As a lover of horses and historyI couldn’t help but notice a long time ago that horses have often been used successfully to suppress peasant revolts. (The most recent example in England was the Orgreave Colliery.) I often wondered about this. After all, cavalry, while important, did not play a decisive role in most battles between armies. Many other factors entered.

Normally, three things could defeat cavalry.

1. Another cavalry.

2. Firepower or archery.

3. Well-trained infantry: the Roman tortoise, the Saxon shield wall, the 16th and 17th century hedgehog, Wellington’s red squares.

They weren’t invincible then. Why did they always seem to defeat the rebellious peasants? They were lucky?

Investigating it, I soon discovered that the rebels were often undisciplined and misdirected.

• They tended to run towards the enemy, especially if they believed they had an advantage in numbers. Running against a mounted enemy never works. The trick is to stay still and attack at the right time. It is impossible to correctly time your sword, spear or ax strike when running. You cannot judge the speed of an approaching horse while you are also moving.

• The opposite is not true. A cavalryman is always good at timing his strike against an enemy on foot, whether running or standing.

• If you’re on foot, the numbers advantage works best if you stick together. Running almost always means stepping out of formation and allowing horsemen to take you down one at a time.

Class war?

• The previous point is even more true when it is remembered that the cavalry were almost always professional soldiers or men of the “noble” warrior class. Men who spent most of their time fighting on horseback.

• The peasants used to work part-time and their quality varied. Usually they were used to being led by their social superiors, who, naturally, were on the other side when they rebelled.

And this explains why horse ownership was forbidden or discouraged in the Bible (eg, Deuteronomy chapter 17 verse 16).

It is believed that the reason for the rather negative view of horses in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, is that God did not want the leaders of Israel to employ horsemen or charioteers, because they would use them to oppress the people and because they would be tempted to participate in unnecessary foreign wars. On the other hand, an infantry made up of local volunteers would be more difficult to use that way. (I don’t think God has been opposed to having horses as such. Therefore, there is no need to feel guilty if you own a horse).

All this I learned a long time ago. However, a great question continued to bother me for a long time.

Why didn’t the peasants try to form their own cavalry? even temporarily? It’s okay. They didn’t have horses and they couldn’t ride! (Much agricultural work was done by oxen until the 18th century.) But surely they could have stolen some horses, even if they didn’t have any of their own. And at least some peasants must have been reasonably competent horsemen?

When the answer occurred to me, it bothered me that I hadn’t thought about it earlier. As I find so often. It is due to a certain physical property of horses.

When horses were the main means of transportation, many people probably went from one town to another, but few would have needed to learn anything advanced. Most beginners find it relatively easy to ride a horse during a walk, although trotting can be quite uncomfortable until you get used to it. A gallop is usually easier, until the horse stops or turns!

People would have found a real difference between basic driving and more advanced things if they were involved in a battle, even a skirmish. Sharp turns at high speed are difficult. In everyday situations, you would probably go in a straight line, or something like that, most of the time. In battle, maneuverability is generally everything.

The reason horses were so useless to peasants is the result of their way of moving.. At trot, a horse moves diagonally with opposite feet together. Front left and rear right, and vice versa. In a gallop, a diagonal pair breaks, making a three-beat rhythm: front front leg, diagonal pair, another rear leg. In a circle or curve, the animal will best maintain its balance if its front front leg is the one inside the circle. To ride a figure figure, you need to change the front, and therefore the pattern of the other legs, in the middle. This may sound a bit sophisticated, but wild horses often change tracks by galloping around curves or switchbacks, although many have a favorite track, such as being right-handed or left-handed.

In the past, most people may not have fully understood all of this, but you can do the practice correctly without understanding the theory. Any professional cavalryman would know how and when to mount a change of leader. A peasant would not.

If you are trying to get a horse to make a sharp turn on the wrong leash, there are several ways you could respond:

• ignore the stupid instruction

• make a very wide and gradual turn

• go down into a jog (this can be more downhill if you don’t expect it)

• try to change tracks and stumble or even fall (I have known this to happen)

• make an orderly change (if it is an agile and experienced horse)

You can guess that you would not like any more than the last option. You could find that even the last one would fall apart a bit if you weren’t prepared. If you are wearing some kind of armor and carrying weapons, it is very heavy and is more likely to fall or trip the horse. In battle, any mistake can be fatal. You don’t want to be clumsy.

I think this explains, at least in part, why a handful of normally trained cavalrymen could defeat many disgusting peasants. Don’t blame the horses!