Re: 1st century Auxiliary cavalry

[John Conyard]

I’ve being too busy to contribute to this topic, and am re-enacting nearly every weekend through July. Detailed information will go up on the Comitatus site, but bit would be churlish not to post something, even in haste.

Reading the posts so far I agree with the comments made by Crispvs and Paul Karremans.
Early saddles using padded side boards separated by wooden spacers or proto-cantles are attested in the 4th century BC. The four horn saddles can be viewed as a simple development of this design, and are soon in use by various cultures across Western Europe and the Middle East. It is certainly not a failure as a design. It is a successful design in use for half a millennium.

But there are still many questions to be answered about the design, which makes it of interest to saddle reconstructors and Roman military specialists. Reconstructors rely on archaeological evidence, written and iconographic evidence and I note there seems to be a friction between this approach and those with a deep love of horses. Indeed it has even been suggested that in some way I am cruel to horses for using wooden framed saddles, an allegation which is completely unfounded and one based on ignorance. But of course it is the practical experience of an expert that can inform the reconstructor and help them to develop a deeper understanding and a more perfect reconstruction. My butcher taught me more about the design and use of hunting knives than I would have ever obtained from reading a book, and the same is true for horse lovers and their horses.
Roman saddle reconstruction can be reconsidered a rather well worn path. Connolly made around 25 saddles and many many more have been made in the past few years. While some aspects of their design elude us, other aspects are well known within the community interested in such things. Reconstructions tend to fall into the “Connolly camp” using a solid internal frame, or the “German pad saddle school” using a stiff well padded saddle that conforms to the horses back. But of course the truth may well lie somewhere in between.

The evidence from Carlisle and elsewhere all points to the use of solid cantles and horns. These saddle elements may have been re-enforced with metal or other materials. The side boards may have been wood, or something along the lines of leather tubes stuffed with a material to stiffen them. Grass is a possible candidate as used in the Spanish Vaquero saddle. Indeed on RAT our Spanish friend Cesar has suggested this possibility more than once. However the use of side “pads” generally mean the size and weight of the saddle increases to give the necessary stiffness to the saddle. Current “German pad saddles” weigh roughly twice as much as wooden framed examples and are much bigger.

Current opinion favours the use of a wooden internal frame. At one time many people were concerned that the use of a solid frame would mean each saddle could only fit one horse. Yet we can view Roman saddles as akin to later military saddles based on Hungarian Hussar saddles. Such saddles were based on a solid wooden frame, were made in a variety of sizes, and the rider was expected to learn to fold their saddle cloth in such a way to make the saddle fit the horse. As horses lost condition on campaign the troopers would have adjust the padding under their saddles to make the saddle still fit the horse comfortably.

However so far the perfect frame construction has frankly escaped us. The secret probably lies as Crispvs says in the use of various materials to provide both strength and flexibility. We can learn something from the construction of later saddles and the balance of materials used.

Connolly used laminated birch to build the frame and metal brackets to help hold the horns securely to the frame. Such brackets may have been used by the Romans but we lack the evidence. Yet in some cases laminated cantles have split with use and age. But most saddle reconstructions use steamed plywood to make the sideboards, an easy strong option. It seems that some Anglo-Saxon saddles used oak cantles, and currently we are using solid beach for the cantles. Time will tell how effective this will be.
In early reconstructions horns broke from the frame easily, especially front outwards pressure to the sides of the saddle. Connolly’s brackets helped with this. My first saddle made many years ago used long screws to hold the horns into the rear cantle and yet the wooden horns would still come away from the frame under stress. Occasionally the wood of the horn would even split along the grain. The use of hard wood and even horn stopped the horn splitting and screws and glue secured the horn to the frame, but it was hardly a “authentic” solution.

The size of the horns are in part dictated by the surviving copper alloy horn plates, possibly acting as stiffeners to help strengthen the horn. The holes found in these plates could be used to nail the plate directly to the frame. However some plates are of a surprising thickness perhaps suggesting they are for protection and should be sewn externally to the cover. The fact that individual names have been found scratched or punched on to the stiffeners has been used as evidence that they were used externally where they would be easily visible, or internally where they would be visible when the cover was lifted off the frame. Of course not all saddles may have used copper alloy plates. These protectors or stiffeners do not give an absolute indication of the angle of horns which can be derived from sculptural evidence.

