Is it okay for knights to kill horses in combat?

I don't think I have ever read something on this topic in any KAP-product, but given that "a knight on foot is only a man" it seems rather important. I can see three basic answers:

1) Yes, it's smart and a knight will do it if the situation warrants it.
2) Yes, but if you kill the horse of another knight it will cost you Honor (Arbitrary check might be appropriate too).
3) No, it's never okay and it will always cost you Honor.

How do you do?

Are there any mediavalist out there who can tell us how it really was, back in the 10th to 15th century?

I would do it like this, but I am by no means an expert (as you know), and I ususally go the honor-route in my stories.

* No, its would not be ok to kill a horse unless the times are really desperate.
(For example Badon Hill, or if you need the food to survive a cold winder stuck in a mountain cave on a quest for the King)

* It's never ok to kill another mans horse knowingy, especially a knights. Definately honor-loss. After all, wives are easy to get, horses are expensive. (Ofcourse... in war, accidents happen and it would be easy to get a way with it. But in a tournament or on the road? Not a chance.)

* A horse is your friend, your companion and your war-machine.

So by your numbers I guess I'm leaning 3. I would actually consider granting honor-loss EVEN during desperate measures. Killing the horse should feel horrible. "Did I REALLY have no choice?...." And if your king orders you? The times must be REALLY desperate...

(by the way, this is the same reason I am considering using some sort of "frail" value on horses rather than letting them just die during winter. I want to keep my knight stuck with their horses a bit longer... but I want them to deteriorate. And when they get a new horse, it would feel like loosing a friend.)

My take on it.

1. In war anything goes. Going after a knight's horse can be a smart and valid tactic.

William Marshal killed Richard Lionheart's horse while the latter was in rebellion against his father Henry II. This was to stop Richard pursuing Henry II and William was not censured for it, quite the opposite.

In game, the PKs tend to dislike going for the horses as they appreciate the loot value.

2. In a duel, attacking the horse would be considered bad sportsmanship and might cost honor. Definitely if you are at Honor 16+.

EDIT:
Of course, a chivalrous opponent would dismount from his horse once the opponent has been unhorsed. Thus making killing a horse a tactic used by unscrupulous opponents or against such opponents.

(This actually reminds me of Darren Hill's Honor Loss houserule suggestion, where instead of automatic Honor loss, you roll vs. your Honor and only lose Honor if you SUCCEED in your Honor. Meaning that low Honor characters can resort to dirty tricks more often, as nothing better is expected of them, rather than the current system where low Honor characters have to be very careful about dishonorable acts so that they do not get ousted from knighthood over a minor infraction.)

I probably would make it somewhat situation dependent. In a duel for love (i.e. for the love of fighting, not for life and limb), it would definitely be bad form and cost honor. In a duel to the dealth or other such serious matter, I'd probably rule that going after the horse is excusable, if it is to 'balance' the contest. I.e. if your opponent refuses to dismount if you have been unhorsed, then it is OK to hit his horse, whereas it would be churlish to go after his horse while you are still mounted, in order to derive an advantage of being horsed yourself once his horse is dead.

[/EDIT]

3. In a tournament, it is right out and grounds for disqualification.

My 2cents.

Killing another knight his horse is dishonorable. So a loss of honor is called for. Unles there are circumstances that would counter that. Usually another passion or trait comes into play. Like loyalty as happened in the examlle of William Marshall.

My take on it.

1. In war anything goes. Going after a knight's horse can be a smart and valid tactic.

William Marshal killed Richard Lionheart's horse while the latter was in rebellion against his father Henry II. This was to stop Richard pursuing Henry II and William was not censured for it, quite the opposite.

In game, the PKs tend to dislike going for the horses as they appreciate the loot value.

2. In a duel, attacking the horse would be considered bad sportsmanship and might cost honor. Definitely if you are at Honor 16+.

EDIT:
Of course, a chivalrous opponent would dismount from his horse once the opponent has been unhorsed. Thus making killing a horse a tactic used by unscrupulous opponents or against such opponents.

