+- 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: The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole (/showthread.php?tid=23258)
Pages:
1
2
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - petar - 05-01-2014
The mysterious Celtic burials at Gondole (Gaul)
http://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/the-ghost-cavalry-of-gondole/
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Vindex - 05-01-2014
Fascinating...EDIT: [strike]small horses[/strike] ponies, not the same thing at all (my excuse was strong pain killing drugs last night having come off a horse yesterday!).
Shame they don't give the height of the humans.
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Flavivs Aetivs - 05-01-2014
Thinking of small horses, who was it that suggested the Franks were predominately cavalry? Halsall?
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Vindex - 05-02-2014
Possibly, but I still hang on to my mounted infantry theories!
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Flavivs Aetivs - 05-02-2014
That's really what I was referring to. It was based on the fact that a cheap ploughhorse was like 2 Solidi in Salic law, so it was therefore likely they also doubled as warhorses used for rapid attacks by small groups of raiders, but when it came to larger scale stuff they were infantrymen.
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Vindex - 05-02-2014
Quote:That's really what I was referring to. It was based on the fact that a cheap ploughhorse was like 2 Solidi in Salic law, so it was therefore likely they also doubled as warhorses used for rapid attacks by small groups of raiders, but when it came to larger scale stuff they were infantrymen.
What period are you thinking of, Evan? Horses were expensive items and not used as standard agricultural vehicles until much, much later. Also trained war horses could be pretty savage beasties and handled with caution.
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Scipio Second - 05-17-2014
You are more correct than wrong. Until the stirrup was invented, effective heavy cavalry tactics were at best limited.
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Flavivs Aetivs - 05-17-2014
@Vindex
5th/6th century AD
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Condottiero Magno - 05-18-2014
Quote:You are more correct than wrong. Until the stirrup was invented, effective heavy cavalry tactics were at best limited.Could you back up your assertion? I thought this notion of stirrups being necessary for effective cavalry tactics was put to rest, but it still pops up, despite accounts and the experience of equestrians.
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Alanus - 05-18-2014
I'm with Magno on this one. The retro idea of the supreme necessity of stirrups was discussed and discounted on RAT some time ago, along with the dated notion that ancient horses were tiny pony-like creatures.
mile:
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Condottiero Magno - 05-18-2014
Quote:I'm with Magno on this one. The retro idea of the supreme necessity of stirrups was discussed and discounted on RAT some time ago, along with the dated notion that ancient horses were tiny pony-like creatures.Most ancient breeds of horses were smallish, though I wouldn't refer to all of them as ponies, even if they were smaller than the modern requirement of less than 14.2 hands. Even 14.2 hands isn't a sound cut-off, as there are smaller horses that aren't ponies, like the Icelandic and Steppe versions. It's not the size of the horse, but its load bearing capacity and agility, that determines whether it'd be ideal for shock tactics - sturdy horseshoes are also important. Whether one group uses horses for shock tactics, skirmishing or missile platforms is cultural, though environment might be another factor.
Regarding stirrups and shock tactics, I refer to these articles:
Saddle, Lance and Stirrup: An Examination of the Mechanics of Shock Combat and the Development of Shock Tactics
"Saddle, Lance and Stirrup" - The Irish/Roman Connection
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Alanus - 05-18-2014
Magno,
Sorry to disagree with you on the point that ancient breeds were "smallish." In the 5th and 3th century BC, the Saka/Massagetae, and their cultural cousins in the Altai, had developed large horses. This is what the "stepp magnates" did. They were the first successful horse breeders, an occupation that goes back to the 2nd millennium BC. Steppe horse breeders were exporting through the Mailcop civilization down to Ur long before the first Persian existed. The actual home of an influential horse dealer from Andronovo has been excavated in the Bactria Marghana Complex, about 1000km from his origin. Horses found in elite Altai kurgans are 15 hands high. Examples are numerous.
You're correct in stating that horses needed to be bred for carrying capacity, and of course, also for endurance. We have gone through this whole thing on RAT. The horses used by the Massagetae in 530 BC had to be large to carry armored caprisons plus men wearing 75 pounds of armor. The Persian breed of Neesan was a large horse; and in the previously mentioned battle in 530 BC, they were ridden by the losers. Contemporary horses used by Sarmats were equally large. The "V"andalusian is an ancient Alan breed, no small horse there!-- but rather a short-necked load-bearing athelete. The Akal-take' is very much similar to the original steppe horses, but it has been bred to the likes of a racehorse. The ancient preferred color of prized steppe horses was the "white-spotted gelding," the most valued being the "Qash ka-i" with a white star on its forehead. ;-)
Since the Curtain opened in 1990, we know significantly more about ancient horse breeding through Russian archaeologists and anthropologists. Small horses-- or "ponies" if you like-- have always been around, still seen in the Celtic, Icelandic, and Mongol breeds. But large horses were bred for heavy cavalry use 2,500 years ago; their skeletons have been accurately measured, and they were certainly not the horse type found at Condole. Pardon my spelling, but I'm in a hurry to get to work. :-)
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Condottiero Magno - 05-19-2014
Quote:Magno,How many largish breeds vs. how many smallish? I too didn't have much time when responding, due to a lack of sleep and having to get ready for work, so focused on posting the links - what's your opinion about 'em? I should've said "most ancient breeds of horses from settled peoples were smallish", less than the 15 hands of the coveted Nisean, the reason for the expedition ordered by Emperor Wu Ti.
