Talk:Horses in warfare/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Length/bias of the Europe section

So taking the conversation from the peer review page, what does everyone think of the length/possible bias issue brought up by Peter about the Europe section. Something that has been proposed in the past is breaking this out into a separate article, and leaving only a summary here that is about the same length as the Asia and Americas sections. The new article could possibly be something like Horses in warfare in the Middle Ages. I wanted to bring this here, because the peer review is getting long and hard to edit and follow. Now, please, just present your thoughts. Dana boomer (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The medieval section is fairly much a summary of Horses in the Middle Ages, so can be cut down without loss of material. I'm not sure that we need a Horses in warfare in the Middle Ages, unless HitMA grows too long in the future. But yes, I'm aware that a lot of the later European stuff is mine, and there might be some benefit in finding somewhere else to put it. We could favour keeping with the "horses in Time" theme (rather than the warfare theme), by having Horses in the Ancient world, Horses in Early Modern Europe and so forth. If you want specifically war, then Horses in European warfare, Horses in American warfare etc might work. Otherwise, hunt down and apply to relevant specialist articles: Horse artillery, Cavalry in the Napoleonic Wars, Cavalry in the American Civil War etc. Gwinva (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with the point Dana made on the PR page, that most of the technological and tactical innovations in horse warfare between about 1066 and the dawn of mechanized warfare occurred in Europe, hence the length of that section. We cover the rest of the world in various sections, and if our focus is on the horse and how the horse was used, as well as the technological innovations that made better use of the horse, I'm hard-pressed to see where we have much missing. Might be nice to add a teeny bit more to add on unique tactics of non-European cultures, but beyond what I originally wrote (which was, by the way, largely drawn from a term paper I did for an ancient history class as an undergrad! LOL!) I don't have the source materials (or time) to do it. I see no reason for yet more articles. I did cut quite a bit from Gwinva's sections in the last round of cleanup (more just extra words and specific battle details than data) and I am of the opinion that the section now is not overly long, though if G sees something that is more trivia than innovation and wants to cut, no problem there. As far as I am concerned, the issue is resolved, though Peter I may feel differently. Down the road, I rather like Gwinva's "horses in time" concept; I have a lot of interest in the Ancient world stuff... Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't seem to be the only one to agree that the medieval section can be reduced. Maybe Gwina and Dana could start making some cuts in the article to see how it works out.

Drawing the line at 1066 is an excuse that is pretty much tailored to favor Europe. And even if the "no innovation"-explanation is actually accurate, it doesn't explain the bias. Most of the medieval section doesn't explain change at all, nor does much of the early modern section. They are both mostly preoccupied with the particulars of specific periods. The rest of the world is for some reason not allowed this type of detail. Even when a little bit of detail is allowed, it tends to be in relation to Europeans, like more than half of "Islamic world".

As far as I know, horse archers were hugely important to warfare and remained so for a bloody long time. Far longer than any dragoon, knight or Waler horse. Still, the article doesn't even mention the horse archer of steppe nomad fame. It's importance is only indirectly implied by the mention of the stirrup. If one lacked previous knowledge, one could easily get the impression that it was just a rather inneffective form of mounted infantry (see first three sentences of "Cavalry"). As already mentioned in the peer review, "Horse artillery" doesn't deserve the attention it's getting. A suggestion would be to merge the information here with horse artillery and create a mounted archery section in its place.

Wars beetween non-European powers get only the barest minimum of coverage, if even that. At the same time conflicts that are really largely irrelevant to the development of horse warfare, like the American War of Independence, get mentioned explicitly and in some detail.

Am I wrong to sense a leaning towards American history, btw? Even when it comes to a choice between the Western powers, the United States appears to be favored by having a good-sized paragraph on the Civil War, while Europe appears not to have been engaged in any consequential disputes between the Napoleonic Wars and the Boer War.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Peter for your continued interest. You are quite right about the mounted archer: it is a hole in the article which needs addressing; thanks for bringing it to our attention. The main problem with the article is that it is extremely broad, and cannot possibly cover everything. It is hard to know quite how to address it all, and how much weight to give various topics. Horse artillery is significant, and it's certainly worth addressing to avoid the "man on horseback" tendency of the rest: after all, this is about horses in warfare, and we need to look at how the horse was used in other ways, and see the shift from heavy cavalry to more supportive roles. A number of the sections have arisen in direct response to myths and misconceptions others have brought up: many consider that the decline of the knight led to the decline of the horse, which is not at all true. Walers, dragoons etc show the development to mounted infantry.
A leaning to America? Perhaps, but only recently: that was added when we realised we none at all! (A case of pole straightening perhaps?) However, research suggests the civil war is not "irrelevant" to the development of horse warfare. It is almost the last hurrah.
What we need to do: 1. cut Middle Ages to more summary style, esp. considering WP has a strong article on that already. 2. Mounted archer 3. have another look at what's going on in the rest of the world when it goes all European-heavy. Can we justify the reasoning that this is where the developments took place? Gwinva (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The article can't cover everything, and that's probably the strongest argument to cut down on details on what horse Charles Martel rode at Tours or the exact height and weight of warhorses in almost all major periods of European history. It's okay if the article doesn't cover every imaginable aspect from every corner of the world, but it can't be used as an excuse to keep the article Eurocentric. Neither do people harboring misconceptions of historical facts make it okay to go against WP:UNDUE.

I said the War of Indepence was, not the Civil War. Even the article text seems to agree with me on that one. And what is the Mexican War doing in the article? This, if anything, is a very minor conflict in the scope of the article. While I'm on the topic of the United States, it's worth noting that the Civil War is the only conflict mentioned the lead aside from the two world wars.

Is the Civil War the main catalyst for development of horses in warfare during the 19th century? Is the rest of the world really irrelevant? I know that the American Civil War led to important military innovations, but shouldn't it be put into a wider context? I'm thinking particularly about the wars fought by Prussia and Italy in the 1860s. And what about the Crimean War? Or the Islamic powers for that matter? It's not like Muslim armies used the same cavalry from the 8th century right up until the modern period. I don't think you can keep the level of detail you have now and have a balanced article of reasonable length. If other regions of the world were described in as much detail as Europe and North America, even excluding the supposed lack of development, the article would probably double in length. The historical details probably need to described in somewhat broader strokes.

I agree with your suggestions, but I believe that most of Western-orineted sections should be reduced, not just "The Middle Ages". I'm also rather skeptical about applying a kind of primogeniture principle for tactics, methods, etc. The spread and application of a certain innovation is no less interesting then where it originated. I'm taking a wikivacation now. I'll check back in about two weeks. Happy editing!

