this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
327 points (97.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6621 readers
132 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Warhorses are like a machine gun. Point it at the enemy, and they will have a bad time. Throw it spinning in the air, with the trigger taped and everyone near you will have a bad time.
Warhorses were trains to kick and bite when scared, rather than run away. They needed directing where to use that however. Take out their rider and you now have a lot of panic, with a tendency to bite and kick mixed in.
I think the long long long long long history of horses being used effectively in warfare shows that they are a very effective resource in battle and not something viewed as more dangerous for the person who has one when kept alive. They were trained to bite and kick people they didn't know who were up in their business and attacking them or their rider, not anyone anywhere around them at any time. They weren't only socialized to a singular person either. Saying "I leave their horses alive because horses get scared and go crazy in a fight" just kinda shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how effectively horses were used in warfare. If they were so dangerous to have for the person using them, then they wouldn't have been used to anywhere near the extent that they were in history, yet they've been seen as extremely vital tools of war since very early on in human history. Losing your horse was viewed as a huge loss in war because of how important they were. They're not a "pile of panic" because they're specifically trained not to panic in a fight.
In your seemingly expert opinion, what would a typical riderless war horse do in a battle?
It's also worth mentioning, in defense if the Captain, these almost certainly were typical farm horses used for carrying people and pulling wagons on outer rim planets, not highly trained military war horses.
Yeah in the context of the show it makes sense because they're specifically not trained horses, but the OP's title isn't related to the scene, they're only referencing the quote out of context referring to horses in general, even though the quote doesn't apply to all horses.
As for your question about a war horse without a rider, I think it depends on the setting. In more "modern" warfare when we still used horses on a large scale like ww1, in cases where the horse lived while the rider died (though horses were generally more likely to die than the rider), depending on the scenario the horse usually either continued to follow the rest of the cavalry or group, left the battlefield altogether if they could, or just stayed with its rider's corpse unless someone else (from either side) took the time to fetch it off the battlefield. They didn't tend to go around freaking out or attacking anything in sight, let alone their own side. Even if they got scared, familiar people and horses would actually more likely help them stay calm if they were nearby, and the horse would likely gravitate towards people and other horses they already knew.
In other eras and cultures it depended on a lot of factors, including how the horses were trained to respond, if they were trained for that particular scenario.
If you're specifically attacking farmers who aren't prepared and who haven't trained their horses for warfare, sure, the horses can certainly panic and cause issues, but that's a very specific situation. In an actual battle scenario where your enemy is prepared, chances are killing their horse is the right call from a tactical standpoint. Even a farm horse can be trained for war if their owner has prior warning, after all, most horses in ww1 came from farms originally.
Not a horse expert by any means, but horses are easily spooked herd animals. I assume a herd of riderless horses would probably form and try to escape from the battle, maybe towards familiar territory / other people and horses?