The saddles we offer for sale have no such issues and the horns are very secure. Instead it seems the stress was transferred to the joint of the front cantle and side board, and this is where Jurjen’ s saddle gave out. The first batch of saddles had a plywood cantle which didn’t help. Now beach is used and the joint is secured with brackets and bolts to make a bullet proof frame. However such a strong frame may have its own draw backs. Certainly the leather covers are stretching into the frame in record time!

The McCellan saddle is partially held together using rawhide as were many older saddles and I suspect that rawhide would also have a role to play in securing the joints in Roman saddles. As it dries and shrinks it would hold joints together while providing an element of flexibility. I find it hard not to see these saddles as very organic, made of wood, goat skin, rawhide, sinew etc.

I have not mentioned the nature of saddle covers, but will point out that the triplet straps are used in our reconstructions to secure the leather cover to the frame. A practical use for them as well as using them to suspend decoration or your enemies heads. Most modern leather needs considerable work to make it suitable for saddle covers.

When making such saddles for sale there is a tension between the customers wish for a saddle that will last forever and fit any horse or backside, and an accurate reconstruction using the correct materials. Many riders, myself included, are probably larger and heavier than the average presumed Roman rider. Often personal kit is unfit for purpose and for use on horseback. So production saddles have to be durable and tough to handle any weight and mishandling. Dropping saddles may deform the wooden frame and even break horns, and riders generally request the unbreakable saddle. Making the saddle work on the horse takes time and patience, in the some way it takes time to make personal kit work on horseback. Getting seven riders to understand their saddles and tack up their horses safely is one of my major re-enactment achievements! I look forward to Jurjen’s first public displays and enjoy seeing photos of Cesar’s events, especially his Republican impression. But there is a limit to how much such saddles and public displays can teach us about construction.

[Vindex]

...and still there is no discussion of the saddle in combination with the bit.

The two should not, indeed CANNOT be taken independently.

I am clearly knocking my head against a brick wall..

[Robert Vermaat]

When making such saddles for sale there is a tension between the customers wish for a saddle that will last forever and fit any horse or backside, and an accurate reconstruction using the correct materials.

I couldn't agree more. I think there is a real tension between our modern need to demand durable material (after all, we pay a lot for it) while not taking into account that in Roman times, the design might well have been taking into account that something could have been replaced after a much shorter time.

take shoes for instances - I want mine to last for at least a number of years, while the design may only have been for a shoe that would just last for months.

What's beyond question is that it must be comfortable, which goes for shoes as well as saddles. If the design does not take that into account somehow, it must be altered.

[John Conyard]

Moi, you are not beating your head on a brick wall :lol:

I was trying to limit my reply to "designing a Roman horned saddle". That was hard enough in 1,400 words. A longer reply could have being perceived as escessive.

The saddle has to work in conjuction with the bit, bridle, breaching and breast straps and the girth. All of these areas are worthy of detailed staudy. Perhaps a start could be separate threads on RAT. I am looking forward to your research on the bit.

[Cheyenne]

Wendy in Britannia has a saddle made by Ulfric who I believe, used to post on here. Her tree is a laminated construction, and she even mounts at the gallop by swinging very gymnastially using the pommel horn on the left side. She has never had any problems with hers, although I remember her saying that it cost over £1000 or something..

C

[garrelt]

The biggest problem now days is that there are no(t) (many) saddlers around any more that make good saddles for military use.
I don't mean the parade saddles but the actual war saddles
This all thanks to motorized transport.
In the old days a rider could/would have 2 or more horses as spare.
In our modern times you can be glad to have one, so you will take good care of it.
At least I would.
As a military vehicle now days a horse was expandable, also the rider.
A military/war horse was/is a means of transport or a fighting platform and not a fluffy cuddly animal.
Present example = horses used by SF troops in Afghanistan.

Why use "modern" materials in your reconstructions instead of the proven (ancient) materials?
I was under the impression that most here on this forum want to make things as archaeological and historical correct as possible.

And yes : a custom made saddle is not cheap.

[garrelt]

Are there any pictures/drawings around of original pommels, cantles and saddleboards that belong to horned saddles?

[jvrjenivs]

Are there any pictures/drawings around of original pommels, cantles and saddleboards that belong to horned saddles?

as far as I know the only one is the one from Carlisle, John posted above. And I'm not sure we can be sure it was part of a horned/rinding saddle.

[Vindex]

The saddle has to work in conjuction with the bit, bridle, breaching and breast straps and the girth. All of these areas are worthy of detailed staudy. Perhaps a start could be separate threads on RAT.

