This question came up regarding some reading about the US 26th Cavalry Regiment in the Philippines during WWII, but the question extends to any and all cavalry troops, whether they are medieval knights or 19th century hussars or whether they ride horses, elephants, camels, or whatever.
Did cavalry-men become emotionally attached to their mounts, sort of how one would become attached to a family pet? Would these men give names to their mounts and form bonds with them? If someone had their horse shot out from underneath them, or were forced to butcher their own mounts for food (like the 26th Cavalry) would that effect them emotionally, or would it be no different to a modern soldier loosing a Humvee for example?
I've never heard or read about any examples of this, but it does seem like something that would be easily glossed over or overlooked if it did occur.
Just like in many areas of history, yes and no. My focus is Australian WW1 history, so I can really only answer from that perspective.
Yes, some formed connections with their horses if they stayed with them for long periods, and many horses had reputations for being a hard or easy ride. Some farmers took their own horses overseas with them, but I know of no cases where the horse survived in that instance. There is a long standing myth about the Australian Light Horse; instead of selling their horses to the locals in Egypt where there was a very poor standard of animal care, they shot them. This may have happened, although in my research I have only found one example of this and the horse was shot for medical reasons, the soldier just happened to be approved to shoot. Unapproved shootings could have been the case for less than 30 horses out of the 130 000 that Australia sent overseas. There is evidence to suggest that many soldiers bonded with the horses to have something greater than themselves to worry about and keep them pushing forward in a tough environment.
The vast majority of horses were shuffled around between soldiers over the course of the war, as injuries and deaths occurred. There was no system in place during this time to track individual horses, and though they branded the horses, no database existed. They were instead considered similar to supplies, counted numerically as needed. Eg, 30 horses allocated to a section.
At the end of the war, horses were either sold to locals, sent as remounts to British Imperial units, or killed if considered medically unfit to be sold or reallocated. In all three cases, they were primarily treated as a commodity by the army and official demobilisation had no room for emotion. The horses were absolutely credited for their part in the war effort, and the intimate care of the animals by the soldiers in a daily routine allowed them to work as an effective team.
Only one horse returned to Australian soil after the war.
In my research I read hundreds of diary entries by Light Horsemen. My general impression was that while some did form emotional relationships with their horses, most viewed them as a resource and none (as far as my research scope went) formed the type of relationship you have with a family pet. Many of the Light Horsemen were farmers who were familiar with using horses for work and did not think more of it. I originally expected to find more expressions of bonding than I did.
I think today there is a much stronger emphasis on animal rights and the changing attitudes towards how they are utilised for the benefits of humans, and this has likely impacted the attitudes. It would be fascinating to have a sociological study that looked at the relationship between police and their horses (as no longer really used in Australian army since 1919) and compare to existing history.
You may be also interested in What was the relationship between knight and horse?, with an answer from /u/Hussard.