B. U. G. S.

The oldest breeds of horses still around today are the Icelandic ponies and the Preh-zheh-valskees (phonetic spelling)of Mongolia. They’re ponies by modern standards.

The European fighting men in armor didn’t ride those. They rode specially-developed breeds that became so big that, when armor stopped being high technology, they became the draught animals — like the Clydesdales, and other pullers of plows and heavy wagons.

Bantams are smart chickens. Unlike the conventional types, they’ll evade capture. The conventional types can’t fly and are pretty dumb — but they’re big, so they’re the ones that are raised for food.

The Romans did have saddles. They had stirrups, too, but apparently these were not needed until later in the Medieval ages when armor grew heavier, the horse was bred larger, and cavalry became more tactically essential.

Cavalry became more essential owing to a more complex fighting platform of saddle bow, high cantle, twin girths, and stirrup in the thirteenth century. This made it possible to charge à lance couché with greater confidence. The quality of the horse continued to advance through careful selective breeding through the fourteenth century. In battles of a larger scale, the aristocratic elite of heavy cavalry could serve as the core to the sizable armies that could be mustered (with support of infantry).

Bob,

What you are saying is part of the thesis of Lynn White, one of the most esteemed historians of the twentieth century. He centered his account of the rise of chivalry and the high middle ages on the sudden appearance of a single technology, the stirrup.

However, it wasn’t so simple. As you say, northern Europeans had the stirrup, and Viking graves from about the eighth and ninth centuries have been dug up, complete with horse, rider and stirrups. That fact alone casts doubt on White’s thesis of the stirrup’s sudden appearance at the Battle of Hastings in the eleventh century.

Further, the stirrup isn’t what keeps the rider in his saddle when riding a lance couche; the saddle does that, especially the cantle. The cantle is the back of the seat, in some saddles it is vertical, but more often, it is the high hind edge of a deep saddle bow, which also rises to the pommel in the fore part.

So one chivalrist, Maurice Keen, attributes the success of Medieval cavalry to a complex of factors, including a deeper saddle bow, high pommel, high cantle, twin girths (as you mention), and the stirrup. Even so, the charge (a lance couche), was still not the preferred tactic of cavalry at Hastings or any other place. The charge was the initial entry for shock and awe. The Bayeux tapestry shows the charge only two out of thirty-five examples. Morever, Harold had fought under the Normans, knew their fighting tactics intimately, and won the important initial victories at Hastings.

The Romans had used completely different tactics for their horse infantry. Their horses were small, as you say, and they preferred the ability to mount and dismount quickly to fight hand to hand. The stirrup is really just a foot-rest and can be as simple as a looped rope. But this is moot, since Roman armor was minimum and light and their tactics preferred mobility and flexibility on and off their mounts, as opposed to security. To the Romans, the horse was transport for infantry.

Both Romans and northern Europeans used teams of oxen for ploughing. Eventually after the giant war-horses were bred out of Arabian (combined with other) stock, farmers adopted them in preference to the ox, as you say. The north has always had a close relationship with the horse (sometimes even religious). But its transition into farming was slow, not sudden as White suggested.

Like you, I don’t think the middle ages were dark, either. Men like Petrarch used that metaphor to criticize Medieval emphasis on formalism in logic, grammar, and such. They hoped to create a renewed emphasis on literature, which I think meant essentially a refreshing of what Medieval scholars already did.

Just my 2¢.

The bantam hens make excellent mothers. My wife uses them to raise chicks.

Bob, we raised horses, quarter horses and draft horses, on our two farms when I was growing up and my wife presently owns a full blooded Arabian gelding, an ornery critter if I ever saw one, so while not an expert on riding, I have been in the saddle enough to know what happens when you give it the ol’ giddyup.

The stirrups, while not the only item used to stay in the saddle, is one item used to keep you on the beast. Your legs act as shock absorbers and when the horse picks up speed you “bounce” (wrong word, I know) in the saddle, allowing the stirrups to take the impact and hold you in place. Without strirups you have to squeeze the horse tight with your legs, like the Indians did out west. Riding w/o stirrups is not impossible but it is more diffucult since you basically grip the horse with your legs and body. I used to ride an old draft horse that way and it was tricky at first. Thank god she was an old worn out cayuse. Peter mentions the cantle holding you on, which is partly true, but even if you have an old highback saddle (like the ones used prior to the 1930’s, vs. today’s rollback saddles) if a horse wants you off bad enough it doesn’t matter what type of cantle you have, you’re probably going to get thrown. The apple or horn is another important aspect to the saddle because if all else fails you hold on like hell and hope for the best. But given the choice between a highback saddle with no stirrups or a rollback saddle with stirrups, I’d opt for thestirrups.

Bob,

Actually, I misstated that about “angling” the lance. For a direct charge, it was held straight forward, couched in the right arm, both hands gripping. If I remember right, the pommel braced the left arm to reduce backward motion.