Which, of course, is the ideal of all my work.
Peter made a historical statement which was very interesting and dealt with what I had said about stirrups and saddles. It turns out Mark has horses and is very knowledgeable about them and he went into detail about the whole business of where a lance is couched and the use of stirrups.
Right or wrong, Peter will survive it.
I talked about bantams after Mark mentioned them and it turns out that Mike (I hope I got it right this time) raises chickens and uses bantam hens as mothers because they are good ones.
I think that’s the first time I ever even HEARD anyone talk about a bantam hen. It’s always “bantam rooster” like the one that jumped me in the verion of The Birds I went through sixty years ago.
People are really dumping out a lot of hard information. Some of it’s right, some of it’s wrong, but we just put it out on the table. I hope my own willingness to put it all out there and take the corrections or the guffaws has helped this process to occur.
Keep it up, gang!
#1 by Peter on 07/08/2005 - 5:40 pm
Bob,
You must be happy that you don’t have to remark how no one comments!
But what’s the point if you don’t read them? (Don’t get distracted!)
Mark said nothing about how “a lance is couched” whatsoever. He also said nothing about a cavalry charge, which is what the conversation was about in the first place.
Mark misunderstood my statement about cantles and stirrups. He thought I meant that stirrups don’t keep a rider on the HORSE.
I did NOT say that. I said: “Further, the stirrup isn’t what keeps the rider in his SADDLE when riding a lance couche; the saddle does that, especially the cantle.”
Mark talked about what keeps a recreational rider on the HORSE, not the SADDLE. These are two different things. (In fact, one of the things that stirrups are good for, is to help a rider post up OUT of the saddle.)
I was talking about chivalry, the Medieval cavalry charge, and riding a lance couche. Instead, Mark talked about “riding w/o stirrups.”
I, too, have ridden quote a bit, including one beautiful painted mare I had, named “Shawnee.” When I got her, she was barn-sour and ornery. But I got quite a reputation for her, since I rode her almost every day all over the canyons, and since I was often seen washing her down whenever it got hotter than 85 degrees.
We had a lot of fun climbing to 3,000 feet, and chasing coyotes at night, when I galloped her back to the barn on the rough trail in the darkness with no helmet. It was also fun teaching her to ford a creek without panicking. She ended up being quite a sweetheart.
And like Mark, I sometimes rode her bare back without stirrups.
Bob, don’t be so quick to assume.
_______________________________________________
Bob, you asked what Bantams are FOR.
They are FOR collecting and keeping around for decoration, like Japanese coy fish in a pond. They are bred for weird colors, sizes, and plumage.
This is why some people will put up with the rooster’s aggressive behavior. Bantams are for looking at.
I sent you that in an email, but I rather suspect you don’t read that either. I also wrote in detail about riding.
Maybe if there was some sign that comments were READ, there would be more people making them.
#2 by Peter on 07/09/2005 - 12:24 am
Bob,
The MESSAGE.
#3 by Bob on 07/09/2005 - 11:23 am
Dammit, Peter, you know reading makes my lips tired!
And I don’t need stirrups to get off a horse. The horse usually does that for me.
Sorry about my lack of reading and understanding. My interest in the subject is a particular historical point, the many ways in which the classical world was primitive by the standards of the so-called Dark Ages, so, while I love to see these comments that show the knowledge of my readers in so many areas, I am on the lookout for stuff that relates to the point I made.
#4 by Bob on 07/09/2005 - 11:27 am
Peter, I suppose your explanation for bantams must be true today.
But when I came up out in the middle of nowhere, the sandhill people I was around certainly kept no exotic fish or anything else exotic. I am still mystified as to what they did with the bantams.
They were so common it never occurred to me to ask.
#5 by Peter on 07/09/2005 - 11:45 am
On #3: Well, you make a good point! I agree with you completely.