+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc) (/showthread.php?tid=6780)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-23-2010
Quote:I am only asking as I am one of these annoying people who is not convinced Roman cavalry ponies were so small...(I'm not saying they're huge, just not so small).
I think we're round-robining the Roman horse issue again. :roll: However, I agree. At 13 hands, the mount is nearing pony size. Maybe the average horse was not some long-legged Arabian, but it was a "horse" and not a pony. There's no reason to assume the cavalry mount was less than "average," perhaps 14 hands. The traditions of horse breeding for size are well documented. We had Phillip of Macedon buying Sarmatian horses from the Crimea. The Persians had the Niesson (sp?). And it's been mentioned on another thread that the Andalusian "came with the Moors" (supposedly related to the Persian horse) from Africa, when it's far more likely that the breed came with the Alans and Vandals, went to Africa, and then came back to Spain with the Moors. These were all strong-boned horses, not ponies, and of average size. "Not small," as Vindex phrased it.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-23-2010
Totally agree. Thanks. 8)
Okay, I'm satisfied that a person your size with that kind of kit should have no trouble--once trained and conditioned--hopping on a 14-hand horse . . . even without afoot loop. I suspect individuals varied their equipment and technique to accommodate their own height, weight, arm length, etc.
We aren't dealing in universals here, just center-of-the bell-shaped curve probabilities. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Vindex - 08-23-2010
Quote:Vindex:2s71prb6 Wrote:I am only asking as I am one of these annoying people who is not convinced Roman cavalry ponies were so small...(I'm not saying they're huge, just not so small).
I think we're round-robining the Roman horse issue again. :roll: However, I agree. At 13 hands, the mount is nearing pony size. Maybe the average horse was not some long-legged Arabian, but it was a "horse" and not a pony. There's no reason to assume the cavalry mount was less than "average," perhaps 14 hands. The traditions of horse breeding for size are well documented. We had Phillip of Macedon buying Sarmatian horses from the Crimea. The Persians had the Niesson (sp?). And it's been mentioned on another thread that the Andalusian "came with the Moors" (supposedly related to the Persian horse) from Africa, when it's far more likely that the breed came with the Alans and Vandals, went to Africa, and then came back to Spain with the Moors. These were all strong-boned horses, not ponies, and of average size. "Not small," as Vindex phrased it.
From experience (and the height of 5'11'') it is very hard to keep balance on too small a pony even with stirrups and moving the upper body weight also makes it hard for the horse/pony to balance too. And I wasn't wearing armour. But 14hh at my height, one handed and at speed was far more difficult than staying with a 15hh horse - I wouldn't get on a 13hh horse as my feet would almost touch the ground and be a hazard to both of us!
This isn't Roman riding, by the way, but neck reining for navigation backed up by pressure from the knees to steer in extremis.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-23-2010
Wow, hadn't thought of that. It is possible for the horse to be too small.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-24-2010
Quote:Wow, hadn't thought of that. It is possible for the horse to be too small.
I never thought of it either!
hock: Vindex has a point, and I'm really beginning to wonder about all those runty Angus McBride ponies that we see in the Ospray booklets (too thin to be called "books"). I think John Conyard and his Equite Taifali gang are using Welsh cobbs. What's their height?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 08-25-2010
I checked before getting on mine, they're around 13-14 hands. :lol:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 08-25-2010
Quote: the best that any ancient missile weapon could accomplish was either a bruise or a dent in the armour.
I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. Thin 'bodkin' headed arrows were in use by Northern Germanic archers in the 4th-6th C and one of those, delivered by even a low poundage (say 60 lb) single stave self bow like the ones found at Nydam would go far enough into all but the thickest of hide to cause serious injury. That's not a supposition on my part, I've seen it done as part of a series of penetration tests using pig corpses as bodies.
Mail lasts for a long time and is easily repaired (as attested to by the finds of mail with twisted wire in place of missing links). I'm sure that all those hundreds if not thousands of mailshirts didn't just get loaded onto a boat in 410 and get sent back to the fabrica.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 08-25-2010
Well, the ones I've tested anyways... :oops: Maybe I should get some pigs and sharpen my arrows a bit :twisted: Have you tried three layers of overlapping laminated (proper terminology for strengthened leather?) hide?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-25-2010
Should we start a (separate) thread on the effectiveness of arrows and spears against various types of armor? :?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 08-25-2010
Ron! Welcome! Any questions that I could answer about ancient horsemanship and skill? And yes, we probably should.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-25-2010
Did you take pictures of your excellent (horse-born) adventure?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 08-25-2010
No...
wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Vindex - 08-25-2010
Quote:Should we start a (separate) thread on the effectiveness of arrows and spears against various types of armor? :?
Good idea - particularly if it is from experiments as opposed to academic opinion/comment.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-25-2010
Quote:And is that a partly veiled reference to Bill and Ted? :wink:
Yes. 8)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 08-25-2010
Quote:ArthuroftheBritons:2ll439a2 Wrote:And is that a partly veiled reference to Bill and Ted? :wink:
Yes. 8)
Good to Know people here know the Classics!!! :lol: