11th C horses.

Well, I'm reading Thomas Asbridges, "The First Crusade".

Quote:

---

In the eleventh century, warhorses were, by modern standars, quite small, perhaps on average twelve hands in height, what would today be classified as little more than a pony.

---

This smacks a little of all those theories that medieval knights rarely topped 4-5', based on all those pretty three-quarter sized exhibition suits of armour.
I mean twelve hands! I'd crush the damn thing if I sat on that and I'm not all that tall. And if that's a warhorse from the first crusade, it's probably a Dardenne since they're the largest horses in the region which most of the Crusaders came from.
Considering most Knights also had a smaller horse that they actually travelled on, that means the second horse was what, 9-10 hands?

Any ideas?

Well Ann Hyland has a different opinion and talks of 14-15 hands based on horseshoes and bones found as well as iconographic evidence. (The Medieval Warhorse)


CBR

I'm going to see if I can find it in a library. Found another book, The Medieval Warhorse: Origin, Development and Redevelopment: Davis, R.H.C.

Apparently it goes into more veterinary detail than Hylands and is particularly detailed on the Normans around 1050 and the Corolingians around Charlemagnes time, the Norman bit being what I'm interested in.

Seems the topic is too specialist for the internet, most of the stuff I've found is too vague.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction CBR

lugh

I agree that it does not seem to add up. Based on surviving skeletons the Classical Greeks (circs 4th century BC) had horses that averaged 13 hands high, and those were considered unsuitable for serving as the mount for a fully armored Persian (etc.) cataphract. So after 1500 years of breeding heavily armored cavalry were riding horses only marginally larger than classical Greek horses that were considered largely unsuitable for the roll?

It could have been bulkier, that would explain why it could carry a heavy load and why the bones and shoes might appear larger?

In any case I'm not on who is in favour of the small horse theory. I mean the Vikings had a strong little horse (the current Icelandic horse, hasn't changed since then), but it was considered a runt by the Carolingians and so on. And it was hardly any bigger (or smaller) than those horses mentioned. So one would ask, which horses did the Normans then change to since their own horses were not good enough (back when they were Vikings)?
The Viking horse was strong and hardy, and could even run in five different steps, compared to the three of the normal horses. Why would they exchange that for a beast that was not as hardy, only possibly as strong and was less versatile? Makes no sense at all... The European horses must have been bigger than the Viking/Icelandic horses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

It could have been bulkier, that would explain why it could carry a heavy load and why the bones and shoes might appear larger?

---

Well Im no equine expert so I have to trust Ann Hyland in her judgement. AFAIK you can measure human height by the thigh bone pretty accurately, so I guess the same goes for horses if you have a good idea of what breed it is. And same for hoove size.

She considers a typical crusader warhorse to be around 15-15.2 hands and weighing 1200-1300 pounds. Turkmene horses of around same height but 800-900 pounds and Arabians of under 15 hands and 700-800 pounds.


CBR

Sounds reasonable...

I remember from Terry Jones' The Crusades, they showed a typical medieval charger, which was quite short, had thick legs and a broad back.

Steppe people rode on true ponies, though the heavier armor carriers were bred with other animals. So that itself isn't that nuts...

Well, according to certain sources I've read, the Parthian horse was famously strong and large. Seeing as they were made to carry a heavier load than a destrier was supposed to (Parthian and Sassanid cataphracts also having horse armor), but only charged at an ambling pace, I would find it strange if the destrier (required to charge at a gallop) was smaller than this horse.

Besides that, here in the Netherlands, we still have a horse which seems to have descended from the destrier kind. The Friesian horse is a huge horse, so...

I was thinking the Ardenne heavy horse, I read that travel book, where the author rode all the way from the castle of Godfrey of Bouillion to Jerusalaem. That's what got me interested in the whole period. It's a good book if anyone ever sees it, Tim Severin I think wrote it.
So I've always had an image of these brutes, minimum 17 hands and then am told 12 hands?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardennes_%28horse%29
The articel mentions arabian blood coming into European lines with the invasion of Iberia. Presumably the horses the Vikings cum Normans found in France and the Low countries were already far superior to their mountain-horses.

