Just finished a rereading of Ivanhoe (romanticized, I know), but it made me wonder.
With all the emphasis knights placed on chivalry/honorable conduct, was it considered dishonorable to aim your lance at your opponent's warhorse to dismount him in actual battle? I can't see even an armored horse withstanding a sharp pointy lance at a 20mph collision.
In all the portrayals of medieval jousting now, knights always aimed for the person/shield/armor of the other knight. If jousting was meant to be simulation of real combat, why, assuming it's better to unhorse the knight first, would they place so much emphasis on hitting the other person?
Thanks in advance - not too familiar with medieval history and wanted to understand how they reconciled chivalry with practicality.
As a related question, in Bernard Cornwell's Azincourt (french spelling of Agincourt) novel, he basically states that even among knights the idea was that chivalry had no place on the battlefield. I.e, kill when and how you can, no letting fallen opponents up, etc. Is that accurate?
This is a romanticized after-the-fact (but only just) depiction, but from a seminal text in defining what chivalry is (or was, centuries before its publication) supposed to be... here's a chunk from Le Morte D'Arthur, Book 8, Chapter XXXIII, "How Sir Lamorak jousted with thirty knights, and Sir Tristram at the request of King Mark smote his horse down."
Important: Tristram is a "good guy," basically a version of Lancelot, a virtuous-though-worldly knight, who's duty-bound to obey King Mark... who's a "bad guy," a greedy and lustful king.
I marvel, said King Mark, what knight he is that doth such deeds of arms. Sir, said Sir Tristram, I know him well for a noble knight as few now be living, and his name is Sir Lamorak de Galis. It were great shame, said the king, that he should go thus away, unless that some of you meet with him better. Sir, said Sir Tristram, meseemeth it were no worship for a noble man to have ado with him: and for because at this time he hath done over much for any mean knight living, therefore, as meseemeth, it were great shame and villainy to tempt him any more at this time, insomuch as he and his horse are weary both; for the deeds of arms that he hath done this day, an they be well considered, it were enough for Sir Launcelot du Lake. As for that, said King Mark, I require you, as ye love me and my lady the queen, La Beale Isoud, take your arms and joust with Sir Lamorak de Galis. Sir, said Sir Tristram, ye bid me do a thing that is against knighthood, and well I can deem that I shall give him a fall, for it is no mastery, for my horse and I be fresh both, and so is not his horse and he; and wit ye well that he will take it for great unkindness, for ever one good knight is loath to take another at disadvantage; but because I will not displease you, as ye require me so will I do, and obey your commandment.
And so Sir Tristram armed him and took his horse, and put him forth, and there Sir Lamorak met him mightily, and what with the might of his own spear, and of Sir Tristram's spear, Sir Lamorak's horse fell to the earth, and he sitting in the saddle. Then anon as lightly as he might he avoided the saddle and his horse, and put his shield afore him and drew his sword. And then he bade Sir Tristram: Alight, thou knight, an thou durst. Nay, said Sir Tristram, I will no more have ado with thee, for I have done to thee over much unto my dishonour and to thy worship. As for that, said Sir Lamorak, I can thee no thank; since thou hast for-jousted me on horseback I require thee and I beseech thee, an thou be Sir Tristram, fight with me on foot. I will not so, said Sir Tristram; and wit ye well my name is Sir Tristram de Liones, and well I know ye be Sir Lamorak de Galis, and this that I have done to you was against my will, but I was required thereto; but to say that I will do at your request as at this time, I will have no more ado with you, for me shameth of that I have done. As for the shame, said Sir Lamorak, on thy part or on mine, bear thou it an thou wilt, for though a mare's son hath failed me, now a queen's son shall not fail thee; and therefore, an thou be such a knight as men call thee, I require thee, alight, and fight with me.
This isn't the only horse to keel over in the book (published in 1485), but the Sir Thomas Malory's attitude here is pretty plain... targeting the steed is simply not cricket.
It's also pretty likely, based on this description, that going for the horse was something that happened often enough to make it worth mentioning.
This is personal speculation, but I'm not sure unhorsing a knight would be the best way to go forward in a fight... if the fellow on the ground still has a lance and you're charging at him on a large animal, it seems like the fellow on the ground could return the favor by treating the situation like a boar hunt, seating the lance on the ground and aiming the pointy end right at the oncoming animal's breastbone. Looking at the geometry of it, the rider's mount would impale itself before the rider's own lance came in range to do any damage.
Anyway, in Le Morte, guys are always knocking each other off horses and then continuing the fight on foot. Seemed to be the way things were done, at least in Malory's version of things.