value of shoeing had become generally known, the art of war became altered, not only as regards the increased mobility of armed bodies of men, and the certain efficiency of cavalry, but as concerning tactics and equipment. Always of the greatest moment, it was only when about to commence a campaign, or when really engaged in it, that the generals of antiquity devoted so much of their attention to the preservation of their horses' hoofs; and when these began to give way, defeat was often not very far distant. Consequently, the movements of large armies were generally constrained as to rapidity, and the horsemen were armed and equipped as lightly as possible, to diminish the chances of embarrassment from this source. It may have been from their ignorance of shoeing, that the Greeks considered cavalry rather as auxiliaries than as principals in battle,[1] and that it was not employed in the Trojan war. To this circumstance, also, may we not account for the warriors in the time of Homer having two horses each, upon which they rode alternately, in order to relieve the hoofs as much as possible?[2] Alexander the Great, undoubtedly, had a large force of men who fought both on horseback and on foot (διμαχαι),[3] but Diodorus mentions how these were rendered useless, by their horses becoming hoof-worn when on service.
In the early ages, armour had its origin in the cunning or effeminacy of Asiatic nations; but the more open and dauntless European despised every device except the shield, until brought into contact with the mail-covered enemy, when he also was obliged to adopt this protection. In the