(This actually reminds me of Darren Hill's Honor Loss houserule suggestion, where instead of automatic Honor loss, you roll vs. your Honor and only lose Honor if you SUCCEED in your Honor. Meaning that low Honor characters can resort to dirty tricks more often, as nothing better is expected of them, rather than the current system where low Honor characters have to be very careful about dishonorable acts so that they do not get ousted from knighthood over a minor infraction.)

I probably would make it somewhat situation dependent. In a duel for love (i.e. for the love of fighting, not for life and limb), it would definitely be bad form and cost honor. In a duel to the dealth or other such serious matter, I'd probably rule that going after the horse is excusable, if it is to 'balance' the contest. I.e. if your opponent refuses to dismount if you have been unhorsed, then it is OK to hit his horse, whereas it would be churlish to go after his horse while you are still mounted, in order to derive an advantage of being horsed yourself once his horse is dead.

[/EDIT]

3. In a tournament, it is right out and grounds for disqualification.


I agree with Morien. In the edit, the knight that didn't dismount should be the one to lose honour. Not the one that kills the horse - if it is in war or a l'outrance. In friendly combat killing your opponent's horse should lose honour. After all, to hit the horse shows you to be either a knave or unqualified / undeserving of your spurs.

Thanks for your thoughts, gents.

I'll probably go with Morien here in the future. But I might allow early era tournaments to be a bit more rough and tumble.

But I might allow early era tournaments to be a bit more rough and tumble.


Well, you might keep in mind that a charger can cost £20 in early periods. That is equivalent to a knight's ransom, or equivalent of keeping a large mansion (~20 staff) running for a whole year. So we are talking something around a million dollars in current day money, a top of the line sports car. For someone to deliberately kill/maim a horse in what is supposed to be a friendly mock combat will swiftly make it a real one, with killing intent.

But I might allow early era tournaments to be a bit more rough and tumble.


Well, you might keep in mind that a charger can cost £20 in early periods. That is equivalent to a knight's ransom, or equivalent of keeping a large mansion (~20 staff) running for a whole year. So we are talking something around a million dollars in current day money, a top of the line sports car. For someone to deliberately kill/maim a horse in what is supposed to be a friendly mock combat will swiftly make it a real one, with killing intent.


Well, you know, the early tournaments in history (12th century or so) weren't really that friendly; often used sharp weapons. Of course, given that the stakes early on might well be "equipment" so it's pretty foolish to kill an opponents horse, but, then again, all knights are not know for their brain power.

Well, you know, the early tournaments in history (12th century or so) weren't really that friendly; often used sharp weapons.


They were still 'friendly', as the intent wasn't to kill. It makes precious little difference if your sword is sharp if you are hitting against a chainmail with padding underneath. Sure, accidents happen, but they didn't go into it deliberately trying to kill each other. Going after the horse would be definitely bad sportsmanship, and probably indicative of foul intentions, a prelude to murder. The closest analogy would be race car drivers deliberately ramming each other off the road, and I am not talking about demolition derby, where that is expected.

Okay, I'm going to be boring, and ask whats your source is.

My source is "Knights at tournaments", an Osprey book. It do not mention killing horses, admittedly, but makes the following statements about 12th-13th century tournaments:

- death and injury were common (in one tournament 17 knights died, 60 in another; this can be compared with the loosing side at the really large battle of Bouvines lost - 170 knights killed)
- real weapons were used
- it was no considered unchivalrous to gang up one one knight or to charge dismounted knights
- footsoldiers were used, incuding missile troops (!)

This is something else than the latter, polished, polite, regulated affairs.

And I'd really like to include more of those in KAP, to once again stress the civilizing influence of Arthurs' reign.

Okay, I'm going to be boring, and ask whats your source is.


Alas, I am unable to give you a source, as it is just what I have gobbled up via avid interest in the period rather than a specific book that I have read. :(

I am not sure what the issue of the disagreement here is, though? That people used sharp weapons in tournament? They did, agreed. That people sometimes died in tournaments? Agreed also. That people didn't actively try to kill their opponents in tournaments, by and large? I am saying they didn't, do you disagree? The intent wasn't to kill the other guy, but the capture him for ransom. And sure, that is what you'd expect most knights to aim for even in a war situation, too, especially if it was a higher noble with a fat ransom.



My source is "Knights at tournaments", an Osprey book. It do not mention killing horses, admittedly, but makes the following statements about 12th-13th century tournaments:


Thanks for the source. I managed to find your quoted parts on google books preview.



