7 - To Fight on Horse or Foot? Dismounting in the Age of Chivalry

Summary

This article explores the reasons why mounted men-at-arms might dismount to fight, individually or collectively, focusing mainly on the late medieval period. The interface between mounted and dismounted combat is examined together with the factors that led either to success or failure. The grounds for dismounting were varied, but the handling of the horses and concern for their safety remained a continuous thread that impacted on the course of events and frequently decided the outcome of engagements. Although generally associated with English armies of the Hundred Years’ War, dismounting to fight was, in fact, a well-established practice throughout Western Europe. Yet, no matter how courageous or experienced, when those on foot faced cavalry, the outcome could never be certain, hence the deployment of anti-equestrian devices, such as pits, caltrops, and stakes, to try to equal the odds. The most effective defense against cavalry, however, was the judicious use of terrain, particularly hedges and vineyards, and an analysis will be made of how these specific features were utilized. The armor of the period reflected a nation's fighting preferences and in the most successful armies, men-at-arms transitioned easily between being on horseback or on foot and combined well with archers and other arms. The loss of this flexibility caused significant problems, as the English discovered to their cost.

Introduction

The decision to fight on foot or to remain mounted depended upon practical considerations, as well as social, chivalric, national, and traditional norms, which sometimes conflicted with tactical sense. Mounted men-at-arms were essential for certain specific tasks. When acting as coureurs, they scouted ahead of the army and protected its flanks and foragers, engaged in reconnaissance in force, chevauchées, long-distance raids, and feigned retreats. Horsemen could also find and fix enemy infantry formations until their own footmen were brought up, and were essential for a successful pursuit, while the low mobility of infantry made it the natural arm of defense.

Traditionally, cavalry was the arm of the social elite, the equites or chevaliers and, as Jean Giraudoux noted, the most important part of the knight was the horse, which raised the warrior above his subjects, giving testament to his wealth, physical and psychological powers.