Hi,
I know its silly to use popular culture as "history" but I was watching Black Sails the other day and saw a gunfight on horseback taking place. With flintlock pistols they were struggling to shoot the riders off the running horses. I started to wonder, why wouldn't they just shoot the horse? Its a much bigger target and would probably injure the rider in the process.
So, in battles/fights where horses were present, was it standard to just shoot or stab horses? I am thinking primarily of the old west, WWI Cavalry, etc. but curious about all mounted battles. I would think it would be far easier to injure a horse than a person.
Hey there,
Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.
If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!