We have a similar horse in Denmark called the Jute. I don't know if it is similar to the Brabant or the Ardenne (14 to 16 hands is not that big really) in size, but I can tell you it is absolutely massive. It was use in similar fashion as those two breeds, but it becmae famous for its work at Carlsberg Brewery as Brewer Horses, dragging the beer carts around town. The brewery to this day still has its own breed, stables and all that as a :bow: to the work the horse gave.

The Jute is generally chestnut or brown with white 'shoes', and it is believed to have derived from the great warhorses (as their use for war declined it was found that the agriculture was a great place to put them).

The Icelandic Horse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_horse

I would image that most if not all the horses used for War during this time period to carry knights and warriors in heavy armor were more in line with the breeds of horses that are considered Draft Horses. Large Feed and thick bones to hold a strong muscle frame capable of taking loads of wieght.

A 12-13 hand horse back when people were near or less then 5 foot tall would be a big horse. A 14 hand horse would be a Huge beast to get on the back of...

Selective Breeding and better supplies of food have increased the sizes of horses - just like men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I would image that most if not all the horses used for War during this time period to carry knights and warriors in heavy armor were more in line with the breeds of horses that are considered Draft Horses. Large Feed and thick bones to hold a strong muscle frame capable of taking loads of wieght.

A 12-13 hand horse back when people were near or less then 5 foot tall would be a big horse. A 14 hand horse would be a Huge beast to get on the back of...

Selective Breeding and better supplies of food have increased the sizes of horses - just like men.

---

This is actually a popular misconception about the mounts used by most knights, especially for the period we're discussing.

It turns out that most knights actually preferred the moderate sized breeds, especially those from areas like Spain. The main reason being that those breeds were faster and could change direction quite rapidly in less time and over a much shorter distance. Draft horses may be larger and more powerful but they require too much management and planning on the part of the rider to maneuver properly in combat. Larger draft horses are also less comfortable to ride with their wider frame and heavier impact on the ground. The ill effects on a rider's spine are more pronounced with the larger breeds. Late era knights only rode these large, specialized breeds in combat and used a normal sized horse for all other functions. A moderate sized horse can handle the weight of a heavily armored rider just fine so long as it is not overworked in combat (i.e. run all over creation like light horse would when engaged in skirmishing and harrassment activity).

One thing for sure is that use of the larger, draft breeds was probably more widespread in the 'Late Era' when large amounts of lamellar, chain and especially plate armor were used to protect the horse.

On an aside I know some knights also preferred certain Spanish breeds because of the added bonus of them giving the appearance of being proud and confident thanks to unusually high position and movement of their head when walking or galloping. At first glance it seems as if the rider is forcing the horse to rear its head back but it's a peculiarity of the breed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

This is actually a popular misconception about the mounts used by most knights, especially for the period we're discussing.

It turns out that most knights actually preferred the moderate sized breeds, especially those from areas like Spain. The main reason being that those breeds were faster and could change direction quite rapidly in less time and over a much shorter distance. Draft horses may be larger and more powerful but they require too much management and planning on the part of the rider to maneuver properly in combat. Larger draft horses are also less comfortable to ride with their wider frame and heavier impact on the ground. The ill effects on a rider's spine are more pronounced with the larger breeds. Late era knights only rode these large, specialized breeds in combat and used a normal sized horse for all other functions. A moderate sized horse can handle the weight of a heavily armored rider just fine so long as it is not overworked in combat (i.e. run all over creation like light horse would when engaged in skirmishing and harrassment activity).

One thing for sure is that use of the larger, draft breeds was probably more widespread in the 'Late Era' when large amounts of lamellar, chain and especially plate armor were used to protect the horse.

On an aside I know some knights also preferred certain Spanish breeds because of the added bonus of them giving the appearance of being proud and confident thanks to unusually high position and movement of their head when walking or galloping. At first glance it seems as if the rider is forcing the horse to rear its head back but it's a peculiarity of the breed.

---

Considering that the Spanish Bred of horses can be seen all over the Western United States as wild horses - durable, fast, medium sized at appoximately 13 hands on average. You might be correct.

