Encumbrance of a horse

[safisher]

Shocking little is known about the conformation and breeding of medieval war horses. Size and breeding are conjecture as records are no help and the existing breeds are not continuous pure bloodlines back to the middle ages. Excavations of horse skeletons are somewhat more informative, but also scarce and show no real uniformity (plus, you can only tell purpose of the horse from its skeleton with careful qualifications). The best evidence is from equestrian statues and so forth. Horse barding is a scarce artifact, and we have no way of knowing if that armor is representative of the breeds the warriors actually rode. Judging from 18-19th century cavalry manuals, a good battle horse could be 900-1100 pounds, and about 15-16h. A heavily muscled American Quarter Horse today will be 15-16h and perhaps 1300 to even 1500 pounds.

I grew up on a horse farm and have ridden, broken, and trained horses all my life. My guess is that in reality, medieval horse confirmation was highly erratic. Horses are not machines -- yes breeding matters a lot, but given the desperate need for horses during some of the campaigns, I suspect you could find just about any kind of "warhorse" on the battlefield. Based on my observations of working horses, anything from 14h to 17h and 800-1700 lbs. could be a functional mount. What matters more than size alone is strength and endurance, demeanor, and soundness. You can't tell this from size alone. My father has been asked to watch videos and look at pictures to appraise the value of a horse. He will tell you, as most horsemen will, that you have to see the horse in person, ride it, and then you can judge its fitness level, personality, and so forth. Horses are so variable its almost impossible to believe they could have bred them consistently from region to region. You need good sires, but also good mares, and new blood to strengthen the line. The best ones WOULD be valuable, and WOULD demand a large sum.

I'd use the ST rating necessary to carry the load. ST in GURPS is not directly related to size anyway. Basic Set stats are probably a little off in terms of weight to ST and use classic "fantasy" horse categories anyway. Medieval descriptions of horses are not uniform, and even when they try to be the descriptions are lacking. It's a real effort in futility to try and make that a mechanical, internally consistent system when it surely was (and is!) not. (I know modern horse trader speak very well, mind.) What's needed is a good Pyramid article or E23 book on warhorses.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by safisher

I'd use the ST rating necessary to carry the load. ST in GURPS is not directly related to size anyway. Basic Set stats are probably a little off in terms of weight to ST and use classic "fantasy" horse categories anyway. Medieval descriptions of horses are not uniform, and even when they try to be the descriptions are lacking. It's a real effort in futility to try and make that a mechanical, internally consistent system when it surely was (and is!) not. (I know modern horse trader speak very well, mind.) What's needed is a good Pyramid article or E23 book on warhorses.

Out of curiosity, have you seen this thread about Medieval horses? If so, care to comment on whether it fills the gap left by the Basic Set on this subject?

[safisher]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Out of curiosity, have you seen this thread about Medieval horses? If so, care to comment on whether it fills the gap left by the Basic Set on this subject?

This one, or something like it (I seem to recall another thread) are fine. The main thing is to make horses as varied as people. I'm not enamored with the categories, but that's simply because to the uninitiated they give the impression that horses were rigidly characterized, like models of cars -- which they weren't. Still, this is a very good post.

[Ultraviolet]

Also remember that per RAW no horse will carry more than Medium Enc.

In our 'Song of Ice and Fire' campaign we han troubles with the horses being sloooow. After we started using armour weights from Low Tech instead of guesstimating them from Basic Set (not all locations are covered here), AND we gave all horses Lifting ST equal to 30% of ST things looked a lot better.
But they still get distanced by the guy holding the 100m world record!

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

In our 'Song of Ice and Fire' campaign we han troubles with the horses being sloooow. After we started using armour weights from Low Tech instead of guesstimating them from Basic Set (not all locations are covered here), AND we gave all horses Lifting ST equal to 30% of ST things looked a lot better.
But they still get distanced by the guy holding the 100m world record!

Is that so unreasonable? Human record holders over moderate distances are around 28 mph, which is a decent speed for a galloping horse, and 65% of the current quarter mile track racehorse record of 43.1 mph. Humans are actually pretty good runners.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Is that so unreasonable? Human record holders over moderate distances are around 28 mph.

Um. Looking at world records:
100m: 9.58s (10.43 m/s, 23 mph)
200m: 19.19s (10.42 m/s, 23 mph)
400m: 43.18s (9.26 m/s, 21 mph)
4x100m: 37.1s (24.12 m/s, 24 mph)

[mhd]

Wasn't there a human winner of that horse vs man marathon in Wales once?

[Danukian]

Originally Posted by mhd

Wasn't there a human winner of that horse vs man marathon in Wales once?

Yes, it's an annual race, so far: Man 1, Horse 25....

[safisher]

Originally Posted by mhd

Wasn't there a human winner of that horse vs man marathon in Wales once?

The question is really whether the human is as encumbered as the horse. Humans will push themselves father and harder than a horse. A really fit horse (and human rider) can just about keep up with the best human runners, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion. Both competitors will get over 100 miles in a day, but that's including vet checks for the horse and rider in modern competitions, which take time. I seem to recall the best teams getting 100 miles in 7-8 hours. And while humans can cover amazing mileage in a day, I don't think they can do 100 miles in 7-8 hours. In any event, it's not at all surprising that humans on foot could beat mounted men in armor, no matter the rules (or the horse involved). Now, if the riders switched horses every 10-20 miles, and had a string of horses to ride, they should be able to outdistance the runners.

[ClayDowling]

Don't worry about the fact that the best humans outrun average horses. We're quick when we need to be. In the aggregate, the horse will be faster, but there are cultural traditions of humans who ran with horses.

Before referring to the Irishman as a bog trotter, keep in mind that he may have earned that name. You should be confident in the speed of your horse first.