Peter ^Isotalo 23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My take is that this isn't a recount of battles that happened to use horses (which is all of human history until the last 100 years or so). This is an article about horses first. Hence, things like height, weight and such are actually quite critical. (For example, the myth that all destriers were draft horses, an important thing to debunk) The innovations in breeding, technology, etc. also matter. When things changed in a major way matters. While I agree that if archery can be explained further, that would be nice, but If you have any recommendations, it would be much appreciated--we lack adequate source material. There is, however, a link to the article on the Mongols, so one can go there for more material. I DO have to ask, Peter, if you actually paid serious, constructive attention to the new and revised content or just are looking for things to criticize. The American Revolution section is, literally, one sentence. The Mexican War segues in a sentence fragment into the Civil War as the reason there were different tactics used in America than in Europe. It isn't a ranking of how one war is more important than another. It is a cause-effect connection. The entire American section was sandboxed for two weeks before going into the article, and it covers the whole western hemisphere (North and South America) over about 500 years of history, yet is about a third the size of the Europe section, is a bit smaller than the Asia section, and much smaller than the ancient history section, so I really don't think there is an American bias. Frankly, if you want to point to specific non-western breeding, tactical, or technological innovations after the invention of the stirrup and horse collar (which are properly credited to the non-European cultures from which they came), we are all ears. However, a raw measure of paragraphs isn't the way a person analyses the impact of various cultures. Europe was a center of innovation in horse warfare, particularly after they got gunpowder. And the sources we have indicate that the innovation in warfare shifted from one culture to the next over time (and yes, actually, the Bedouin WERE still using horses, single shot cabrines, and lances against machine guns in spats with the Ottomans in the late 1800s and early 1900s, nearly leading to the extinction of the Arabian horse--in part because all their war horses were mares. Their tactics were, essentially, little changed from AD 800 other than adding gunpowder. Likewise, the Chinese were also an inherently conservative culture, slow to even exchange the chariot for cavalry, so yes, their innovation appears to have been limited after a certain point in time.) So, long story short, if you have something to actually contribute, please inform us with helpful tips and links to good sources. Otherwise, you are just complaining about the same stuff you were complaining about a month ago, and I'm not sure it is constructive. Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the consistency in the argument about the article being only "about horses". Most of the article, including the medieval section is about everything from tactics to weapons used by mounted soldiers, not merely the horses themselvs. The difference is very obviously that Western horses in wars conducted by Westerners are described in more detail than the horses in wars of other cultures. And while you say that recounting battles isn't the issue, it's very odd that the only battles that actually are mentioned just happend to be European and American ones. Even if I'm sure this is unintentional, it's still not something that be blamed on mere coincidences.

The myth-debunking argument hardly supports the Western focus. If you claim that people are often confused about a relatively well-known topic, then the misunderstanding about other regions are most likely even greater in number. If we followed that principle consistency the article might as well double in size to cover things that people have no clue about. Western Europe is only the focal point before the modern period if you choose to have it that way. Different regions have applied innovations in different ways, each of them suited for varying conditions. There's no static center-periphery movement of new technology and ideas from Europe before inudstrialization, and nothing like it has been explained in discussion or in the article. And even when European (or American) standards dictate the development to the rest of the world, we still need to cover what actually happens in rest of the world. Otherwise the article should be moved to innovations in the use of horses in warfare or whatever. This topic should strive to be as global as possible.

I have looked a bit at some of the sources used in the article. There's a surprising wealth of information about precisely the things I've tried to bring up here. In Hyman 1994 and 1998 there are chapters dedicated to Mamluks, Mongols and Ottomans. The impression I got from reading these section was that Europe was actually rather inferior when it came to tactics, breeding and training. Middle Eastern and Asian tactics were highly mobile, the European tactics were rigid and vulnerable. Eastern horses are described as having better stamina and better bone structure, and steppe nomads and Muslims tended to keep their mounts leaner and more robust.

Sources on the Mongols are very easy to find. There's the classic The Devil's Horsemen, and several other titles on the same topic: two different titles called The Mongols, one by E.D. Phillips and one by David Morgan. In the article nomadic empire there's an extensive list of works that is most likely relevant to the steppe peoples in general.

Hyman also covers a topic which has been very much overlooked here, Eastern Europe. The conditions for this region are described as being radically different, but the European section is entirely focused on Western Europe. There's also a region which has also been forgotten entirely: pre-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa. As with African topics in general (with the possibility of slavery and colonization), there doesn't appear to be an abundance of sources, but I know of a few that might be relevant. There's the multi-volume work General History of Africa that was published by UNESCO and The Horse in West Africa by Robin Law.

I agree that merely counting words isn't the only way to determine bias. In this case, however, it's matter of the same ol' topics as usual consistently given more in-depth treatment than just about any other topic. A good comparison is how often Arabians and destriers are mentioned; the former twice, the latter eleven. No way is that motivated by their respective importance to warfare. The horse type section describes several types of Eurasian horses, but it's only the European types that get described once more in greater detail in a separate section. The only historical figures who have their horse preferences described after ca 1000 AD are European rulers. Explaining specific details about European conditions after a certain period while negecting or completely ignoring other important aspects is not neutral. If anything see Wikipedia:Systemic bias about the many factors that tend to lead to a Eurocentric bias in many articles.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Then, please, Peter, add what you can find. I do not own Hyman, but I do own The Devil's Horsemen, which I would think would be superceded by Morgan's The Mongols which I own also. I own absolutely nothing on Africa, and my local university library is beyond hopeless on any history subjects. Nothing is preventing you from adding to the article if you have sources to back it up, I would be glad to see sourced information added to round out the information in the article. Please though, source it thoroughly. I spent a good bit of time a while back adding citations to stuff inthe article that was uncited, and it's now up to a level that will meet FACs standards, so keeping it sourced at that level would be appreciated. I merely pick at this article, military history isn't my strong point at all, and what I have is almost all relating to my main field of interest ... English medieval history. I've pulled some articles on cavalry tactics, etc. from the local university's JSTOR database, but they don't do a full JSTOR sub, so I am limited in what I can get. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm already working a bit on an African section, but I've only really covered West Africa so far. I'll add what I have in a while. I'm still concerned about article length, though. Other than the bias, if we added the missing regions and expanded info on horse archery properly, the article would become quite bloated. Probably at least 110k, which is more of a weakness than a strength. There are plenty of existing articles that could handle information moved from here, so nothing would really be lost.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My concern here is that we are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. This article will always be a work in progress. I say unless there is consensus (as in two or more people) suggesting we still have serious problems to fix, Let's put this up for FA. Peter is now an editor too, with a vested interest in the article (one way or the other) so Peter, do you want to be a co-nominator or not? Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose a nomination of the article in its present state. I don't see any reason for rushing this into an FAC when we lack neither the appropriate sources nor the dedication to improve the article substantially by tweaking the regional bias.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwinva, if you think there is more stuff to cut from the Middle Ages section, feel free to give it a whack, you wrote most of it, I think. I personally don't see a lot to cut other than maybe some specific battle details (though they make good examples, which is why they didn't disappear in my round of chopping), but in an assessment of what is relevant versus what is trivia, you are the guru. Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mongols

I am supportive of maybe a little more material on the Mongols, and also some mention of archery in the "tactics" section (possibly under cavalry) but keep in mind summary style and that we cross ref to two other articles on Mongol cavalry and tactics. There is also a horse archer article. If Ealdgyth wants to expand a bit, fine, but in terms of tactics, we already credit the Mongols for transferring the stirrup from East Asia to Europe, which was one of their most significant contributions. We actually have already hit the high points and added a cross-ref. Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Africa?