From assorted sources one gets the impression even rather small horses - like the steppe ponies - had no particular difficulty carrying a rider in mail armour. Assorted sources also tend to point out that pony-mounted nomads tended to be severely out-matched in mounts if and when engaging in close combat against the larger, stronger, grain-fed warhorses "civilized" cavalry rode; but then again the nomads were primarily skirmishing horse-archers who entered melee opportunistically, true shock action being the job of their heavy-cavalry elite troops (who rode larger breeds partly to cope with the weight of the barding).

Given that knights were pure close-combat shock cavalry, and before long fairly heavily equipped sort at that, it is dubious if they'd have settled to very small horses for battle mounts if they had any options. Height and mass (in moderation) have their rather obvious advantages in melee combat, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

back when people were near or less then 5 foot tall would be a big horse.

---

Sure but as it happens the knights and other wellfed people perhaps somewhat shorter than us, meaning some 5 foot 6 inches, but they would be much larger than the lousy fed peasant, which not surprisingly is the type that we have the most remains of (if you look at the caskets in medieval cathedrals you will note that the nobility tended to be fairly normal in height compared to us). In the royal cathedral in Roskilde here in Denmark we have a collumn where the kings had a notch made at their height. Most were a bit smaller than the average male today (about 5 foot 11 inches) but one towered above not only his peers but also most males today (over two meters), and he was from the even more diminutive 1500s.

So 13 hands would be too small. Again I mention the Icelandic horse. It is currently between 13 and 14 hands and has grown about a hand. It is extremely hardy and strong for its size and has a superior gait when it comes to stability... Why on Earth would mounted warriors abandon this quality horse for a horse that was no stronger, no taller and significantly less hardy (besides the Icelandic horse is by nature an evil fellow to those it dislikes, prefers to attack you to run away).

As mentioned a taller position will grant an advantage in melee between cavalry, and here the taller horses of course get an advantage. Smaller and more nimble would be better for skirmishing cavalry, but should they get caught by the taller horsed cavalry they would be in serious trouble. So I wonder why this advantage is mentioned when the knights rode horses that were no taller than the steppe ponies, and in fact smaller than the Arabic and Turkic mounts. Those people also had melee cavalry which were good and had perhaps even taller horses, but then the question comes how the knight defeated them on equal terms or even when outnumbered, it wasn't as if they were equipped that much better (and apparently worse in regards to horses).

Quote:

---

Those people also had melee cavalry which were good and had perhaps even taller horses, but then the question comes how the knight defeated them on equal terms or even when outnumbered, it wasn't as if they were equipped that much better (and apparently worse in regards to horses).

---

Massed lance charge. It took some time before anyone else's heavy cavalry (or for that matter, infantry) became used to that, and until then it gave the "Franks" a pretty serious advantage in the initial collision. Even after they became used to it, trying to avoid overmuch exposure to that terrible shock impact tended to be among the chief tactical concerns of anyone facing them. Skirmishing horse-archers usually made a pretty good screen if deployed correctly, but not everyone had access to the prequisite horse herds (the Mongols famously considered 18 mounts per trooper a good number to start a campaign with...); "civilized" HAs - say, Byzantine, Russian or Mamluk - for example could not indulge in such mount-tiring tactics.

It's not like cavalry hadn't near-universally known the basic trick behind the couched charge since God knows when, but the European heavies came to specialize in the technique to a fairly unrivaled degree. They still occasionally lost even straight head-on clashes where they could employ it to the full effect, though. So it goes.

I've incidentally also read that one reason feudal cavalry never became as important in most of Scandinavia as in rest of Europe was bluntly that the local horse stock was rather ill-suited for heavy cavalry duties, and hence the men-at-arms had to mainly rely on imports (which jacked the already high price up even more, and most of the region wasn't exactly prosperous...). And when the Swedish entered the Thirty Years' War, one of the things they did ASAP was to swap their native horses to rather more battleworthy German breeds; the same would apparently happen later on in the Polish adventure of Carolus X.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

The Jute is generally chestnut or brown with white 'shoes', and it is believed to have derived from the great warhorses (as their use for war declined it was found that the agriculture was a great place to put them).

The Icelandic Horse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_horse

---

I don't know... such a big horse, a 'body-builder amongst horses' so to say -- meaning bulky, wide-backed, not agile -- wouldn't really seem to me a war horse. The Friesian, on the other hand, is more nimble and faster, made as it is for galloping secu jumping, not exerting slowly released power on a heavy object. Compare it to the difference between tennis-trained arm muscles and fitness-trained arm muscles: the tennis-trained once are less obviously 'strong', but about twenty times as efficient in the size-strength ratio than the fitness-trained muscles.

