You don't do it in combat; you use the horses to get to a good position, and leave before the enemy can hit you back. In theory.
Yeah but if that's the objective you could use a wagon better. Remember our archers firing from a fixed position follow either Volley Strategy(which requires more archers than fit on horseback) or Blackbirds. Bus in a few dozen archers on horse drawn wagons, set up for volley and then ride away.
I would also raise the point that beyond military applications, larger horses can be beneficial in logistics (as we've already seen) and possibly even agriculture (larger horses = more land plowed, more grains milled, etc). Hopefully we make that connection and horses become something that can serve as more than military transportation. Once that happens we might not need to rely on martial investments to further horse research (breeding? development? I don't even know what to call this).
Different types of horse unfortunately. While larger horses shared common traits, you actually get significant divergence:
-Draft horse for farming.
--Overall shorter but broader build
--Bred for strength, stamina and resilience to disease
--Had poor running power
--Consumed sparse feed.
-Light Cavalry/Scouts/Racehorse
--Overall short and lean build, closest to a bigger wild pony.
--Bred for great speed with decent stamina, but lacking in raw strength
--Ate quite a lot for their size.
-Heavy cavalry/Warhorse(the type you fight from)
--Tall and broad build.
--Bred for great strength and adequate speed, but lacking in stamina. Warhorses were usually walked to battle, and mounted only when it was time to fight,, because they had the medieval equivalent of a fighter jet maintenance cycle. In exchange they could STILL gallop with a big dude with heavy armor on man and horse alike.
--Ate quite a lot for their size and they're HUGE.
Noting also that the more intense you make the breeding program the more inbreeding(meaning disease vulnerability, fertility loss) is going to happen to make it work
True, although fighting against what is keeping our nation productive and able to rebound from war, disease and (not so much for us) famine is not an intuitive fight. I would argue that we are already on the slippery slope so to speak, and that at either end is not what we want. At the bottom, systematic patriarchy that effectively halves the available pool of talent; and at the top of the slope is a nation that requires (effectively) modern medicine and a bunch of social concepts and mores to maintain. While we could reach the peak now, I think it'll result in a lot more social turmoil than necessary. Instead, I think our current position on the colloquial hill is just fine, and that we will need to give it a few kicks back up every time it starts going back down (like now). However, this obsessive pursuit for the dissolution of the patriarchy I think is quite anachronistic and might cause more harm than good.
Not really all that obsessive, for all that some posters were highly motivated by the issue. The key part is to keep it from hitting the point where de facto has enough weight behind it to become de jure.
On that note is it possible Lolwyna was messing with copper steam vessels? There is something niggling at me that copper had associations with fire in alchemy, as well as the idea that copper is a good heat conductor I think.
Copper would...probably burst pretty quickly.