Peter, quite frankly, when you get where you want to be, would you be so kind as to "sandbox" your African material here, (the way I did with the American material, by the way), so that we can all review on it prior to its insertion? One concern I have here is WP:UNDUE. While the article already discusses the contributions of the Ancient Egyptians (and last I checked, Egypt is in Africa) and the influence of Islam and the Middle East (crossing north Africa to get to Spain), I am a little wary about including things about every continent or subsection thereof for the sake of including every continent or subsection thereof. While I am most certainly open to material on unique uses of horses in warfare by indigenous people of the region south of the Sahara, if they can be found, (and if they did anything significantly different from the Mongols or other nomadic, plains-dwelling cultures) I am of the impression that most African innovations occurred in North Africa, which is already covered in two different places, and then later conflicts, such as the Boer War, were primarily fought with European tactics and technology. Or, to put it differently, you can't really fight on horseback in jungles. I'm fine with being proven wrong, if the sources are there, but I've never heard of indigenous sub-saharan horsemen having unique styles of formidability in warfare. I don't want to derail this article from an FA nom while we try to disprove a negative. Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked this isnt't advancement of technology in horse warfare. I see nothing that implies that only "unique" aspects or technological innovations should be included. Even if we did apply this view on things, we would toss almost most of the medieval info since there is nothing genuinely innovative about heavily armored mounted warriors (see for example cataphracts).

I'd like to stress that I was referring to Sub-Saharan Africa, not all of Africa. But even so, Africa is still somewhat ignored since the Mamluks are not included, and just about all innovation seems to be related to how the Muslims affected Europe, not North Africa (or the Middle East).

I recall that you asked me on this talkpage to provide sources, and I did. Some of them were even sources that have already been cited here. I don't see that they conflict with my suggestions in any way. What do you believe is supporting your own view on this?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm... cataphracts didn't have stirrups, though. I agree we don't need to just include utterly unique usages, but we also need to watch some what on the length. It's not nearly as bad as it could be, it's stil 46k of readable prose, which is under the limits by a good bit, as long as we copyedit ruthlessly later. I don't have objections to the section below on sub-Saharan Africa. I'll try to see what else can be cut from the Middles Ages section... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa

Kanem-Bu warriors armed with spears. The Earth and Its Inhabitants, 1892.

Dates of introduction of horses to West Africa vary between the first millenium BC and the tenth century AD. The first conclusive evidence of horses playing any major role in warfare, however, is from the 11th century by the Almoravids, a Muslim Berber dynasty. It was only after the 13th and 14th centuries that cavalry became an important factor in West African warfare, taking over this role from foot archers. This coincided with the introduction of larger breeds of horses and the wide-spread adoption of saddles and stirrups. Mounted warriors were armed with bows, spears, javelins or swords and protected themselves with hide-covered shields, armor of heavy, quilted cloth and occasionally metal armor. Firearms were employed by riders after they became common in the 17th century, but only to a limited extent. There were no equestrian exercises as elaborate as those in Europe and the Middle East. In pre-colonial times cavalry duty was the prerogative of the aristocracy and their dependants meaning that training and arming was largely a decentralized affair. Harsh climate conditions, endemic diseases like sleeping sickness and unsuitable terrain limited the effectiveness of horses outside of steppe areas, particularly in the southern coastal regions of West Africa, and in the tropics. The introduction of firearms became a serious challenge to the supremacy of cavalry on the battlefield. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the African slave trade was closely tied to the imports of warhorses; since slave trade was in large part dependent on the use of horses for slave raids, the diminishing supply of captives also meant that fewer horses could be imported.

My main problem with the inclusion of this section is that it takes a good bit of text to basically say that there was absolutely nothing unique about this region and that, in fact, they didn't actually use horses that much. Perhaps trim it to something like:

Dates of introduction of horses to West Africa vary between the first millenium BC and the tenth century AD. The first conclusive evidence of horses playing any major role in warfare, however, is from the 11th century by the Almoravids, a Muslim Berber dynasty. It was only after the 13th and 14th centuries that cavalry became an important factor in West African warfare, taking over this role from foot archers. This coincided with the introduction of larger breeds of horses and the wide-spread adoption of saddles and stirrups. Mounted warriors were armed with bows, spears, javelins or swords and protected themselves with hide-covered shields, armor of heavy, quilted cloth and occasionally metal armor. Firearms were employed by riders after they became common in the 17th century, but only to a limited extent. There were no equestrian exercises as elaborate as those in Europe and the Middle East. Harsh climate conditions, endemic diseases and unsuitable terrain limited the effectiveness of horses outside of steppe areas, particularly in the southern coastal regions of West Africa, and in the tropics. The introduction of firearms became a serious challenge to the supremacy of cavalry on the battlefield. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the African slave trade was closely tied to the imports of warhorses; since slave trade was in large part dependent on the use of horses for slave raids, the diminishing supply of captives also meant that fewer horses could be imported.

And I'd like to see it trimmed even more if possible. I realize that this isn't an article just about unique innovations, but this is a lot of text to not say very much... Dana boomer (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's too long for what is new. What is significant here though, is the connection to the slave trade. THAT is quite interesting and very useful (and thank you Peter, for finding this) However, were horses used by indigenous Africans, or by European slave raiders? May need to clarify that. How about this (need to double check cites as my rearranging and rewording may now not coincide with what the source actually said Montanabw^(talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC) :

Horses as war animals only became an important factor in West African warfare during the 13th and 14th centuries. This coincided with the African slave trade, which was closely tied to the imports of war horses; since slave trade was in large part dependent on the use of cavalry for slave raids. Abolition of slavery in Europe and the Americas in the 19th century led to a diminishing need for captives, and thus fewer horses were imported. Fighting tactics were not as elaborate as those in Europe and the Middle East. Harsh climate conditions, endemic diseases and unsuitable terrain limited the effectiveness of horses outside of plains areas, particularly in the southern coastal regions of West Africa and in the tropics.

I think that was one cut too much. The rise of horse warfare did not coincide with the rise in slave trade as much as it fuelled it later on. That abolition had a part in it is not something that Law claims, so that needs to go. By the 19th century firearms had already somewhat dethroned the supremacy of the horse.

Concerning Montana's question of slave raiding, Europeans did not go on slave raids them themselves. What they did was to trade for slaves with West African rulers which encouraged slave raiding and warfare. This meant that they pumped in large amounts of warhorses and firearms, which meant more warfare. But before the arrival of the Europeans, outside contact was mostly through Muslim states in North Africa, which included trade in horses.

