Was it considered bad form in the past for a lot of mounted combatants

>>2196321

think the general policy and doctrine was MAKE THE FUCKERS DIE, KILL KILL KILL

seriously doubt anyone counted dead horses, except maybe if they were hungry

Mounted combat has a 5000 year long history and was practiced over five continents so there's very little you can apply to all of it

The horse was invisible to other combatants because of the barding and lack of inter-species communication, that's why it was invulnerable to any attack. Also, the rider has 1187% more reach than any footman, hence why cavalry was always overpowered up until 1918.

>>2196464
What?

File: 124754531653.jpg (128KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 700x700px

>>2196464

>>2196321
If you killed the horse, you may still have an aggressive, heavily armed warrior still trying to kill you/your men.

Also, during the age of chivalry a mounted knight would rather be killed by a fellow knight rather than be hacked to death by peasant infantry. Obviously most cases involved worthy enough fighters being captured for ransom. That's an idea I just pooped out my head.

>>2196464
That was the /his/ equivalent of "anymore of that and you'll be stronger than superman"

>>2196464
Please explain

>>2196321
Aiming for the horse does not prevent the man on it form putting a spear point in you unless you massively outreach him.

>>2196464


WTF are these faggots meming about?
>>2196490
>>2196738
>>2196808
>>2197161

That was plain intelligible English which explained exactly the point that was made.