Sorry to disagree with you on the point that ancient breeds were "smallish." In the 5th and 3th century BC, the Saka/Massagetae, and their cultural cousins in the Altai, had developed large horses. This is what the "stepp magnates" did. They were the first successful horse breeders, an occupation that goes back to the 2nd millennium BC. Steppe horse breeders were exporting through the Mailcop civilization down to Ur long before the first Persian existed. The actual home of an influential horse dealer from Andronovo has been excavated in the Bactria Marghana Complex, about 1000km from his origin. Horses found in elite Altai kurgans are 15 hands high. Examples are numerous.
You're correct in stating that horses needed to be bred for carrying capacity, and of course, also for endurance. We have gone through this whole thing on RAT. The horses used by the Massagetae in 530 BC had to be large to carry armored caprisons plus men wearing 75 pounds of armor. The Persian breed of Neesan was a large horse; and in the previously mentioned battle in 530 BC, they were ridden by the losers. Contemporary horses used by Sarmats were equally large. The "V"andalusian is an ancient Alan breed, no small horse there!-- but rather a short-necked load-bearing athelete. The Akal-take' is very much similar to the original steppe horses, but it has been bred to the likes of a racehorse. The ancient preferred color of prized steppe horses was the "white-spotted gelding," the most valued being the "Qash ka-i" with a white star on its forehead. ;-)
Since the Curtain opened in 1990, we know significantly more about ancient horse breeding through Russian archaeologists and anthropologists. Small horses-- or "ponies" if you like-- have always been around, still seen in the Celtic, Icelandic, and Mongol breeds. But large horses were bred for heavy cavalry use 2,500 years ago; their skeletons have been accurately measured, and they were certainly not the horse type found at Condole. Pardon my spelling, but I'm in a hurry to get to work. :-)
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Alanus - 05-19-2014
Back to you, Magno
I read the two article you linked us to, and I thought the first one was right on the money, the second one also but it was much a rehash of what has been posted on this RAT Channel.
mile: Check out the full pages of the thread, Heavy Cavalry vs Heavy Cavalry. For awhile, it seemed to have gotten lost in medieval period examples, and then it settled back to the ancient era.
Stirrups were an advantage, no doubt. But as the article noted, they were/are not necessary in shock/heavy cavalry warfare. In general, a large mount was important. The Chinese began cavalry warfare under Lord Wulang in the late 4th century or early 3rd century BC, as he ordered his mounted riders to copy the armament, clothing, and tactics, of the "barbarians." You already know about Emperor Wu-di, who first purchased his larger horses from the Wusun, then the Yue-chi, even attempting to get the Persian mounts. When we look at the geographical breadth in which we find large horses, it runs from the Siberian steppe down to the Tien Shan, encompassing such tribes as the Sagars, Massagetae, Sai (Saka), Wusun, etc.
Like you say, there were far more breeds of small horses throughout the ancient world than large ones. But it was the large ones that enabled heavy cavalry to advance. And as mentioned in that first article, stirrups were most handy for archers. I tend to be "steppe-centric," my main interest of study; so I often fail to mention western developments, but the developments of horse gear, tack, and riding methods in the west were predated by riders on the Eurasian steppe. I suppose that's why I study those cultures. They were the original pioneers.
The Ghost Cavalry of Gondole - Vindex - 05-19-2014
I don't really want to get dragged into this again...
BUT
...size is not the only thing that matters!
The conformation which gives the horse its stength is the main thing. You can have a lot of horse in 15hh and nothing at all at 15.2hh - a difference of 2 inches at the withers. One of my "biggest" horses was a 15hh Chilean bred Criollo (as close to old Andalusian blood lines as you can get) not the 17.3hh (+!) Dutch bred warmblood.
Also, the practicalities of smaller horses are less fodder and less water...also less manure to shift! So when you read "this was a fort designed for 500 horses" just stop and think how much hay, straw, water etc etc etc was needed. That's one VERY big muck heap, too!
As a matter of interest - how big do you think the horse is in my avatar?