If the text made it seem like horses were rather unimportant, it's probably my fault more than it is Law's. The impression that I get is that, relatively speaking, horses were as important as they were in Western Europe. The major difference is that government was not as centralized as it was in Europe. Horses had just a big impact on warfare, but the armies were governed by hierarchies and traditions that weren't quite as institutionalized and homogenous as in Europe. Would some specific examples be mroe helpful?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the first version was too long. And the 13th and 14th centuries WERE when Europeans began exploring the area, importing the first African slaves into Europe, so somehow the correlation has to be explained. AND the bit on the Almoravids may need to go into the Islamic world section (given the map on the wiki article showing that they also ruled half the Iberian peninsula) If Law doesn't make the connection to the diminishing slave trade, well, OK, but it amazes me that he didn't. My other concern is that material on firearms and horses is already covered elsewhere, plus firearms were already around in the 13th century, and elsewhere tactics simply shifted, so the whole bit on that just reads odd when compared to the rest of the article.

But anyway, I'm not here to really argue about anything but length at the moment. So if you don't like the way I whacked it, go ahead and take your own stab at it, but the general length does need to be about half the size of what you had...and I am wondering if we should retitle the Asia section "Asia and Africa?" Or maybe somehow work the African material into the Islam section, as so far everything here seems liked to Islamic influence. Peter? Dana? Ealdgyth? Gwinva? Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But BTW, the picture is cool and hope we do add it to the article when this is done! Montanabw^(talk) 00:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Europe had extremely limited contact with sub-Saharan Africa during the late Middle Ages. The European exploration of the West African coast didn't happen until the 15th century and European slave imports from Africa didn't pick off until the 16th century. Before that the trade was mainly in gold, spices and such. The more or less insignificant level of medieval slave owning in Europe consisted of individuals from Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia, not black Africans. I don't recall precise statistics, but we're probably talking about figures in the low thousands. Maybe a few hundred per year or so. There wasn't any demand for (black) slaves until plantations were set up on the Atlantic islands and in South America. Law does relate to the diminishing slave trade, but the connection to abolition doesn't quite add up, since abolition came long after the European slave trade had already peaked. According to Law, the consensus is that colonization in combination with firearms (and related infantry tactics) brought a definite end to the importance of horses in West Africa. Here's an updated text with some more explanatory details (and some tweaked citations):

Dates of introduction of horses to West Africa vary between the first millenium BC and the tenth century AD. However, the first conclusive evidence of horses playing a major role in warfare is from the 11th century when the Almoravids, a Muslim Berber dynasty.During the the 13th and 14th centuries cavalry became an important factor in West African warfare, taking over this role from foot archers. This coincided with the introduction of larger breeds of horses and the wide-spread adoption of saddles and stirrups. The adoption of large forces of mounted warriors resulted in a shift of balance between various groups and states. Increased mobility allowed more effective raiding and was a vital part in the formation of new power centers, such as the Oyo Empire, in what is today Nigeria. The authority of many Islamic states like the Bornu Empire also rested in large part on their ability to subject neighboring peoples with cavalry. Despite harsh climate conditions, endemic diseases and unsuitable terrain that limited the effectiveness of horses in many part of Africa, warhorses were continuously imported as a vital instrument of war. The introduction of firearms became a serious challenge to the supremacy of cavalry on African battlefields. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the African slave trade was closely tied to the imports of horses; slave trade was in large part dependent on the use of horses for slave raids and the diminishing supply of captives meant that fewer horses could be imported. After the Scramble for Africa, the European colonization of almost the entire African contintent in the late 19th century, mounted warfare disappeared almost completely. Modern firearms used by native and European armies made cavalry tactics ineffective and the internal warfare and raiding that was necessary to keep the slave trade active was put to an end by colonial authorities.

I have to point out that the USA did not eliminate the importation of slaves until 1808 and didn't abolish slavery until 1865. South America and the Caribbean kept importing slaves from Africa for a longer period of time. The importation of African slaves to Europe was indeed minimal compared to the Americas. Maybe Law just assumed that everyone knows about slavery being abolished in Europe and European-settled parts of the Americas gradually throughout the 19th century? Montanabw^(talk) 07:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that Europeans dictated the rate of development for all cultures they came in contact with from around 1000 and onwards is somewhat controversial. Europe began to take the lead in the development of technology in the 16th century, but it wasn't until the late 19th century that this turned into outright world domination. European armies didn't intervene militarily in Africa on any kind of significant scale until the scramble for Africa in the late 19th century. Claiming a more or less cause-and-effect relationship for just about every war-related horse development that was first recorded in Europe is not really a neutral standpoint. All regions are unique in one way or another and should be described on their own terms. Even when there are similarities to other regions, they don't necessarily mean that there was a direct influence.

Technology spreads from wherever its point of origin happens to be -- the stirrup from the far east, for example. It is not Eurocentric, or Sino-centric, or whatever-centric to give credit where credit is due. What is needed is to not recite a laundry list but to talk about things innovative or at least different. Montanabw^(talk) 07:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on bunching Africa and Asia together. I think a better solution would be to rename the Islamic section "The Middle East". Islamic states have exist south of the Sahara and all the way to Indonesia, so it would be overlapping several several other sections no matter what.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Middle East is a good compromise on the naming of that section. Perhaps Middle East and North Africa? And reorganize somewhat for a "Far Eastern" and "Sub-Saharan Africa"? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about North Africa, but if you look at Middle East, it seems that even the westernmost North Africa are often considered part of the Middle East. "Middle East" is technically named after a European viewpoint but it does have a lot going for it when you look at the similarities and political systems. "Far Eastern", however, smacks a bit too much of "Way Over There". Central Asia, China and Japan, and India are very much more disparate regions. Considering that Asia is so large and diverse, how about simply removing "Asia" altogether and turning the sub-sections into l2 headings?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

On one hand, geographically, I am OK with the Middle East, but at this point, Peter's African material, at best, only basically covers use of horses in areas that in their time were basically under Arab control, so "Islamic World" DOES encompass the African material so far. I think the Asia section can stand as is. On this one, there is sort of the "National Geographic" designation of world regions that is probably best to follow. But the Africa section is still too long and covers not just warfare but domestication...let me do another chop, adding some parenthetical comments explaining what I am doing or thinking. I still say so far this is just more Islamic history, worth adding, but not really about Sub-Saharan Africa, (I mean, West Africa kind of is sub-Saharan -- at least it was then -- but it still ain't Kenya, Zimbabwe or Mozambique!): Montanabw^(talk) 07:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: After some sleep. I changed my mind on the "Middle East" heading, much of the Africa material so far can actually be incorporated into an article on the spread of Islam in the Islamic empire period, so am reverting the rename. We may break it out again later, but for now, the organizational scheme works. Just FYI. Montanabw^(talk) 21:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

West Africa was not entirely Islamic, and I don't see why only one section should be defined religously/politically while all the rest are purely geographical.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And I really don't think "Islamic empire" was ever meant to be anything but a kind of dabpage. As a historical periodization it's hopeless vague both geographically (West Africa to India and beyond) and chronologically (7th century right up to the modern era). There have been Islamic empires for sure, but it doesn't make them much more homogenous than "Christian empires".

