Hard riding no saddles or stirrups

[Peroni]

Riding with a saddle without stirrups does take some getting used to, but as with anything that you spend a great deal of time doing, it gets to be second nature. I spent alot of time learning to ride without stirrups; it teaches you to have a good seat and be a better rider

I agree, you learn to turn the horse more with your bodyweight shift and the use of your leg pressures on the flanks of the horse.

BTW, that's a big fella you're sitting on in your avatar!

[claudia crisis]

I also recall that some saddles finds from Carlisle presented at the Carlisle Conference (Oct 2004 I think) - dont know if these are published yet. Quita Mould was working on the leather covers - 2 covers, apparently removable with skirts. Also they had found part of a wooden "tree" which answered (at least on that particular saddle) whether a solid "tree" or just padded with straw (as had been suggested by the saddler in Southport who has made his own very good alternate version of the Connoly saddle). Both systems work, so both may be possible. Evidence of a "tree" on one doesnt necessarily mean "tree" on all.

On another slant, I also recall seeing a photo of stirrups from Pompei, so perhaps not all saddles the same - some may be stirrup-less, some may not.

Hilary

[Arthes]

The cavalry and battle scenes in Alexander are a good example of riding without stirrups or proper saddle :wink:
A trained warhorse would also lash out with it's front hooves, I think I saw some horse chest armour from this period...possibly Thracian...?
The Romans also had the Dacian and Roxalani/Sarmatian cataphracti auxilaries, these also would have been sent in to break the infantry lines of the enemy...
regards
Arthes

[Peroni]

I think I saw some horse chest armour from this period...possibly Thracian...?

I don't know about the Alexandrian period, but certainly there are depictions of pectoral armor on most of the Roman horses seen on the Traijanic Adamklissi monument.


Hilary wrote..

I also recall seeing a photo of stirrups from Pompei, so perhaps not all saddles the same - some may be stirrup-less, some may not.

Any details of these would be good! Photo?

(as had been suggested by the saddler in Southport who has made his own very good alternate version of the Connoly saddle).

I assume you speak of Chris Taylor at Saddler's den? I have ridden a very similar (treeless) saddle made by a lady in France. It works perfectly well, and I think is more comfortable.

[floofthegoof]

The actual, specific meaning of a cavalry charge is really a very difficult problem to solve. There is no longer any legal context to treat horses and men in this manner. Literary sources, unless they are instructional, are not so good because people use metaphors and things. So when someone says, such and such cavalry 'smashed into the rear of the enemy line' you don't really know what that means. In fact, I don't even know if we know what it means in Neopoleanic times much less Roman times. I bet there's some very good information from Napoleon's time period regarding what horses will do and not do. It may be an easier place to start to find useful information about ancient cavalry. It's an area of military history that could use some serious study, because our grip on it is rapidly fading from memory. Did Napoleon's cavalry officers need to read any 'how to' books?

If soccer team A 'kicks the butt of' soccer team B, one might get strange ideas regarding the rules of soccer a thousand years on.

[floofthegoof]

On another slant, I also recall seeing a photo of stirrups from Pompei, so perhaps not all saddles the same - some may be stirrup-less, some may not.

Hilary

Are you sure about that? I believe this would change the current thinking on when stirrups were introduced to the west, so double check on that.

[drsrob]

The actual, specific meaning of a cavalry charge is really a very difficult problem to solve. There is no longer any legal context to treat horses and men in this manner. Literary sources, unless they are instructional, are not so good because people use metaphors and things. So when someone says, such and such cavalry 'smashed into the rear of the enemy line' you don't really know what that means. In fact, I don't even know if we know what it means in Neopoleanic times much less Roman times. I bet there's some very good information from Napoleon's time period regarding what horses will do and not do. It may be an easier place to start to find useful information about ancient cavalry. It's an area of military history that could use some serious study, because our grip on it is rapidly fading from memory. Did Napoleon's cavalry officers need to read any 'how to' books?