Pure muscle mass tends to just get in the way, by what I hear. For combat purposes you want lean, mean and trim whipcord, not beefcake.

This would seem to apply to animals as well (look at any large carnivore), and by extension also war mounts. By what I've read warhorses needed to be agile and responsive, not towering mountains of muscle; those are heavy laborers, not fighters.

It's really probably the sort of equation you also get with tanks - you ned to find a good working balance between speed and power, and overemphasizing one thing at the expense of other aspects tends to backfire sooner or later...

Well the Jute has been domesticated a lot over time perfecting it for pulling ploughs, in that case stronger = better in basically every regard.

Incidentally I met a few of the Brewer horses today... I haven't seen them for years, then suddenly a cart was rolling by drawn by two of these. They weren't that big really... Wide and stronglooking but nothing like that Brabant, I guess they just seemed huge when I was a child. In fact it looked a whole lot like the Ardennes, and their 'shoes' weren't white but light brown (a bit lighter than their general colour), but they did have a white 'star' on the forehead. They were out of shape though... ~:rolleyes:

A leaner version of this horse would be hugely strong and able to carry a heavy load on its back, while still being acceptably nimble. It would lack speed though. But that doesn't seem too far from the knights' horses.
Remember kngihts weren't used to roam a massive battlefield for hours. Yes they would be there for hours, but they would not go all over the place like horse archers and eastern light cavalry. The European open spaces were rather small, and as such a fast and nimble horse would not be able to deploy it's main advantages as it would be hemmed in, which is why the shock cavalry became heavy and powerful (little other way to use cavalry effectively in Europe). Take note that the Hungarians retained their relatively light cavalry and the Russians also tended to steer that way. Not surprisingly they lived in areas that were very open.

The Turks and Arabs had experienced massed lance charges before, and actually been able to meet them to a degree, victory was not certain by a longshot, but they could meet them head on. Here I'm talking about the Byzantine and Khazar heavy cavalries. Sure we remember Manzikert where the avoidance won, but that was just the perfect battle for them, which is partly why we remember it so good.

Well, you gotta realize that the horse wasn't really required to carry all that heavy a load. The weight of a man decked out in full plate armor wasn't all that much more than one in a Norman coat of mail.

I'd say your typical destrier would carry a man of some eighty to one hundred and twenty kilograms (I'd say that's on average, the latter weight being a knight large by today's standards). Add to that the armor -- which weighed less than a soldier's pack nowadays -- and you get to a maximum of some one hundred and forty or so kilograms, and a minimum of some one hundred, one hundred and ten kilograms.

Now, how much does a fifteen-hand horse like the Friesian weigh? Two hundred, three hundred kilograms? More? Add its weight to its inherent strength and I'd say it would only have to carry something that felt like a quarter or a third of its weight around on the battle field, and I'm thinking that's a generous estimate.

So, no, I don't think these big work horses were war horses. They don't even gallop all that fast (take the Belgian for instance), being so bulky. And speed was an important part of the couched lance charge. If anything, these horses were stronger, faster and had more endurance than any step mount (hence the known fact that every Mongol had four to five horse with him).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

So, no, I don't think these big work horses were war horses. They don't even gallop all that fast (take the Belgian for instance), being so bulky. And speed was an important part of the couched lance charge. If anything, these horses were stronger, faster and had more endurance than any step mount (hence the known fact that every Mongol had four to five horse with him).

---

Oh the stepp mounts had lots of endurance - the reason the Mongols had four to five of them is because they often moved at a fast pace - horses can only cover so much ground at a run or canter with weight. To move faster then their enemies could possibly plan on - the Mongols would switch horses - giving the loaded horse a breather from the weight - all this while moving at a pace that if you had just one horse it would kill the horse and leave the rider on the ground - as an infantry soldier with no experience fighting on the ground.

So with 4-5 horses moving at different speeds walk, trot, canter, and run - the mongols moved - allowing a horse to walk provides it sufficent rest for the type of warfare the Mongols practiced - all this allowed the Mongols to move faster, farther, and with horses that could function in battle - then what they could of done with one horse.

