In the war did they only use male horses?
I can't really answer your question in terms of horses used in war because I don't know details of what horses they used, but it is an interesting question. I found out a few years ago that several police forces in the UK, for example the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, only use geldings in their mounted police unit. The reason given for this was that with mares there is always a risk of them being marish and temperamental, and when they are in season they can distract the geldings. As I'm sure you can imagine, in a situation of crowd control you need to have horses that will always be focussed on the rider and don't mind being pushed up against another and won't argue - so some police forces choose to keep mares out of the mix (although many do use mares). I can imagine that for similar reasons geldings may have been preferred in early twentieth century warfare, although when recruiting horses for WWI from the UK the army took what they could get based on build and health. In the case of horse-racing, I can understand why you would be under the impression that few mares take part as there are proportionately more geldings and stallions that have made it to prominence than mares. I am not very familiar with the racing industry, but the fact that they often run colts and fillies separately as two and three year olds suggests to me some difference is assumed in the abilities of the genders. Not sure exactly what the theory behind it is though. I have also heard that when a mare/filly starts racing, they often have fewer starts to prove themselves and if they are too slow will be taken off the track to use as a brood mare, whereas colts are given a few more opportunities to prove themselves. As I said interesting question, and I hope you get a few more genuine answers!
How was cavalry useful in middle ages battles? Wouldn't the horses just get stabbed or tripped and fall?
A Medieval Knight on horseback was the tank of the time. A fully armoured knight and horse weighed over a tonne about 10 foot high ( 3 meters) with a 14 foot (4.2672 meters) steel tipped lance held out in front coming at you at approx 30 miles an hour (48 kph) They didn't charge alone but in formations. Shock and awe medieval style looking to unnerve the infantry creating a gap to exploit. With inexperienced soldiers seeing this lot coming at you the ground literally shaking it would only take one or two around you to take a step back the whole line would probably break and run.The attack began from a distance of about 350 metres and took about 15–20 seconds to cross the contemporary long range weapon's effective distance. A most important element and one not easily mastered was to stay in one line with fixed spaces while accelerating and having the maximum speed at impact. Often knights would come in several waves, with the first being the best equipped and armoured. The lance as primary weapon pierced the enemy. If an enemy soldier was hit in full gallop by a knight's lance couched under the armpit, he was thrown backwards with such a momentum that he knocked over several of his compatriots, and was more often than not killed; in some cases, the lance would even skewer the man and kill or wound the soldier behind him. The heavy lances were dropped after the attack and the battle was continued with secondary weapons (swords, axes, or maces, for example) the horse was also trained to kick and bite those around it and could be manoeuvred with very little reign control.With experienced infantry (veterans) armed with pikes and ranged weapons, this tactic was not successful.Another possibility was to bluff an attack but turn around before impact. This tempted many infantrymen to go on the chase, leaving their formation. The heavy cavalry then turned around again in this new situation and rode down the scattered infantry.I know if the infantry stood the knight wouldn't drive charge home but veer off and infantry had good tactics to counter a cavalry charge.But ask yourself if those behind you started to move back then those at your sides started to do the same would you stand. I think not.
What horse breed resembles the medieval war horses? Would it be the Shire horses, Percheron or something smaller and lighter?
They were actually not all that huge (by today’s standards). Studies on horse armour from the time period indicate it was originally worn by horses of 15 to 16hh (about the size and build of an ordinary riding horse).There were two types of war horse (rather than breeds) known as the destrier (the huge horses that hollywood likes to depict) which was used mainly for tournaments and jousting, and the courser, the actual preferred war horse that was used in battle.Coursers were light, fast and strong. They were also used for hunting. The Spanish coursers were agile and intelligent and would probably equate to a modern-day Andalusian:Destriers were chosen for strength and skill, rather than size. Most of them were about 15.2hh. Studies of Norman horseshoes as well as the depictions of horses on the Bayeux tapestry confirm this. This is further supported by analysis of horse transports that suggest that destriers were a stocky build, and no more than 15 to 15.2hh. Also, a knight was supposed to be able to mount easily from the ground, so 18hh horses just would be impractical.The Royal Armouries used a 15.2hh Lithuanian Heavy Draft mare as a model for the statues displaying various 15th- and 16th-century horse armours, as her body shape was an excellent fit.This is a Lithuanian Heavy Draft. Strong but not too heavy or too tall.
Were there more female or male warhorses and what are the advantages of using either?
Heavy cavalry such as knights preferred stallions because of their natural aggressive tendencies. The horse would supplement the rider's assault by kicking and biting. The Teutonic Knights were noted for using "monk horses", i.e., geldings. It's believed that they didn't want their enemies the Prussians* using captured stallions as breeding stock to improve their mounts, and so the Knights could retain a military advantage. Some armies preferred mares for their calmer and more pliable temperament. The Moors are one such group. I'd guess that light cavalry (horse archers) in general preferred mares. More males or more females? I don't know. Quite possibly it was a toss up. * No, not the Germans who later adopted the name, but the original non Teutonic inhabitants of that region southeast of the Baltic.
How many horses did a medieval knight own?
It varied quite a bit. At times men-at-arms had to have at least two or three ‘battle ready’ horses with them, alongside this they had their riding horse and a horse for his valet. If you bring in pack horses you might find that an individual knight could have brought no less than seven horses with him on campaign. Warhorses were typically stallions.Though I reckon the people who just barely qualified as gentry might only have owned one riding horse and one for battle. A trained warhorse could be ten times as costly as an ordinary riding nag. As a percentage of income a warhorse could cost around a quarter to half the annual income of a lower ranking member of the gentry. Of course there was practically no upper limit on how much a horse could cost in those days.
What was the size of average war horse?
What was the size of average war horse?Not that big.The archetypal horses ridden by armoured knights in battle were called destriers. On their specific size, I can do no better than to cite Wikipedia:Much speculation has taken place about the nature of destriers and about the size they attained. They apparently were not enormous draft types.[5] Recent research undertaken at the Museum of London, using literary, pictorial and archeological sources, suggests war horses (including destriers) averaged 14–15 hands, and differed from a riding horse in their strength, musculature and training, rather than in their size.[6] An analysis of medieval horse armour located in the Royal Armouries indicates the equipment was originally worn by horses of 15 to 16 hands,[7] about the size and build of a modern field hunter or ordinary riding horse.[8]It is probable that the modern Percheron draft breed may in part descend from destriers, though it is probably taller and heavier than the average destrier.So 15 hands seems fairly reasonable for a destrier. This page on Measuring a Horse has a very convenient reference. Note that the destrier would be similar in size to the middle horse. The huge one is a draught horse.Why the myth? I wonder. Perhaps it is related to that pernicious myth sadly perpetuated by Mark Twain’s atrocious A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, that full harness (‘plate armour’) was crushingly heavy and required knights to be winched onto their horse. This of course was never true; modern re-enactors readily do cartwheels in full harness, which is more than I can do regardless of what I’m wearing.It should also be kept in mind that the destrier was only to be used for fighting. A knight would not ride a destrier while he travelled; he would ride a palfrey (not in full harness, either, of course), and the destrier would be kept fresh and ready for battle. Thus, the destrier had to be strong enough to carry a knight in harness long enough to fight a battle—not days or weeks on end; and bigger does not necessarily equal better: you want the horse to be quick and nimble as well as powerful, and presenting a larger target is an obvious liability.There were other kinds of war-horses as well, but I’ve never heard that they were very remarkable in terms of size. I guess people look at knights and think “heavy”, then look at draught horses like Clydesdales and think “strong”, and assume the two must go together…