Peter ^Isotalo 23:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(Cut info on introduction period, a millennia too vague) The first conclusive evidence of horses playing a major role in the warfare of West Africa is in the 11th century when the region was controlled by the Almoravids, a Muslim Berber dynasty. During the the 13th and 14th centuries, cavalry became an important factor, coinciding with the introduction of larger horses and the widespread adoption of saddles and stirrups (adoption hundreds of years later than Eurasia probably not worth mentioning??). (Cut stuff that always happens everywhere when horse raiders show up) Increased mobility was a vital part in the formation of new power centers, such as the Oyo Empire, in what today is Nigeria. The authority of Islamic states such as the Bornu Empire also rested in large part on their ability to subject neighboring peoples with cavalry. Despite harsh climate conditions, endemic diseases and unsuitable terrain that limited the effectiveness of horses in many parts of Africa, war horses were continuously imported and were, in some areas, a vital instrument of war. The introduction of firearms became a serious challenge to the supremacy of cavalry on African battlefields.(Why? Wasn't a problem elsewhere? Did people just go back to fighting on foot? No mechanization yet!) The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the African slave trade was (cut redundancy) largely dependent on the use of horses for slave raids and the diminishing supply of captives (why a diminishing supply? Meaningless phrase w/out clarification: was there diminishing demand or did they get better at avoiding capture?) meant that fewer horses could be imported. After the Scramble for Africa, division of almost the entire African contintent by European powers during the late 19th century,(rephrasing an exaggeration, land claims do not "colonization" make) mounted warfare disappeared almost completely. (Um, how about the Boer War? ) Modern firearms used by native and European armies made cavalry tactics ineffective (again, what/how/why -- this didn't happen in Europe) and the internal warfare and raiding that was necessary to keep the slave trade active was put to an end by colonial authorities. Montanabw^(talk) 07:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be so long absent. I've flitted onto WP, but my attention span is a little low, I'm afraid: too little time, too much to do. I like this African section: good to get another perspective and round out our geography. Slight contradiction though: this talks about decline of mounted warfare in 19th C, yet in that section, we've got the Boer war, where horses were essential. Perhaps bring that in here (19th C is currently listed under Europe). Also, we abandon all other geographic areas (cina, india, middle east) in the middle ages, and use time periods after that. Perhaps take them all out of Europe and combine? The Middle Ages should be reduced. Do we need the size of William Conqueror's horse? And is transition too long? (Perhaps we're going about this the wrong way, and trying to pack too much in. If we had some good sub-articles, then these sections would just be summaries of those: a collection of lead paragraphs, perhaps!) Let me put some thought into it. Gwinva (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Boer War(s) seems to me to have been rather small conflicts. They were fought in what I understand was the most sparesely populated regions of Africa. The reason they're much more well known than any pre-colonial war is because they became symbolic for the struggle of a small new (white) nation against the mighty British Empire. Is it really the most important war in African history worth mentioning?

Peter, the Boer War was hardly a "small" conflict, and even if limited in scope, the political implications are in fact well worth mentioning. I mean, a century of apartheid ain't chicken feed!

The Middle Ages is periodization applied to European history. It's dependent on an existence of antiquity and a Renaissance, and that doesn't exist in the same way elsewhere. It's not a term shouldn't be applied to the rest of the world. In my experience this is the general consensus in medieval articles, and that of WP:MA.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgot Montana's firearm comment, btw: it's the main factor claimed by Law, and this is pretty much the same thing that is claimed by scholars to be the demise of European knights (see "Transition"). Firearms, especially when used by infantry squares, makes cavalry charges pretty pointless endeavors. This might, btw, be something we could move in under "Tactics" and make it more world-wide discussion.

Peter, if you actually read the article and Gwinva's "Transitions" section, the research actually says precisely the opposite.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment wasn't clear. Agree with you about Middle Ages. That period's covered geographically, anyway. But after that we abandon most parts of the world, and cover the 16th-20th C under Europe. Boer war might not be the most significant battle in Africa, but we can't say the use of horses declined: it was one of the main uses of horses in the late 19th C. (just look at the number of horses lost: not significant for "Warfare in Africa", but not unsuitable mention for "Horses in warfare". (Anyway, my point was the contradiction. Clarify in a sentence if you want, but we can't have two parts of the same article saying the direct opposite: "horses declined in importance" and "horses were essential".) Infantry squares and so forth might work well under tactics. Gwinva (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Let us not get bogged down in tactics, folks. We have two very simple problems here: 1) What needs to go into the Africa section (and the fact that Law seems to contradict other research). and 2) How we clean up what was originally a chronological organization of the article that has now revealed itself to have overlapping geographical situations that sort of make more sense when kept together, particularly with a number of people screaming "Eurocentric!" at us (even though the article is markedly less Eurocentric than it used to be.). Peter put his version of the Africa section in, I just suggest everyone else now tag and edit it, no sense beating the topic to death. Montanabw^(talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Islamic world

Most of the current section has very little information that actually concerns the Islamic world directly. Almost everything but the first section is actually focused on how or when Muslim armies reached Europe or the Middle Eastern origin of horse breeds used by Europeans. Most of this information belongs in the medieval section. What's missing is any hint of the advanced horsemanship, access to skilled steppe warriors and high-quality breeds that (at least according to Hyland) made Muslim cavalry superior to most of their contemporaries. I've added some information that could be used to complement or replace the existing information below.

I should also add that the statement about how Charles Martel stopped a Muslim invasion of Western Europe is a rather contentious issue among modern historians.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The majority of the Muslim armies consisted of cavalry, employing various indigenous groups, mercenaries and Turcoman tribesmen. The latter were considered particularly skilled as lancers and mounted archers alike. Later, the use of Mamluks, became increasingly common. The influences of mobile steppe tactics, advanced breeding and detailed manuals made the Muslim cavalry highly efficient. Mamluks, slave soldiers serving Muslim lords, were the most efficient fighting forces in the Middle East and went on to found the Mamluk Sultanate. The tradition of armies consisting predominantly of cavalry was continued by the Turkish tribes who went on to found the Ottoman Empire. The need for large cavalry armies lead to an establishment of the sipahi, cavalry soldiers that were granted lands in exchange for providing their fighting services in times of war.

I'd move the explanation of what a Mamluk was to the the first mention of the word, and remove the second wikilink. Like so:

The majority of Muslim armies consisted of cavalry, employing various indigenous groups, mercenaries and Turcoman tribesmen. The latter were considered particularly skilled as lancers and mounted archers alike. Later, the use of Mamluks, slave soldiers serving Muslim lords, became increasingly common. The influences of mobile steppe tactics, advanced breeding and detailed manuals made the Mamluk cavalry highly efficient, and these forces went on to found the Mamluk Sultanate. The use of armies consisting predominantly of cavalry continued with the Turkish tribes who went on to found the Ottoman Empire. Their need for large cavalry armies lead to an establishment of the sipahi, cavalry soldiers that were granted lands in exchange for providing their fighting services in times of war.

I assumed that last reference was to The Medieval Warhorse and not another book of Hylands, correct? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I like this version, and think it would be a nice addition to the article. Nice work, Peter! Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dana. I'm glad we're making progess.