- death and injury were common (in one tournament 17 knights died, 60 in another; this can be compared with the loosing side at the really large battle of Bouvines lost - 170 knights killed)


Many of those 60 knights died of heat and dust, according to the source. Besides, I am not contesting that accidents happened. Duke Geoffrey, son of Henry II, got his head kicked in by a horse during a tournament, according to one story. King Henry II of France definitely died due a splinter from a jousting accident, and that was in 1559!

Point is, the knights at the tournament were NOT trying to kill one another. Melee was a mock war, yes, but it was described to be a contest, not real war. I'd go further and claim that the death toll was higher for knights in battles than in tournaments. You quote Bouvines. Well, I could quote Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt to start with. Townton would be a bit of a cheat, I guess, since it was described as especially bloody, with little to no quarter given. Point is, those 17 and 60 deaths in tournaments seem to me to be the noteworthy incidents, eliciting special comment, rather than something you'd expect in every tournament, and you easily could have thousands of knights participating in big tournaments.



- real weapons were used


Never claimed otherwise.



- it was no considered unchivalrous to gang up one one knight or to charge dismounted knights


Yep, no problem with that either. Once Arthurian Chivalric ethos takes hold, it would change in my campaigns. Before that, have at them.



- footsoldiers were used, incuding missile troops (!)


Occasionally, yes. But apparently mainly as a protective, defensive role, to keep assailants at bay while the knights regroup/rest. Again, a difference from a war.



This is something else than the latter, polished, polite, regulated affairs.


Oh, it definitely was more rough and tumble than later jousts, that is for sure. And since we know that the Round Table Knights are still participating in melees in GPC & Mallory, that hints that they were still doing melees late into Arthur's era, too.



And I'd really like to include more of those in KAP, to once again stress the civilizing influence of Arthurs' reign.


Sure, I am not saying you shouldn't. I only made two claims here:

1) Knights didn't actively try to kill one another in tournaments. Well, they were not supposed to, anyway. I have not come across any claim that the knights participated in the tournament with the intent of killing the other knights. Tempers may have flared, though, see below.

2) Attacking a knight's horse in what is supposed to be a 'friendly' contest would be taken very poorly and potentially escalate the situation into a real combat. This also ties into economics (in particularly Pendragon, but also real medieval ones): warhorses are bloody expensive. Killing a knight's warhorse during a sporting event is a huge financial loss to the knight, and certainly not taken with good humor, if that was done deliberately. I have not come across a reference that stated that knights deliberately targeted each other's horses during tournaments (of course accidents happened) as a valid tactic.

In the source you offered, there was an incident involving Edward I in 1274, which escalated into a mini-battle, due to the King and the tournament host, the Count of Chalons, grappling with each other. I can't help but feel that had one deliberately killed the horse of the other, there would have been lots of bad blood. Granted, that was later, when melees were becoming more 'outdated'.

Summa summarum:
If you want your knights gleefully killing each other's valuable warhorses in what is supposed to be a friendly contest, feel free. It is your campaign. :) In mine, though, such a behavior would switch the mindset into a real battle and blood would be spilled with intent to kill.

I'm not going to answer your post point by point, as I do not think that we actually are in much disagreement here, but try to rephrase was I was getting at in a hopefully more comprehensible way. I will add some stuff that I have run through my head throughout the day and go back to your original post, were you divided this subject in three parts.

1, Killing a horse in battle, skirmish, feud, any context of “war”, in my mind, should never cost Honor. In war, anything goes, almost. However, it should be Arbitrary. It is Arbitrary in 485, it is Arbitrary in 510, it is in Arbitrary 555. I think that a Trait check must be a Trait check in the game, period. What changes throughout the game is not what is worthy a check or not, but how actions are seen. Now, in 485 close to no one would think it amiss to attack another knight’s horse in real combat. In 520 many knights are Chivalric and have high Just scores. Even if attacking another knight’s horse in real combat is not Dishonorable, they would not do it. Because it is unfair and being Chivalric/Just, these knights wants to win through being the better man, not getting unfair advantage. They would frown on other knights killing horses and may well keep away from the company of such knaves. The same goes for 555, with the exception that Mordred and his bunch is around, and they would of course applaud any knight “smart” enough gain an advantage in war, i.e. as it were in the olden days.

2, The early tournaments are more warlike than the late ones, and I do not consider them “friendly” contests. It is more like rugby than tennis. It is true, knights do not try to kill each other on purpose, but it happens that knights get killed. Furthermore, these tournaments are rather rough and tumble. There are few rules and no judges; “sportsmanship” has few supporters and is not part of the rules of the game. No one will throw you out, though the family of friend of anyone you have attacked may well come after you. As in war, it is considered smart to gang up on opponents, and attack knights on foot while mounted. As the object of the game is to capture knights and their equipment, going after some ones horse is a bit double edged. It may help you make a capture, particularly a strong opponent, so I could see that happen in early tournaments and I will say that most knights see nothing wrong with such behavior. I would, however, given that “a Trait check is a Trait check”, give Arbitrary checks for such behavior at all instances. (And I will give up this position if anyone can prove to me that there were rules against attacking horses in 12th and 13th century tournaments).

As for later Tournaments, attacking the horse of another knight lead to the knights dismissal from the tournament, as is explicitly stated in KAP 5.1 page 218 (on the subject of melees, granted, but I don’t see it as acceptable to do in during the jousts or challenges). I’m not sure if I would deduct Honor for this. Given that you lose one point of Honor to attack an unarmed knight, and none at all for using other unfair advantages in combat, I think it’s too harsh.

3, I’m still digesting this one. Don’t know what to think, really. I am leaning towards Arbitrary check, no honor loss, but possible harsh social consequence while Chivalry is in vogue. (Also, I’ve always run most formal duels on foot, and I have no idea if that is “historically correct” or not).

A tertiary source, but with a (secondary-source) bibliography:
http://sirguillaume.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/English-Tournaments.pdf

Quote:
"
Rules of engagement:
•No rules or custom
against
: infantry;
uneven odds; pretending disinterest and
starting when others were already tired.
•Some behaviors were not against the
rules but were thought dishonorable:
archers; attacking an unhelmed knight;
killing a horse; leaving the field (other
than to recets) and returning; striking at
the legs.
"

I'd interpret this as meaning that in the very early melees, hitting a horse might cost Honor, but not be a disqualifying offense. Unlike in later times.

Another quote:
"
An early 13th century tournament
:
Tournaments
differed from battle only because:
•Tourneyers fought without intent to kill and deaths were a
matter of regret.
"

I rest my case and agree to disagree, if this failed to convince you. :)

Arbitrary check is an interesting idea. I will have to mull that one over, but I feel it growing on me. It has that 'screw the rules; I am in it to win it!' combat pragmatist feel, and would make an interesting contrast between high Just characters (probably also Chivalric) and the Arbitrary ones.

I'd probably still dock Honor in tournaments and 'non-lethal' duels, as well as if the person has Honor 16+... I might even do so during War in the latter case during later Chivalric periods, although bit wishy-washy about that. Probably wouldn't, since any Honor 16+ Chivalric knight would be dismounting in any case if the opponent loses a horse...

A tertiary source, but with a (secondary-source) bibliography:
http://sirguillaume.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/English-Tournaments.pdf

Quote:
"
Rules of engagement:
•No rules or custom
against
: infantry;
uneven odds; pretending disinterest and
starting when others were already tired.
•Some behaviors were not against the
rules but were thought dishonorable:
archers; attacking an unhelmed knight;
killing a horse; leaving the field (other
than to recets) and returning; striking at
the legs.
"

I'd interpret this as meaning that in the very early melees, hitting a horse might cost Honor, but not be a disqualifying offense. Unlike in later times.

Another quote:
"
An early 13th century tournament
:
Tournaments
differed from battle only because:
•Tourneyers fought without intent to kill and deaths were a
matter of regret.
"

I rest my case and agree to disagree, if this failed to convince you. :)

Nah, I have to give up here, but I want to point out that those rules are from the 13th century, not the 12th. I will read some solid scholarly work on tournaments, and if I actually find the time, I will report back.


Arbitrary check is an interesting idea. I will have to mull that one over, but I feel it growing on me. It has that 'screw the rules; I am in it to win it!' combat pragmatist feel, and would make an interesting contrast between high Just characters (probably also Chivalric) and the Arbitrary ones.