I know this. Just realize that the steppe pony is smaller and therefore less strong and physically capable than, for instance, a Friesian.

Still, even a horse like the Friesian can't keep charging all day up for a long while. As a result, knights had three mounts, not one.

"Civilized" cavalry tended to have one horse for battle and another for getting into the battle; no point in tiring the warhorse until necessary, after all. Plus pack horses, but those weren't good for much else. AFAIK only rather rich/well equipped types could afford spare war-mounts. Nomads normally had so many remounts they could afford to tire a few by galloping all over the place shooting arrows, switching to a fresh pony once one tired. "Settled" forces were by necessity more static; they had to judge how to most effectively expend the energy reserves of their few horses. The Egyptian Mamluks (or for that matter the earlier Faris freeman professionals, who fought in the same manner) illustrate the point perfectly. Regardless of the nigh invariably nomadic (Turkic) origin of the slave-soldiers, they did not employ the nomadic swarming skirmish tactics - for the simple reason their horse base was "settled". Their horse-archery was of the much more static sort characteristic of "settled" mounted archers since God knows when, preferring to fire standing still (which improved accuracy in any case) and maneuvering far more like normal cavalry, not delivering endless hit-and-run attacks from clouds of skirmishing light horse like the nomads characteristically did.

That's simple economics really. Settled folk simply could not keep a huge horde of ponies roaming around the way the steppe nomads did (heck, those guys based about *everything* on their herd beasts anyway), not in the least simply because suitable grassland is geographically limited. To understand *how* limited, remember that every single nomad people who settled on the Great Hungarian Plain (which is in practice the westernmost tip of the Great Eurasian steppe belt) was forced to abandon true pastoralism inside few generations... Similarly all the various steppe folk who conquered China or parts thereof at various times were very soon forced to abandon nomadism as bluntly impossible.

Conversely the nomads had their vast herds by definition of their lifestyle; they didn't have to expend resources to raise and maintain mounts like settled folk (who otherwise used horses mostly for labor), the mounts very much were their basic resources. In their case it was quite literally quantity over quality; their grass-fed ponies could not compete with grain-fed larger breeds in strenght, speed or raw stamina, but there was a lot of the little buggers (enabling the "swap on the fly" trick to a fresh mount) and so long grass was available the critters largely maintained themselves. Conversely the "civilized" warhorses, although pound for pound faster ans stronger (and for that matter possessing rather more of said pounds) were few in number, expensive, and highly dependent on feed which was a major logistical problem.

Where there was enough grassland, the nomads could roam quite freely. Where there wasn't, they soon ran into the same supply problems as settled folk - further exaceberated by the huge number of their mounts. For example one of the strategies the Mamluks employed against the Ilkhanids in Syria was scorced earth - they destroyed or carried off so much of the grain in the region that passing Mongol armies had a very difficult time feeding all their mounts. Mamluk armies were presumably less troubled, being a "settled" force mounted on a much smaller number of high-performance steeds. And since the region didn'y have all that much grass, and few lakes or rivers, the considerations of being able to water the mounts cut down the nomads' strategic mobility...

When you think about it, lack of suitable grazing grounds was likely a rather important reason the Turks never pushed past Syria either when they drifted into Middle East.

In estimating the load a warhorse had to deal with, remember that there was also the saddle and suchlike - and I understand those specialiced war-saddles tended to be pretty heavy. The beast might also well be required to carry its own armour, which by the necessity of sheer size was heavier than human harness of the same construction.

Quote:

---

The Turks and Arabs had experienced massed lance charges before, and actually been able to meet them to a degree, victory was not certain by a longshot, but they could meet them head on. Here I'm talking about the Byzantine and Khazar heavy cavalries. Sure we remember Manzikert where the avoidance won, but that was just the perfect battle for them, which is partly why we remember it so good.

---

True enough - heck, they used spear-armed shock cavalry quite enough themselves. That's not the point. From varius accounts it's clear that there was definitely something qualitatively different in the massed lance charge of the "Franks" - I understand one major point was the difference in how the cavalry was committed to the assault. The "eastern" technique was more controlled, with units delivering controlled successive charges against the enemy and pulling back to regroup and reassess the situation; conversely the "western" method was to deploy the more or less the entirely cavalry force in a single, massed charge hopefully to smash apart the enemy line and then rout it in the ensuing melee. Obviously it tended to be rather difficult to call it off once the charge was committed, or pull them out of a fight in a controlled manner if necessary - battlefield controllability remained was after all a mjor shortcoming of Europen heavy cavalry until the end of Middle Ages (even if those spending any time facing the "eastern" method tended to become more manageable rather quickly).