Ealdgyth, the last reference is to a book called The Warhorse 1250-1600. It's referenced a few times in the article, but it's only called The Warhorse in the shorthand ref notes. Since this makes them a bit too easy to confuse, I'll add the "1250-1600" to the article notes to make it clearer.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as the same ref is used to refer to the same book throughout. Montanabw^(talk) 21:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Without objection, I am comfortable with the general direction of this and will incorporate Peter's version as edited by Dana into the other material in that section of the article. We can look at the Charles Martel material, but the point here is just that the Muslim advance was stopped. We can tweak the details. Follow up: And of course I HAD to wordsmith it as I went, couldn't help myself. I did not intend to make any substantive content changes, just wording things either shorter or clearer. I cut the bit about what Mamluks were entirely, as the same is explained in the first sentence of the Mamulk article for those who want to know. It's not a cosmic issue if it desperately needs to be there, but in terms of keeping content short, it didn't seem necessary. Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone at FAC will want it explained back, which is why I moved it to the first mention. Anything out of the ordinary, folks will want explained in the article itself, at least with a short phrase, so that folks don't have to constantly jump back and forth between articles to understand what's going on. Mamluks as a concept are not something taught much in school anymore, and isn't something you can expect a normal reader to know about, unfortunatly. (don't get me started on the horrors of the normal layman's knowledge of history, it's pretty scary...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the brief explanation about who the Mamluks were was relevant. I agree with Ealdgyth on keeping that one.

Concerning the Battle of Tours, I don't think it's even agreed that the Muslims were stopped as much as they simply weren't interested in going further or were hindered for other reasons. I can't say for sure, because I've only heard commentary during history lectures. But it does seem that the victory has been consistently exaggerated by Western historians until quite recently. The source used is Ellis. What does he actually say about it? Is the battle itself something that radically altered the Western European view on horse warfare?

The concern still, though, is that the last paragraph is really about Europe more than it is about the Islamic world. It could just as well be moved into the European section or HitMA.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can live with the short mention, but the term "lords" is rather Eurocentric itself, the Mamluk article says "caliphs and sultans"...and "slave soldiers," while technically correct, just sounds funny to my ears. I guess I'd like to see a slight rephrase, just not quite sure...I think what's bugging me is that the Mamluks were a unique type of slave, particularly to American ears, where slaves were generally kept as far from weapons as possible! I'll leave it to the rest of you to mull this over. Basically my reason for cutting it was that it takes too long to explain it properly...

As for the last paragraph on Tours, I'm for keeping some version of the first sentence and just tossing the rest -- I will admit the rest happens to contradict my own previous understanding (which I can't source at the moment) is that it wasn't heavy cavalry that stopped the Muslims -- the fact they were fast and agile was why they had been running circles, almost literally, around European forces all the way up the Iberian peninsula, but I deferred to Gwinva's source material on that -- that edit and ref is hers. No objection to a couple more tweaks on that paragraph, though I think that Tours does mark the end of the advance and hence needs to be there in some form. Montanabw^(talk) 23:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There really is no better description for Mamluk than "slave soldier". The slavery you're thinking of, that in the US South, is not representative of the countless other forms of slavery that has been around all over the world (and actually still exists).

If mamluks were employed by other rulers than caliphs and sultans, we should stick to a more general term like "lord". It's not actually a title (like king, duke, count, etc.), but a rather general term for "head honcho", and it's no more Eurocentric than using "God" instead of "Allah".

Peter ^Isotalo 12:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In this context, the Mamluk article here on wiki pointed out that the idea was that Mamluks specifically served the major leaders for the reason that they had no tribal affiliations or loyalties to minor leaders to compete with their service. "Lord" is actually a very Eurocentric term in this context and if we must be generic, "ruler" would be better. If you don't like sultans and caliphs, then I can live with "rulers," but not "lords." And actually, yes, it IS quite Eurocentric to say "God" if we are talking about Islam! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 06:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Here, we must acknowledge the millions of American readers of wikipedia and that race-based slavery on the American models (north and south) were extraordinarily pervasive for several hundred years, and has been seared into the consciousness of many people. It affected millions of human beings and all other models need to be explained or distinguished in terms of the best-known model. Hence, I think it reasonable to do a minor rephrase and see no reason to discuss this particular issue further. I made a small tweak to the phrasing, if there is a better tweak, that's fine, but "slave soldier" rings in the modern ear like an army of either robots or zombies or something. (Clone wars maybe?) English is not your first language, Peter, so please just trust the "indigenous people" on this one. Montanabw^(talk) 06:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I also have some issue with your term "indigenous people" -- do you mean the Bedouin in particular, or...? I actually think that word should also be changed to be more specific. Not a deal-killer, but again, "Indigenous" to a native speaker of English has a slightly more nuanced meaning, usually referring to people such as Native Americans or Aboriginal people, not the people of the Middle East, even those living in a tribal society. Likewise, that is also my issue with "Turkomen tribesmen" -- even if 99.999% were men, wiki MOS DOES favor non-gendered language, and "tribe" seems to indicate a smaller group of people than the Turkish nation... Given the antiquity of Middle Eastern cultures, all of the above sounds pretty "me Tonto, you Khemosabi" to my ears, and if I catch racism in linguistic tone, so will others. Must be a way to fix this. Montanabw^(talk) 06:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Indigenous people" was really just a way to refer to people native to the areas conquered by the Muslims (and I wasn't the one who linked it). All people who lived in the Middle East at this time were not just various types of Arabs or Bedouins. I changed the wording in the article to "local peoples" instead.

"Tribesmen" refers to the fact that mounted steppe warriors were male (I've never heard of the contrary) and the fact that they came from societies that consisted of "people united by ties of descent from a common ancestor, community of customs and traditions, adherence to the same leaders, etc."[1] Certain modern readers may associate these terms with negative stereotypes, but in this context it's purely descriptive. Being neutral does not mean you have to be politically correct.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with "local people," I wish more precision were possible (someone IS going to ask about this at FA, I betcha). I really prefer "fighters" to "tribesmen," but let it be known to all that I will occasionally just give in on something that I'm not happy with, and here this one isn't worth the fight. I'm hoping this bit is settled for now. See further comments in the new section at the bottom. Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Islam redux

Upon reflection, I am changing the section back to reflect the Islamic empire period, as this article is actually as much chronological as geographical (not that there isn't overlap and the overlap is at times awkward, but I have yet to figure out -- or hear anyone else figure out -- the way to fix this). I am adding in some of the West African material to new/old name section on Islam