Sadly I don't think they should be on seperate threads - certainly not the bridle and the saddle. The fact that they have been discussed seperately is part of the problem I feel (Although I can't find any discussion on the bridle in any of my references except to say how severe the bit is - which it doesn't necessarily have to be in the right hands).

It would be akin to discussing the armour and armament on a tank seperate to the power pack and turret. One influences the other and both together are essential for an efficient and effective fighting platform.

[garrelt]

If this topic is only about (re)constructing and (re)designing the horned saddle keep it separate.
Otherwise it will get into a combination topic again which can go of topic very easily.

Make a different topic for bridles, pack saddles and the other know types of saddles of the different regions and eras.
So in this way everyone interested in these things can find his/her answer(s) easily.
Everyone who has been riding or still rides a horse knows that you don't really need a saddle or a bridle.

Back on topic.
During the time I was starting research for saddle reconstructions some 10 years ago, the first thing I came across was the lack of organic material description except from the leather covers like the one from Valkenburg.
What I also noticed that some copper-alloy "horns" reinforcements had name engravings on the inside and on the outside of the horns.
So the first problems/questions arose:
1: Had the horned saddle a tree or not?
2: Were the copper-alloy horns on the inside or on the outside of the leather?
3: Where there saddles which did not need these horn reinforcements.
4: Was the saddle stuffed with horse hair or with straw, like the 18/19/early20th century saddles, or with a different kind of material.

I have been riding both the saddle with a tree and the treeless version.
Personally I liked the treeless saddle better.
Better comfort for myself and the horns did flex inward a bit towards the rider.
The horse where it was on did not seem to have any problem also.

Please try to keep to the authentic materials used and please don't use "modern" stirrups when riding.
Looks a bit stupid when you show a La Tene Celt/Germanic or Roman era Cavalry"man"

[Crispvs]

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

[BlackLamb]

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.

Absolutely not treu!!!

Absolutely not true!! A good saddle fits without any pads or extra fillers...
Pads even sheepskin under the saddle will narrow the space that is created ( by using a wooden tree) to leave clear the spine and withers.

[garrelt]

Paul : I agree about point 5.
The rest will be trail and error.
Let's keep it scientific/academic with modern animal welfare in mind.

There is more iconographic evidence of horned saddles than actual archaeological evidence.
As most know the horned saddle was not exclusively Roman, but also Celtic, Sassanid and Parthian.
Might have forgot some here.

Being on a grave stella, the saddle cloth over the saddle could be the ancient form of putting the riders boots backwards in the stirrups.
This could even be the riders cloak that he used to wear.
Who will tell.

I'm looking forward to the presented prototypes of saddles according to the present historical and archaeological data.

[Vindex]

Being on a grave stella, the saddle cloth over the saddle could be the ancient form of putting the riders boots backwards in the stirrups.
This could even be the riders cloak that he used to wear.
Who will tell.

I'm looking forward to the presented prototypes of saddles according to the present historical and archaeological data.

Stirrups?

Historical and archaeological evidence - including tombstones, mosaics etc - are not in favour of stirrups.

Unless they were painted on tombstones? But the rider's leg position in almost all the ones I have seen suggest no stirrups.

None.

Nada.

Zilch.

(May be different for archers, but that is a different matter and beyond the scope of this discussion)



Sadly, Point 5 of Crispus/Paul's post presupposes "frame" again.

A scientific reconstruction cannot be based on one find from one site.

I will say again - the START point is a saddle made purely of leather with horns. Stuffing is assumed/presumed. Rigidity will come from experimental - and archaeological - evidence. Experimentation (of an OPEN MINDED scientific type) should progress in association with the action of the bit (given iconographic evidence and great archaeological evidence than the saddle).

And if those of you who ride in a Roman fashion are not acquainted with how the bit acts on the horse in association with the saddle, may I recommend that you do a little more research on the subject. Xenophon is a good start - and he is still referred to by some Classical dressage training establishments in Europe.

[garrelt]

Stirrups?

Historical and archaeological evidence - including tombstones, mosaics etc - are not in favour of stirrups.

Unless they were painted on tombstones? But the rider's leg position in almost all the ones I have seen suggest no stirrups.

I referred here to an old(modern) cavalry tradition.
When the rider died, his horse was displayed in the funeral parade with the riders boots placed nose backwards.
This symbolizing that the deceased was not going to ride this/his horse again.

I was not suggestion that in Roman times stirrups were used, like in some movies about the Roman era or some re-enactors show in their riding display.
Because there is still no proof for it, or organic material, like leather or wood, must have been used for a mounting help which is/has not being identified like such in the archaeological context.