In terms of pure shock power the "Frankish" approach seems to have been superior - while it usually took a fair while of further fighting to decide the issue one way or another, being able to succesfully deliver a lance charge seems to have been a major initial advantage for the knights if only through the distruption and damage it caused in the first ranks of the enemy. It wasn't some sort of "wonder weapon" of course - they got theior asses kicked in enough straight collisions to prove that - but it was something of a "special weapon" of theirs all who encountered it learned to be vary of and neutralize if at all possible.

Well, I think we all know the problems of the "western" approach - it's probably telling that the Europeans themselves eventually abandoned it in favour of the rather more manageable, disciplined and mobile "eastern" technique.

Incidentally, I understand that back at the 11th century and thereabouts the Byzantines considered Norman mercenary cavalry to be one of the better to deploy against the Turks. Go fig.

Whoops, did not express myself correctly. By the running around I meant carrying the knight to and from the battlefield, as well as carrying him during the fight. Which is not what they did, obviously.

Concerning this, I wonder if knights participated in skirmishes? I think not, considering they had only one fighting horse and this was destined for a pitched battle, correct? This would be a good explanation as to why Latin armies were so vulnerable to effective skirmishing on a strategical level (harrying by parties of roaming horse archers etc.).

And, yes, the Byzantines rather admired the Normans/Franks for the power of their charge. Anna Comnena, not known for her love of these 'barbarians', remarked that their charge could bring down the walls of Constantinople.

Well, her dad had almost been killed by Italo-Norman lances back when Robert Guiscard tried to expand across the Adriatic. The Byzantines were enough on the receiving end of "Frankish" lances to have a healthy respect for them (curio detail: conversely the heavy maces of some Byzantine cavalry were apparently widely respected and feared).

One would assume that at least the early-pattern knights (you know, the ones who weren't much more than lords' household mercenaries) were by necessity heavily engaged in scouting and skirmish duties - there normally weren't too many other decent mounted troops beside them available anyway. And let's not underestimate the ability of knights to make themselves troublesome to horse-archers - after all, the Templars started out as volunteer guards for pilgrim caravans against "Saracen" raiders, many of whom were no doubt enterprising Turkic tribesmen out to improve their finances (not that horse archers were rare mong the more settled peoples of the region either)... A mail-clad fellow with a big shield is apparently annoyingly resistant to arrows, although his horse may be another story.

Indeed, and that may all well be, but this is still all on a rather small scale. The lordly infighting -- these 'wars' on a ridiculously small scale were no more than ordinary raiding -- and the Templars' forces numbered from tens to a couple hundred men. No more than a Germanic comitatus, if not less.

I'm talking large-scale warfare, those not so very frequent campaigns involving thousands of men when the kings of Western Europe went to war against the Oriental rulers.

If you're referring to the Crusades to the Middle East (the Baltic ones wer eobviously rather different), the scouting and skirmishing duties were usually left to the Turcopoles who were rather better suited to it in the context given that they could more or less take on the Turks on their own terms.

Medieval campaigns, however, were overall mostly affairs of maneuver, skirmishing, siege and ravaging the enemy lands, with decisive field battles being rare - this both East and West. Obviously mounted forces were of prime importance due to their sheer mobility (and hitting power particularly in small-unit encounters), and while a lot of it was on the shoulders of assorted lighter cavalry and irregulars the chivalric heavies and their colleagues from other cultures were doubtless heavily involved, both as a sort of heavy reserve and as the "officer class" of the armies.

Nomads, naturally, could just sends some of their tribal cavalry before the main host to do reconnaissance and try to keep enemy scouts and harassers at an arm's lenght.

Now what many don't realized is that what the horse is fed also influences how much energy and stamina the animal has in completing its task.

Steppe Ponies ate primarily grass

Correct me if I am wrong - but did not the Europeans feed their warhorse grain.