If soccer team A 'kicks the butt of' soccer team B, one might get strange ideas regarding the rules of soccer a thousand years on.

That would indeed be a good place to start.
First of all, horses cannot be made to charge into a closed body of men, though they do charge single men. Napoleonic infantry formed square when attacked by cavalry. Against a closed square of bayonets cavalry is impotent. There is only one instance known of a square broken by cavalry. What happened however is that a wounded horse fell upon the infantrymen in front of him and in thrashing about created a gap through which the cavalry could enter the square and disperse it. Of course this only proves the point.
Secondly when two bodies of cavalry charge each other interesting things happen. Normally it workes out as a game of chicken. One side loses its nerve and takes flight before the troops actually meet. From the Napoleonic eary there is an eyewitness description of a charge where the lines opened up before impact and the riders passed each other with some swordplay, the lines reformed at opposite ends and the troops disappeared from sight.

[Chuck Russell]

The actual, specific meaning of a cavalry charge is really a very difficult problem to solve. There is no longer any legal context to treat horses and men in this manner. Literary sources, unless they are instructional, are not so good because people use metaphors and things. So when someone says, such and such cavalry 'smashed into the rear of the enemy line' you don't really know what that means. In fact, I don't even know if we know what it means in Neopoleanic times much less Roman times. I bet there's some very good information from Napoleon's time period regarding what horses will do and not do. It may be an easier place to start to find useful information about ancient cavalry. It's an area of military history that could use some serious study, because our grip on it is rapidly fading from memory. Did Napoleon's cavalry officers need to read any 'how to' books?

If soccer team A 'kicks the butt of' soccer team B, one might get strange ideas regarding the rules of soccer a thousand years on.

That would indeed be a good place to start.
First of all, horses cannot be made to charge into a closed body of men, though they do charge single men. Napoleonic infantry formed square when attacked by cavalry. Against a closed square of bayonets cavalry is impotent. There is only one instance known of a square broken by cavalry. What happened however is that a wounded horse fell upon the infantrymen in front of him and in thrashing about created a gap through which the cavalry could enter the square and disperse it. Of course this only proves the point.
Secondly when two bodies of cavalry charge each other interesting things happen. Normally it workes out as a game of chicken. One side loses its nerve and takes flight before the troops actually meet. From the Napoleonic eary there is an eyewitness description of a charge where the lines opened up before impact and the riders passed each other with some swordplay, the lines reformed at opposite ends and the troops disappeared from sight.

ummm they did up the hill at hastings did they not? 3 times even they charged at a line of saxons.

[Magnus]

Horses scare the crap out of me.

[floofthegoof]

Lets say those infantry aren't even resisting, and they are in fact dead. Would it even be a good idea to gallop a horse through a concentration of dead soldiers? Sounds like your asking for a broken ankle.

[floofthegoof]

ummm they did up the hill at hastings did they not? 3 times even they charged at a line of saxons.

Shield walls held.

Suggesting that this 'charge' in particular was an attempt at intimidation.

[Robert Vermaat]

There's a difference in 'riding at' an infantry formation and 'charging' an infantry formation. Cavalry can stab, shoot, etc. the crap out of infantry without driving the horses into their formation.

[Dan Howard]

Cavalry charges are a waste of time unless the defensive formation has gaps in it or the men lose their nerve and flee. It just isn't possible to get enough horses to charge a line of sharp pointy things. The whole idea of archers was to make gaps in the line for cavalry to exploit.

[Matthew]

Never heard that about archers before, though I'm sure they could be used in that way; could you provide a source for this assertion?

Matthew Bennet's paper 'The Medieval Warhorse Reconsidered' is worth a read on this subject.
It was published in Medieval Knighthood V, (eds) Stephen Church & Ruth Harvey (Boydell, 1995).

Matthew James Stanham

[Dan Howard]

J. F. Verbruggen. "The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages"

Kelly DeVries. "Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century."