Horse archers

Found a couple of wikipedia articles on horse archery: Mounted archery and Yabusame. Neither are sourced well enough for us to swipe material from them directly (maybe one or two points may be attached to a verfiable footnote. However, may be launching points to find a bit more on horse archers. Some potential here to expand our material in the Asia sections in particular. However, seeing the articles and trying to put a little bit from them in the cavalry section of the article (and giving up due to lack of sourcing) reminded me of some past history of this article -- we used to mention bows, lances, etc. as weapons in an earlier version, and someone (not me) took them all out. Can't recall the details, seems like it was a discussion over if this was an article about horses or weaponry. I guess it wasn't that big a deal to me, as my memory is fuzzy on that point (may be an old discussion in the archives.) Bottom line, though, is that now that I know these articles are out there, maybe just wikilinking is what's needed? Montanabw^(talk) 04:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Follow up:Inserted a little bit of sourced archery info in the Japan and China section. Tweaked a few other things. Hope it works. Montanabw^(talk) 06:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I still believe there is much merit switching the horse artillery info for something of roughly equal length about mounted archery. Horse artillery is already a decent summary of the subject, and I've already merged the information here with the main article. This is a type of weapon with a heyday that lasted just over a century. Though fairly efficient, of what I understand, it was a minor supporting arm that was deployed in small numbers. Compare this with mounted archery, with a history spanning well over a millenium. There are countless examples armies of horse archers that won wars and conquered empires. We could summarize much of the information on Mongols, Huns, Turks and similar peoples in a mounted archery section, and we could avoid bloating the article by switching focus somewhat. The reference to horse artillery could still be kept in the horse type section.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually like that the artillery section was added, it IS a tactic, it was used worldwide, and it was bogging down the Europe section. I see no need to toss it at this point. I think we can just add a wee bit more on archery -- but what I can't figure out (and am open to ideas) is if there is a way to work it in. It could go into the cavalry section. Long time ago, that section mentioned bows, lances, spears, etc. Then someone else (not me) felt it was getting too bogged down and tossed all references to specific weapons. There IS a whole separate article on mounted archery, so I am not panicked that we are giving the issue short shrift if we cross-link it well. The other problem is that they also used archery from chariots. And they shot guns from horseback later. I mean, really, prior to mechanization, horses were used to get most weapons and warriors into place. So we have a question of where the HORSE comes into all of this. I say we (you? Dana? Someone?) cook up one or two GOOD sentences summarizing mounted archery, link it well to the main article, and then find a place in the article to pop it in. Montanabw^(talk) 06:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

This may be a stupid question, but were horses not used in European warfare before the Middle Ages? My knowledge of early military history is nonexistent a little sketchy. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a stupid question at all. We also note early European history in places where we discuss the Ancient Greeks and Romans. We basically track each new innovatation in horse warfare technology, hence the Greeks and Romans innovated some things, but most of the rest of Europe until the middle ages utiliized tactics and technologies developed elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Meta footnotes

Per this post by Ealdgyth I'd like to get back to what I was trying to point out about the notes in the PR. Whether the citation within the note should be paranthetical or not was not my concern. It could just as well be like this: "Some people used small horses; Smith, History of Foo, p. 478." My intention was to remove the cumbersome format of footnoted footnotes. If the article uses footnoted references, then there is nothing inconsistent about citing a source in a footnote, whether it be commentary or not. Having meta footnotes doesn't seem to do anything other than to make readers click twice for what is basically the same note.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with perhaps "Some people used small horses, see Smith ..." which gives a more parenthetical feel, but I'll note that the footnoted footnotes are accepted at FAC. But I have no problems with changing them in this article if everyone agrees. Was I imagining the "notes/note" thing? Or was it from another article? I think I spent more time in the last two months on the road than at home, so my brain is a bit fried! Thanks Peter! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, FACs should be more careful about accepting notation formats which simply don't exist outside of Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Normally, these extended comments, when in books or legal opinions, are simply in the footnotes section. There are at least three different major academic citation standards, and several more minor ones. To me the point is if people can find the info one way or the other. All I say here is that whatever Wiki MOS is this week, I'm not going to quibble about it and shall defer to Ealdgyth. Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Re the names of the notes/footnotes/references sections, Peter changed it to Notes/References/Bibliography, and Montanabw reverted to Notes/Footnotes/References, citing MOS:SECTIONS. This guideline only deals with the order of the final sections, not the naming. If one follows the link from there to Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions, and thence to Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to present citations, one finds examples of different naming conventions, including the following:

• Putting linked comments in a “Notes” section, followed by linked short citations in a “References” section, followed by a list of full citations in a “Bibliography” section. See, e.g., Jane Austen. (A variation on this approach is to name the last two sections "Citations" and "References" as in Pericles).

Thus the suggestion proposed by Peter does not violate MOS, and avoids suggesting that footnotes are not notes. Dr pda (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth agreed to it in the PR.[2]. "Sources" or "Bibliography" is the same to me, but the latter works fine here, since the article topic is not a person.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I generally try to avoid using "Bibliography" unless it's for the list of works of the subject of the article, and in this case would prefer "Sources" but it's not a matter I'm going to edit war over. Certainly it's something that should be decided by the editors at the talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is the direct quote from MOS:SECTIONS: "The standard order for optional appendix sections at the end of an article is See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Bibliography), and External links; the order of Notes and References can be reversed. See also is an exception to the point above that wording comprises nouns and noun phrases. For information on these optional sections, see Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions."

I read the above to include naming. I read it to mean that the term "Bibliography" in wikipedia is used to list works NOT used in the article. Also, even the Chicago Manual of Style says that we do call footnotes, "footnotes." I am fine with it being named "Sources," and I think this whole debate is a total red herring that is taking time from doing actual work. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 08:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For recently passed or featured article that use the current format (or something very similar), see atmosphere of Jupiter, USS Nevada (BB-36) and Anglo-Zanzibar War. I think FACs might sometimes give the impression of standards being more rigid than they actually are.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it derails this article at FA, we will need to change it again, it is not worth arguing about and I for one am not going to go to the mat over it. Montanabw^(talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually read that diff above. Ealdgyth's comment, verbatim, was: "We could go with "notes" for the explanatory notes, "references" for the pure sourcing footnotes, and "sources" for the full listings of the works. We can't use "bibliography" for sources, because in WP, bibliography is reserved for listing works written by the subject of an article." So, IMHO, that combined with my read of MOS:SECTIONS, suggests that "bibliography" as a heading may cause confusion at FA, even if it is normal in the rest of the world. While I still think footnotes should be called footnotes, I can live with calling them references, but think the souces/bibliography thing is a fight for MOS, not for this article. Therefore, I hope a 50-50 split on the issue solves this. Montanabw^(talk) 01:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There are more pressing issues to be resolved than whether horses in warfare can write books about themselves or not... The naming of sections is not the kind of thing that derails FACs. Either the problem is tweaked or a compromise is reached. Nominators are expected to be flexible, but so are reviewers. We're not even at an FAC yet, so let's all just chill down a few degrees.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Modern uses: Active military

Is there any recent example within past 10 years where horses were actively used in the battlefield other than Janjaweed and Afghanistan? If not then the sentence "Organised armed fighters on horseback are occasionally seen, particularly in the Third World, though they usually are not officially recognized as part of any national army" should be removed because it is unsourced and probably inaccurate information. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if 61st Cavalry of Indian Army is an active duty unit or just a ceremonial unit. If it is active duty unit, then it is right in the Active Military subsection. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's just an introductory sentence, but would "rare" be better than "occasional?" The point is that these two examples ARE in fact fighting units. And given that it's hard to disprove a negative, I'm not comfortable saying there are the only two in the whole wide world (though the surest way to find another would be to make such a statement). So will "rare" work better than "occasional?"

