Interested in Roman Riding?

[John Conyard]

Hello Cesar,

Your post caught me on an extended site visit. I spent a day thinking your suggestion was without merit, and a day trying to come to terms with the idea in a fair minded way. This must be a warning to me, I must be getting narrow minded in my old age.

You are suggesting the Roman saddle has parallels to the Spanish vaquera traditional saddle, where the pommel and cantle are connected with leather tubes filled traditionally with rye grass or reed. This is a flexible saddle which will fit a variety of horses, generally with long backs. http://www.animoruitersport.nl/vaquera.htm My version is too long for Hal who is small by any standard.

[attachment=2:32d1an5j]<!-- ia2 Spanish saddle.JPG<!-- ia2 [/attachment:32d1an5j]

This is a medieval design and sometimes I play with it as such. It is a “soft” saddle and unlike Spanish and Portuguese bull fighting saddles which are related to the steppe saddle and later military saddles, with two cantles linked to side boards. The vaquera saddle relies on two massive pads, traditionally made of breathable linen, to cushion the saddle on the horse. It is in some ways a poor mans saddle, and similar to a pack saddle. It does have parallels to other saddle designs which use wood rather than stuffed leather tubes.

[attachment=1:32d1an5j]<!-- ia1 asaddle5.jpg<!-- ia1 [/attachment:32d1an5j]

I suspect that very early saddles could be made simply of wooden cantles and felt pads. This could describe a form of Skythian saddle. I suppose the German reconstruction of the Roman saddle with its steel cantles giving basic rigidity to two leather pads is similar. But the last two German four horns I’ve played with had floppy horns and little lateral stability with the front of the saddle operating independently to the rear of the saddle. I suspect they are just poor saddles as well as poor reconstructions. The use of steel cantles is questionable and the massive and weight and size of such reconstructions seem a little pointless.

However I still believe in the wooden tree for some simple reasons.

With Cesar’s suggestion the strength of the cantles would be vital, as would be the way the side boards/leather tubes/wooden dowel are attached to give lateral stability. Of course there two holes in the possible cantle from Carslisle.

[attachment=0:32d1an5j]<!-- ia0 Carslisle cantle.JPG<!-- ia0 [/attachment:32d1an5j]

The top slot does seem to be for suspending a leather or rawhide seat, as with many military saddles. The side hole seems possible for fitting a sideboard raher a series of leather tubes. But this is not conclusive.

I suspect that if I was covering a Roman saddle made from two cantles joined by leather tubes I would not use a single piece of leather as are found associated with Roman four horns. Instead I would rather cover the cantles and horns separately, if at all, then cover the seat, as is the case with the vaquera.

And I would rather use wooden sideboards compared to leather tubes because they are easy to make and attach, are stronger for military use and require no padding. A Roman four horn made from two cantles and two sideboards, plus four horns, would produce a design from which the steppe saddle could naturally evolve. And every other military saddle since then.

Leather tubes and thin sticks could be used for pack saddles.

But this is supposition, and I suspect a fairer answer to your question would be we just don’t know.