Re: 1st century Auxiliary cavalry

[Crispvs]

Yes, there is evidence. The two shield covers from Carlisle were exactly the same as the one from Valkenburg, except for two things. That is, they were more complete and both had clear stretch marks caused by the bars of saddle frames which seemed to be very similar to the frame Connolly reconstructed. A piece of wood was also found in the same dig which was of exactly the same shape as the curving piece at the front of Connolly's reconstructed frame. This piece had two holes in exactly the points Connolly predicted, as well as a further hole in the apex which is so far unexplained.
The covers were definitely from cavalry saddles as they still had their complete leather 'horns'. The main differences they exhibited from Connolly's reconstruction were that the sides simply hung down (large trapeziform flaps were sewn to the straight edges of the covers which would have hung over the horse's sides and provided a layer between the horse and the rider's legs) and that there does not seem to have been any padding (here we are reminded about Fronto's criticism in the second century AD of cavalry in Antioch who had been stuffing their saddles with straw).
The long (bottom) edges of the Trapeziform flaps were cut into a fringe. These flaps, as well as their fringed edges, can be seen on many 'Reitertyp' stelae.

The fact that both covers had been repaired with patches which had been stitched over worn areas, along with the fact that the side flaps show that the leather could not have been 'sewn under' as in Connolly's reconstruction, show that covers could be removed from frames and this may explain why a number of the the known 'horn' plates have names punched on them. If saddle covers were removed when saddles were not in use, names on plates attached to the horn of the frame would show whose saddle was whose.

Unfortunately, as far as I know, the Carlisle saddle covers have yet to be published.

Crispvs