As for the rest, I suppose there is room for discussion. If the participants are active duty military, even if mostly for ceremonial duties, that's a fine line. They ARE in the military. LOL! I know for certain that the first US Cavalry division, though mostly an educational and PR unit, is all active duty military personnel. In comparison, let's take musicians: While they don't really go into battle with fife and drum any more, I bet the United States Marine Band would take umbrage at being called "not active military." LOL! I suppose it begs the question of whether supporting roles-- if publicity, recruitment, and honor guards are any less important than supply, reconnaissance, etc. and thus are or are not "warfare." Hm. Open question... Montanabw^(talk) 00:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

More cuts

I'd like to cut the first paragraph of "transition" and move it to the "horses in the Middle Ages" article. I think it's kinda redundant here, and probably is too much detail for this article, considering we have a sub article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Another change I'd like to see is to work on the "Tactics" section. As it is, it combines a quick overview of how horses were used with our "ancient history" section also, which makes it confusing for the reader. I THINK just renaming the section will help, perhaps "Early usage and tactics" but it might be needed to Keep the "Tactics" section make have subsections covering cavalry, chariots, artillery, and logistics usage, and then put the historical context stuff into a section following titled "Ancient warfare" or somesuch. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the first paragraph of "Transition" would probably be better placed in the HitMA article. Perhaps just keep the first sentence, which is a general overview? Also, the second paragraph could probably be trimmed a bit. As for the tactics section, I would vote for changing the name of the section to "Early usage and tactics", rather than splitting things into various sections.

As another note, I'm going to go through the Europe section and trim some of the mentions of specific leaders/battles so that it's a bit more representative. After taking another look through the article, Peter does have a point that there are more specifics in the Europe section, so I'm going to try to do some trimming. However, I believe that most of the innovation stuff should say. More on that above in a minute. Dana boomer (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, I am basically OK with all of the above to varying degrees and the cuts to date work. I only disagree on totally removing the "transitions" section. The question of why knights declined is a biggie, and I think needs more than a sentence. My thinking is that we could move the big section to HiMA, but keep a bit more of a summary (what's here, by the way, is already cut down from an even longer section!) I will wordsmith a bit on Peter's stuff above, and without objection, may incorporate some of the muslim material. I may do some wordsmithing, if anyone doesn't like it, just go in and revert with comments. If I screw up cites, as usual, please smack me but fix them? ThxMontanabw^(talk) 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the discussion

OK, someone tell me if I am correct that we are down to the following issues and if I am stating them properly? We can thread our discussions of each topic with appropriate wiki markup:

1. What to name the section on the role of the horse in the expansion of Islam.

   I think the heading "The Middle East" makes sense assuming you keep all the other region headings. - Epousesquecido (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Where should a section on Sub-Saharan Africa go, and is the material presented to date accurate? (Seems to contradict other material?) (We can continue to sandbox text where it already is above)
3. How much more to chop the Europe section? And Gwinva, are you going to take a whack at it first? (Remember, the size thing DOES matter! LOl!)

   (I don't wanna make a bunch of sub-articles at this point, someone else could) Montanabw^(talk)

4. What to add to an archery section and where to add it? And do we then need a spears and lances and rifles and carbines section too?

   I don't see a good reason to add much more about weapons since there are links to specific articles. - Epousesquecido (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

5. How confused are people by the way the article has grown to be about half-chronological and half-geographical? (Personally, I don't think we give short shrift to, say, the Chinese, to discuss their major contributions to warfare technology and then ignore them for the next thousand years, we are sort of following the same path a World History survey class could take, IMHO)

   To me the headings lack parallelism, which is confusing. For example, I think having The Middle Ages and 19th century as subheadings under Europe (what about the rest of the world?) and than having 20th century as a heading is unclear. Also, starting the section The Americas after the subheading 19th century seemed confusing as well. I am not sure how to straighten this out but it makes it hard for the reader (or at least me) to grasp. IMHO. - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

6. How long do we want this thing to be, anyway? People are already complaining about its length, yet we feel we need more material! What to do?

OK, ready, aim, fire! Add more basic issues if you see them Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is quite good until you start to discuss the different regions in detail. I suggest to split this according to a different scheme. Between sedentary societies where the horse was a tool for war(draught horses were only used for warfare by the Svedes) with few soldiers mounted and between nomadic and pasture people where the horse was a part of daily life and almost all soldiers mounted. We can keep this distinction up until rifles and artillery are far enough improved to repel cavalry assaults such as in the Crimean War and finally with the advent of the Gatling gun in the American Civil War.

Afterwards you can discuss the new roles of cavalry as mostly dragoons and riot control in modern times. A section on mounted infantry is definitely needed. The sedentary societies can be split up in different regions(Europe + the Mediterranean + the Near East(they have considerable similarities even in Islamic times), India and the southern part of Southeast Asia(strong Indian influence), East + northern part of Southeast Asia(strong Chinese influence), the Americas), shortly highlighting what the difference between them is. The same can be done between the nomadic and pasture regions(Eurasian steppes and deserts, American plains, Sahel + Sahara, South Africa + Australia). Wandalstouring (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

ARRGGHHH! NOOOOO! Not a total rewrite! NOOOOO! NOOOO! (OK, I DID ask for input...!) OK, well, one idea. Will chew. Any other ideas?  :-P

The problem is that the country specific list is too long, to cut it you need a sheme to summarize things. Dividing between societies where cavalry contributed most of the armed forces and such where they were only a small part is one way. However, I think, we can agree that the current sytem of a highly specific analysis of different cultural and geographic reasons doesn't work. What really works good is the first part that provides some general information on the topic. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this sounds like a good solution. If we really want to keep the specific geographic information we can always tuck it away in an article like regional differences in the use of horse in warfare. If we're going to do the summary thang, though, we probably need to keep ourselves confined mostly to Eurasia. However, we need to watch out for the tendencies of simply following the progress of European or their colonial ventures, like getting detailed about the Boer Wars.

I'm going to keep my editing to a minimum over the holidays, so you'll hear from me later.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of splitting the article up into nomadic/sedentary societies. This would result in bouncing all over the world map, jumping from Europe to Asia to Africa back to Europe then over to the Americas, which I believe would be confusing. I like the way it's set up now, although I do agree that further trimming of specifics is necessary to condense the article. Specifics and fun facts can go in daughter articles if they're ever created (Horses in warfare in Europe, etc), but shouldn't be here.

You all will notice that I spent some time today trimming specifics in the article, mainly from the Europe and 20th century sections. All of the things that I trimmed were fun and interesting to know, but didn't really add to the article, or were already found in other parts of the article or the HitMA article. If you have a problem with a specific thing that I removed, please bring it to the talk page and we can discuss it here. However, none of what I removed was vital to the article, and we have to start actually removing extraneous information instead of just talking about removing it (eh, Montana? *grin*). Dana boomer (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to keep it geographic, you have to rename the Middle East section. It's as much a part of Asia as India under the strict definition and it surely doesn't extend to Spain under any definition of the subject. Spain had a special tradition of mounted warfare, making it special within Europe and the Islamic civilization. You can use File:Mamluke.jpg as a replacement for the battle and please say how you define the Middle East in the article. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)