Talk:Destrier

Comments on the article

20 to 24 hands tall? Isn't that just a little bit questionable?

Based on general observations of medieval art, the success of the Arab and the Spanish Barb, the conflicts between the Crusading knights and the Muslims, and some reading, I'm thinking the trained warhorse was probably somwhere in the vicinity of 14.5 to 16 hands max, with a bias to the lower end.

Who knows, though? I for one would like to see some archeological evidence and scholarly studies on the matter.

Should articles relating to knights include a few lines to help fight the image of the knight being lifted onto their horse with a crane? The heavy end of armours starts to top out around 80lbs, and throw in that most knights often rode one horse to a battlefield, and mounted another (this is not true for all warriors that fought from horseback, but seems to be common. A massive plow horse aren't needed, the issue of a horses strength being more important for quickly changing direction, shouldering against other horses, and trampling foot soldiers. The amount of force from the horse itself put into the lance in a charge is actually rather minor, (Charging someone while riding a light horse isn't much different in force than from a large one at the same speed, the issue of height however is a factor)--Talroth 02:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Horses back in those times were typically small, probably ranging from about 14 to 16 hands, as was said earlier. The reason for being called "great horses" refers to their powerful athletic build rather than their height. I highly doubt that they were much over 16 hands. A reason thaT these horses were typically small was due to the fact that in those times, feed was harder to come by. But, who really knows? I'm sure that there were large horses as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.0.140 (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read the article, you would see that we settled this particular issue about 9 months ago. And yes, you basically are on the right track, we found source material. Sorry to be a bit terse, but this was a long, tough round of reviewing research to figure it out, especially the problem of separating rumor and myth from what is acually verifiable... Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's okay! I can imagine that it would take a long time, I had just wanted to throw that in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taliesin2 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

As pointed out above, this article is in need of some work. I will weed out the inaccuracies and uncited POV comments, etc, and try and organise some framework. We've got more information across at Talk:Horses in warfare#sandbox for revisions, some of which might be brought across. I hope no one is offended if I seem a bit ruthless in my reoganisation, but even accurate stuff lacks coherency, perhaps because there have been so many editors. Gwinva 12:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been reorganised and (hopefully) corrected now. Other than formatting, I have done nothing with the discussion on cost; I assume it is accurate. Gwinva 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The best-known warhorse of the medieval era

This is a remarkably vague statement: 'Best known' by who? Define mediaeval era. Was the term destrier really used, for instance, from 378AD to 1492? ( X Adrianopolis to the fall of Granada- Oman's definition of the Middle Ages in military history). When was the term first documented? Where was it first used? As is too often the case, the term 'Mediaeval', as with 'Middle Ages,' is used as if that long period of transition and recovery was a homogenous block of time when in fact it lasted twice as long as the so-called 'Modern Period' has lasted- so far!

It may be that many- most?- readers would recognise this obsolete word as the technical term used for a knight's war horse, but the statement seems intended mainly to set up the revelation a few paragraphs down that in fact destriers were rarely used as a war horses, being a highly specialised animal more suited to the joust.

Isn't this a rather round-about way of introducing the subject? It's a technique more suited to journalism. Is this article about the word or the animal? The introduction of the term 'great horse' at that point also rather muddies the waters.

It would be more suitable to begin with a definition, possible derivations and key facts to locate the term in its true historical context. Commonly-held misconceptions about the term, such as there are, belong farther down the article but the main body of text if clearly presented should automatically clarify these. JF42 (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The better overall article is Horses in the Middle Ages (HiMA), which is a GA and contains some good source material on the topic. If you want to take a whack at this one, feel free to give it a shot. But yes, terms like "Destrier" and "Great Horse" are used somewhat interchangeably, and the article IS about the animal, though because of the general confusion common when discussing things medieval, the etymology is probably an integral part of an article on the subject. We at WPEQ have been wanting to get around to adding the material at HiMA on the Destrier into this article and then expanding on it, but no one has had the time, the sourcing necessary is rather daunting -- we have found on most of the horse history articles that what "everybody knows" about the topic often proves to be otherwise! (especially when you add in the romanticization from popular fiction and the equestrian sins of every modern European horse breed, all of whom were alleged to carry knights into battle! -- except that "breeds" as we know them today didn't really have the same significance until people got serious about keeping extensive pedigrees in the 13th and 14th centuries, a practice that spread somewhat slowly from Spain to points north). Anyway, if some research and article improvement is your idea of fun, we welcome any help that's out there. But DO read HiMA first to see what you can "swipe", and also to debunk a few of the common myths (like the one that Destriers were draft horses, which was the first one we had to bust). Good luck! Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

re Horses in the Middle Ages, I agree!

re 'research and article improvement'- I wouldn't dare; not my AoE, but thanks for the invitation.JF42 (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK< but even if you wanted to just do a copy and paste of the relevant sections of HiMA and a little copyediting cleanup, it probably would help! But in not your AoE, don't fret. Eventually someone will do it! Montanabw^(talk) 17:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That might be possible(But not before autumn!). JF42 (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement

Hey Warlander, I think we are on the same page here that this article could use a lot of improvement. I'm behind you in your efforts. May want to do the following:

1. Review WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE for sourcing guidelines. Be fun if this article could be brought up to the Good Article standard!
2. Take a peek at Horses in the Middle Ages (HiMA to us who worked on it) and Horses in warfare (nickname HiW) as examples of the above; also as sources for material that can be used to upgrade this article. Both have had input from people who know their medieval studies.

And good luck! Montanabw^(talk) 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Matthew Paris - William Marshal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Value for money

To write that 12 solidi was $4336.19 is ridiculous. Any such calculation is at very best an estimate, say, between $4000 and $5000. However, the idea that this has any real meaning over 600 years is not really sustainable. The comparison with the price of a cow gives one as good abn idea as one can hope of the value of a Destrier.

Removed.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Price in C13

I added a {{failed verification}} tag to the reference for equivalent to "seven normal coursers". In the reference (it's on page 238) destriers and other horses are grouped together ("destriers et autre chevaux") for the tournament marshals to agree rates of hire; the types are not differentiated by value.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Another ref added, covering a similar point. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless anybody disagrees I'll trim the old reference.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Replaced--217.155.32.221 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Material from self-published source

In the section "Value of quality war horses" the material relating to weregild under Salic Law is a direct quote from a copyrighted work, but not sourced. Unfortunately it actually comes from a deprecated source—the self-publishing firm Lulu.com—so it couldn't just have the missing ref tacked on. I deleted it.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)