Arch Of Orange Saddle Supplementary Question

[Vindex]

Supplementary question from a soon-to-be-stressed-out Roman saddle designer ( :woot: ) caused by the picture on the original Arch of Orange thread.

Help please...

The Arch is Tiberian in date - yes? :?

The saddle depicted here isn't included in Bishop's Cavalry Equipment of the Roman Army in the First Century AD although other Gallo-Roman saddles are - yes? :???:

The saddle I am interested in is the one seen top right - Roman soldier not a Gaul...Gaul at the bottom of the shown picture appears to be riding bareback.

The saddle horn depicted on the saddle top right is not shown where modern reconstructions have it; that is on the top of the saddle on the horse's back. This is securing the rider's thigh.

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :woot: :woot: :woot:

(Gone to lie down in a darkened room...back later...)

[attachment=5800]Arch_of_Orange_stallion.jpg[/attachment]

[mcbishop]

The Arch is Tiberian in date - yes? :?

Allegedly (or, yes in my opinion, but others have other opinions).

The saddle depicted here isn't included in Bishop's Cavalry Equipment of the Roman Army in the First Century AD although other Gallo-Roman saddles are - yes? :???:

Yes... er, no... that is, it is not included in the article. I wasn't trying to catalogue all of them, just show a sample.

The saddle I am interested in is the one seen top right - Roman soldier not a Gaul...Gaul at the bottom of the shown picture appears to be riding bareback.

The saddle horn depicted on the saddle top right is not shown where modern reconstructions have it; that is on the top of the saddle on the horse's back. This is securing the rider's thigh.

Sculptures aren't photographs, as Trajan's Column proves. Besides, the guy couldn't get the horse to hold that pose for very long...

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :woot: :woot: :woot:

(Gone to lie down in a darkened room...back later...)

My feelings exactly :wink:

Mike Bishop

[Vindex]

The Arch is Tiberian in date - yes? :?

Allegedly (or, yes in my opinion, but others have other opinions).

Good enough for me...

The saddle depicted here isn't included in Bishop's Cavalry Equipment of the Roman Army in the First Century AD although other Gallo-Roman saddles are - yes? :???:

Yes... er, no... that is, it is not included in the article. I wasn't trying to catalogue all of them, just show a sample.

Thank you; it wasn't meant to sound like a criticism, just making sure I hadn't missed it.

The saddle I am interested in is the one seen top right - Roman soldier not a Gaul...Gaul at the bottom of the shown picture appears to be riding bareback.

The saddle horn depicted on the saddle top right is not shown where modern reconstructions have it; that is on the top of the saddle on the horse's back. This is securing the rider's thigh.

Sculptures aren't photographs, as Trajan's Column proves. Besides, the guy couldn't get the horse to hold that pose for very long...

Dacor; but it could open up possibilities in favour of a more unstructured pad saddle as opposed to a fixed tree saddle.

Thank you for the feedback mile: .

[mcbishop]

Dacor; but it could open up possibilities in favour of a more unstructured pad saddle as opposed to a fixed tree saddle.

Hmm, we've been there before with Dan Peterson, Marcus Junkelmann, and the pad saddle. I would rather follow what the archaeological evidence tells us than rely on one dodgy Friday-afternoon piece of relief sculpture (especially when, elsewhere on the monument, they have a reasonable crack at representing a saddle).

The Arch at Orange has all sorts of problems and difficulties (like where do the ships' bits come from? No record of Florus and Sacrovir having a navy has come down to us, so far as I'm aware) which suggest conventions are wrestling with accuracy and it is difficult at this distance to judge which is winning at any given point.

Mike Bishop

[Vindex]

But there are pad saddles and there are pad saddles...and by pad I just mean no fixed tree ie stuffed leather (which is still used across the world today for saddles designed for long days); and I don't see any harm in challenging long held beliefs...its good for research, surely? I've seen a Junkelmann designed pad saddle and I wouldn't favour that as a design either.

And thre's nothing to say (yet) that just because the saddle "horn" has now become a securing point of a different nature it is NOT attached to wood; just unlikely to wrap around the horse's side so far.

There are two bits of dodgy scultpure to look at on the Orange arch which I only noticed when I looked at the image in more detail. The rider on the far right also has the same "horn" on his saddle as the chap on the right, but his leg is over it so that takes some explaining. :errr: One could be shoddy Friday afternoon work...two is a different matter.

Archaeological evidence has come up with pieces of leather and leather covers and saddle horn plates (or stiffners if you will). It has come up with a "tentatively" identified saddle shaped piece of wood (Carlisle); and there is a case to argue that the saddle horn plates are designed to be sewn to something not rivetted.

And yes, there is the iconography which quite clearly shows the position of saddle horns in many respects; but they tend not to show very large saddles standing off the horses back indicative of wooden framed saddles (the funeral stele of course where you can see the saddles clearly). I would argue that there must be room for the development of the saddle or even different types of saddle for different terrains.

If you follow the archaeological/iconographic evidence (ignoring the chaps on the arch), riding styles go from bare back, to a simple cloth, to an all singing, all dancing allegedly rigid tree horned saddle with little interim development. The horns develop, I am almost convinced, by the need to brace the leg to give a firmer seat in order to wield a sword or fight with a lance (as opposed to throwing it), carry a shield AND control the horse.

The wooden tree'd saddle reconstructions I have come across (including a Connolly saddle; and the re-constructions of Connolly's re-construction) appear to break in the same place and it it is NOT in the area covered by the saddle "stiffners". They break in the front for the saddle and these breakages appear to be due to the requirements of the saddle to take the strain of the rider leaning out to "fight".

I don't believe any Roman cavalryman would have persisted with a design which broke nor one which could potentially damage his horse's back when it did break. (and I am not talking from sentiment here; a damaged horse means the lack of his fighting platform and a reduction in the capability) Modern reconstructed saddles with inflexible wooden side boards(holding the front and rear horns in place) can be VERY uncomfortable for the rider for any length of time and in some instances actually prevent the rider from getting the leg on the horse properly. (Pretty essential for a safe seat)

If the "horns" were lower down on the saddle and were used to brace the back of the leg to stop it moving when the rider DID lean out of the saddle, there would not be the same points of strain on a wooden framed saddle; and I could understand the position of the bearing straps on the horse far better in this instance too. I would argue that their point of security is lower than the point of balance for an accepted, wooden tree but neatly placed for a lower horned saddle.

Now you see the cause of the :woot: :woot: :woot: in my first post mile:

[66kbm]

Wish i was cavalry...seems much more exciting than infantry. Re the ship bits Mike, although there is no evidence,from the arch, circumstantial evidence could be drawn....with a very long thin line.....to the fact that II AVG operated with some part of the fleet in the post invasion of Britanica era. Very early Fishbourne, Poole and Topsham. So maybee the Arch could be representing, although in poor quality/realisticly a portrayall of what was or had happened depending upon ones interpretation of the age of the arch/Claudian is good for this re links with the fleet. Just a thought.
Kevin

Diversified from original post....sorry but i thought it may be relevant.
Could never compete with Moi's Saddle "stuff".