Well put.


I'd probably still dock Honor in tournaments and 'non-lethal' duels, as well as if the person has Honor 16+... I might even do so during War in the latter case during later Chivalric periods, although bit wishy-washy about that. Probably wouldn't, since any Honor 16+ Chivalric knight would be dismounting in any case if the opponent loses a horse...


Given what costs Honor in the KAP-rules, I think I would just hand out checks in Arbitrary or whatever other trait that seems suitable, not lowering a PKs Honor unless something really heinous was attempted. I'm pretty happy with the Honorlosses given as RAW, and not all behavior that is frowned upon need to lead to an actual Honor-loss.

Given what costs Honor in the KAP-rules, I think I would just hand out checks in Arbitrary or whatever other trait that seems suitable, not lowering a PKs Honor unless something really heinous was attempted. I'm pretty happy with the Honorlosses given as RAW, and not all behavior that is frowned upon need to lead to an actual Honor-loss.


That is a good point. I do think that Darren Hill's 'roll Honor passion and on a success, it lowers by one' - mechanic might still work well here. It 'punishes' high Honor characters ("we thought you were better than that!") while low Honor characters might get away with it ("he is a rat bastard, what did you expect him to do"?). Of course, that is the subjective view, where the dishonor depends on who is doing it, rather than an objective right/wrong, no matter who is doing it or the situation. I think I might use it in early tournaments: after all, Honor is a measure of a man's reputation, and if you have a reputation of killing horses in tournament, people might wonder what else you might stoop to. Whereas if you are already a bit shady, killing horses in tournaments doesn't really change that perception.

Arbitrary check I might be using in a war & serious duels for all sorts of 'dirty tricks'. I admit, this is a territory where Honor and Just/Arbitrary and even Honest/Deceitful are difficult to tell apart:
- Disguising your troops as enemy troops would, to me, be Deceitful, but not necessarily Dishonorable.
- Agreeing on a truce and then betraying your word would be Dishonorable and Deceitful, while simply claiming that you have reinforcements coming to bluff the opponent would simply be Deceitful.
- Attacking the opponent's horse (when you are still mounted yourself) would be Arbitrary. Would that make dismounting yourself to fight the enemy who has been unhorsed Honorable or Just or both, though?

I'll just note that as per Rules-As-Written, a Trait or Passion of 16+ FORCES the PK to act in a certain way. If dismounting to fight the person on the ground is seen as the honorable thing to do, deserving praise (Honor check), a Honor 16+ PK would be dismounting or be docked a Honor point, even if staying on horseback would not normally cost Honor (it wouldn't, in my game). Not because what he did was Dishonorable, but because he didn't live up to the hype of his 16+ Honor. A more common example in our games is when an opponent is knocked down in a serious duel; high-Honor characters (or those wishing to make a good impression in front of Arthur and RTKs in Pentecost tournament) do dismiss that advantage and let the opponent get up, unmolested. It is always worthy of a Honor check to do that, and no penalty for pressing the advantage, but now I am thinking if I should deal out Arbitrary checks for pressing the advantage. Hmm.

I do like it in a way that it makes playing a Chivalrous Knight much more challenging, and perhaps make all those Just 16 PKs think about whether they want to have that high Just after all. :P I might switch the other group over to this view once Arthur establishes the Round Table and 'changes the rules'.

Well, I think this is rapidly veering to the murky waters of 'What do the Traits and Passions stand for, actually'. :P

for a good look into the mindset of the Conquest period (the Pendragon 14th C analogue) read Muhlberger on Charney. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jousts-Tournaments-Chivalric-Fourteenth-Century/dp/1891448285

for a good look into the mindset of the Conquest period (the Pendragon 14th C analogue) read Muhlberger on Charney. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jousts-Tournaments-Chivalric-Fourteenth-Century/dp/1891448285


Thanks for that, looks really interesting! Alas, my local library do not stock it, so, Praise the lord for inter library loans!

Is it okay for knights to kill horses in combat?


Yes, in battle.
The primary incentive not to ought to be financial.
in tournaments, no.
It costs honor.
Even if it is an accident.