

Agree it was a very advantageous position for the confederates/villagers? And horribly planned on the other side.

Super cool that you're able to look into it in person and "see" history happening. As a suspect creek can mean something you can jump over- or something very treacherous.


----------



## HorseResearcher (Feb 27, 2019)

*Photos*

Thanks for the explanation on posting photos! Here is one of the gap itself from a distance which I took with a drone. You can see how ridiculously narrow the area is. And the second is of the ford they (Virginia Cavalry) had to cross, while under fire from Union troops between 85 and 150 feet away. I think it's easy to see how keeping a tight formation would have been extremely difficult and why so many horses went down.

Am writing an article on the battle and I want to fully understand the basics of horse psychology at least in this narrow episode, and I appreciate all your comments which are very helpful. Am also working on a simulation, and in order to do that convincingly, the horses must behave as they would in real life.

Incidentally my ancestors served in a Virginia cavalry regiment (CSA), though not at all connected to this battle. I'm really considering taking some riding lessons just to experience a taste of what they went through.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Thank you for sharing! First of all-I got my sides mixed up...oops! but a creek like that would definitely be slow going. Horses legs are extremely fragile and something like that likely has extremely treacherous footing. Your horse is useless if it breaks a leg. Ideally you would only cross that at a very slow walk. It's possible they lost horses at the crossing maybe? Between being rushed and being under fire. A horse going faster doesn't mean it's necessarily harder to shoot at, a horse is a big target and especially in a straight line (towards or away) the speed doesn't really matter, there's no evasion if going quickly either. Of course speed HELPS I just think wouldn't put too much emphasis on it. They were probably sitting ducks and there was lots of panic and confusion and it was unlikely they were able to simply "run away"- if a horse is upset it can be very difficult to get them to go forward. If they're rearing and spinning it's hard to put a stop to that especially in a situation that continues to cause confusion. It's also possible (though hard to say with the info given) that some horses may have been trying to go back over the creek to "safety" and even if the rider can keep control it can be very hard to convince them to go the opposite way. There was likely a lot of milling around in circles, and it probably got worse not better for a time as casualties accumulated. And horses are BIG a fallen horse isn't simply a matter of stepping on them to get by like it would be for a human.

Take some lessons!! It would be cool, definitely woudln't hurt. You may find you have a passion for it! Also, even if it doesn't help in terms of behavior it may give you some more ideas just being around their size and such (the horses were likely small back then say 14hh maybe smaller while the average these days is more 15-16hh (1 hand high = 4 inches). Even a horse that size is still a formidable animal. Heck my little pony is 750 pounds!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Posting this because cavalry horses were trained to do things a lot of horses would not be very happy about doing:
























The guys who rode them had their own somewhat warped ideas about risk:








Also remember that in war, horses died. ALL the time. Many riders had multiple horses shot out from under them. The Italian cavalryman doing the steep drop (15-20') in the photo above was showing he & his horse had the nerve to do it. It was eventually stopped because of the number of horses killed (and riders injured) doing it. During the Boer War, the average British horse lasted 6 weeks before dying. The Civil War wasn't that hard on horses, but they died in the uncounted tens of thousands - just as the men did!

The US Cavalry considered 15 hands and 1000 lbs ideal. The British Cavalry wanted a slightly larger horse - closer to 16 hands and 1100 lbs, IIRC. Cavalries wanted very similar sized horses because, for example, they bought one saddle type for every horse in the Civil War. Many men bought their own saddles if they could, but most used the standard issue one. One size fits all, which meant the horses needed to be close to a standard size.


----------



## Cordillera Cowboy (Jun 6, 2014)

Lots of good info in the comments. My own experience is with US Indian Wars era cavalry with the only active duty horse mounted cavalry unit still in the US Army. That was drill and ceremony, along with mounted weapons demonstrations, including cavalry charges. Thankfully, not in combat. 


What has been described above concerning the behavior of cavalry horses in relation to their training is accurate. We trained new horses, as well as new troopers by placing them in the middle of the formation, stirrup to stirrup, until herd instinct, and routine took over. Our horses often knew better than the riders where they were supposed to go in changing from one formation to another. Even when a trooper got dumped, we never had to chase after the horse. They stayed with the formation. My own primary mount would have charged a freight train, had I asked. Our one experience with a ''force on force'', charging against an opposing force (firing blank loads) was during a Civil War reenactment. 


We formed on line in the woods, hidden from view, ready to break out into a full charge when the command came. Our horses stood calmly during the artillery duel, and the back and forth of infantry tactics. At the command, we broke out of the woods at what I would call a hand gallop. The horses wanted to go full out, but the distance was short, and we had to make sure we didn't actually run over any of the opposing forces. We passed through their lines, shouting and shooting, as the old Marty Robins song goes. We wheeled left and right about, and passed through again from the rear. The horses took it as just another day at work. I could go on and on about how trained cavalry horses behave. 


Depending on how late in the war the battle you are studying took place, the cavalry involved may or may not have had a full contingent of trained horses. As described above, the supply of horses is depleted during a campaign. This, due to both death of horses in battle, and horses being worn out from the exertions of the march and the heavy loads. 


I can't quote chapter and verse, as BSMS has, but there are accounts of Tarleton's Legions in Virginia, during the American Revolution. The stragglers of the British cavalry was made up of troopers who had lost their mounts. They carried their saddles, hustling after the main body. When the troop reached a plantation, new horses were "procured''. The first arrivals got first pick. The stragglers got what was left over. It is unlikely any of the new horses had any cavalry training, or exposure to gunfire. 


Add to that the thing I never experienced, the carnage of men and horses falling in front of the following ranks. In the narrow lane that you described, it is easy to see horses, not fully trained, panicking and bolting away from the formation. Or even trained horses going to the side looking for a way around the tangled piles of dead and wounded blocking the lane. 


Hope that helps some.


----------



## whisperbaby22 (Jan 25, 2013)

Thanks for writing about this, because we know what happens to those who do not study history.


----------



## Greymark (Nov 16, 2016)

I have found this thread fascinating, thanks especially to bsms. Jumping in so I get notifications on this.


----------



## Alder (Feb 15, 2017)

Me too.


----------

