07-02-2011, 01:38 AM
It is obvious that the pad saddle is comfortable for the rider, works well and is comfortable for the horse. I would not argue for a moment against that. The real question regarding pad saddles is: did the Romans use them? The evidence, as it presently stands, would seem to suggest not. This suggests a number of implications.
1 - The rider will be less comfortable. Well perhaps, but if the rider is used to it then how comfortable it is becomes less of an issue. Also, to my eyes, some saddles shown on funerary stelae seem to be covered by cloths which have been draped over them. Perhaps this was a way to make an uncomfortable saddle more comfortable.
2 - The saddle might not work as well as a pad saddle. Well, many reconstructed saddles with trees seem to work well, so the point may be redundant. Where treed saddles tend to have run into problems is in the structural integrity of the frame. The problem here is probably not the frame itself but the specific woods used and the way in which the frame has been assembled. After all, exactly the same pieces could potentially be assembled in a number of ways, some better than others.
3 - The horse will be less comfortable. Maybe so, but then again, as has already been pointed out by others in this thread, a suitable saddle cloth, folded appropriately, can solve this issue quite adequately.
4 - The Romans knew things which we have yet to work out about saddle frames. For me this is an obvious one but I think it is a point which is often forgotten.
5 - We need, as a community of reconstructors and re-enactors, to be brave enough to be prepared to experiment with several different reconstructions of frames which produce the same wear as is seen on the Carlisle covers but which use a variety of different combinations of suitable woods and a variety of different methods of construction. If this approach is taken, presumably by a group of people (who do not necessarily have to be in the same place), and each reconstruction is carefully documented in both its materials and its construction, as well as its performance in live testing, we can learn an awful lot and perhaps come closer to finding out where we have gone wrong with saddles in the past and perhaps closer to finding out what the Romans themselves may have done.
I don't know about everyone, but many of us here have some or all of the skills to make saddles or saddle parts which conform to the evidence. What support would there be in the RAT community for a programme of testing of different designs?
Like some others here, my leatherworking skills are good enough to make a basic reproduction or two of a Carlisle/Valkenburg saddle cover and in the interests of research would be happy to do so. Maybe others here have sufficient knowledge of different woods and their properties to find a variety of suitable woods for the project. Someone else here might have expert knowledge of jointing or of suitable methods of organic connection. Others again might be good enough metal workers that they could make reproduction horn reinforcements. How many different viable combinations could we come up with? I believe that we could work together to create a true reconstruction experiment which would end up being valuable enough to justify publishing.
We would need to test at least three different saddle covers: one with no metal reinforcment, one with the reinforcements stitched to the inside and one with the reinforcements stitched to the outside to see how workable each was. Similarly we would need some frames with reinforcements attached and some without reinforcements.
Also, in fairness to those who still favour pad saddles, and as a control of sorts, we should also see what effect metal horn reinforcements have on a treeless saddle.
Does anyone see any merit in this?
Also, I should note here that I agree with Moi that we should not ignore the bit, as the complete saddle is, in another sense, a constituent part of the overall bridling, all of which must be able to work together.
The reason I have not been mentioning bits and other bridlry, is simply that past a knowledge of how they are portrayed on funerary stelae, shared I am sure by most contributors here, I do not know very much about these other parts other than having some understanding of of which metallic elements are which.
I should also say that the way I was taught to ride may have differed somewhat from how others ride. I was taught to control the horse almost exclusively with the positioning and pressure of my feet, very little control being effected by the reins, which I was taught to use mainly for leading the horse when dismounted. My experience therefore presumably differs from that of some regular riders on the thread.
Crispvs
1 - The rider will be less comfortable. Well perhaps, but if the rider is used to it then how comfortable it is becomes less of an issue. Also, to my eyes, some saddles shown on funerary stelae seem to be covered by cloths which have been draped over them. Perhaps this was a way to make an uncomfortable saddle more comfortable.
2 - The saddle might not work as well as a pad saddle. Well, many reconstructed saddles with trees seem to work well, so the point may be redundant. Where treed saddles tend to have run into problems is in the structural integrity of the frame. The problem here is probably not the frame itself but the specific woods used and the way in which the frame has been assembled. After all, exactly the same pieces could potentially be assembled in a number of ways, some better than others.
3 - The horse will be less comfortable. Maybe so, but then again, as has already been pointed out by others in this thread, a suitable saddle cloth, folded appropriately, can solve this issue quite adequately.
4 - The Romans knew things which we have yet to work out about saddle frames. For me this is an obvious one but I think it is a point which is often forgotten.
5 - We need, as a community of reconstructors and re-enactors, to be brave enough to be prepared to experiment with several different reconstructions of frames which produce the same wear as is seen on the Carlisle covers but which use a variety of different combinations of suitable woods and a variety of different methods of construction. If this approach is taken, presumably by a group of people (who do not necessarily have to be in the same place), and each reconstruction is carefully documented in both its materials and its construction, as well as its performance in live testing, we can learn an awful lot and perhaps come closer to finding out where we have gone wrong with saddles in the past and perhaps closer to finding out what the Romans themselves may have done.
I don't know about everyone, but many of us here have some or all of the skills to make saddles or saddle parts which conform to the evidence. What support would there be in the RAT community for a programme of testing of different designs?
Like some others here, my leatherworking skills are good enough to make a basic reproduction or two of a Carlisle/Valkenburg saddle cover and in the interests of research would be happy to do so. Maybe others here have sufficient knowledge of different woods and their properties to find a variety of suitable woods for the project. Someone else here might have expert knowledge of jointing or of suitable methods of organic connection. Others again might be good enough metal workers that they could make reproduction horn reinforcements. How many different viable combinations could we come up with? I believe that we could work together to create a true reconstruction experiment which would end up being valuable enough to justify publishing.
We would need to test at least three different saddle covers: one with no metal reinforcment, one with the reinforcements stitched to the inside and one with the reinforcements stitched to the outside to see how workable each was. Similarly we would need some frames with reinforcements attached and some without reinforcements.
Also, in fairness to those who still favour pad saddles, and as a control of sorts, we should also see what effect metal horn reinforcements have on a treeless saddle.
Does anyone see any merit in this?
Also, I should note here that I agree with Moi that we should not ignore the bit, as the complete saddle is, in another sense, a constituent part of the overall bridling, all of which must be able to work together.
The reason I have not been mentioning bits and other bridlry, is simply that past a knowledge of how they are portrayed on funerary stelae, shared I am sure by most contributors here, I do not know very much about these other parts other than having some understanding of of which metallic elements are which.
I should also say that the way I was taught to ride may have differed somewhat from how others ride. I was taught to control the horse almost exclusively with the positioning and pressure of my feet, very little control being effected by the reins, which I was taught to use mainly for leading the horse when dismounted. My experience therefore presumably differs from that of some regular riders on the thread.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
