> la gineta style of riding, which influenced the horse > cultures of the Gauchos, Charros and Llaneros." > > They spell it "gineta." (I'd seen it as something > more like "jineta.")
FYI this seems to be alluding to the Jinetes class of military fighting men of Spain, of lower class and equipment than a knight and IIRC drawn from the free peasantry or possibly holding fiefs as sergeants. They wore little to no armor, and were adept at horsemanship in a way and style that was different from knights and other mtd sergeants then in Europe (using short sturrups and smaller saddles, rather than in other nations, where the trend was towards longer stirrups and higher saddles, which were beneficial when fighting on horseback). > OK - and I'm coming at it from a horseman's > perspective as well. But then is this site incorrect, > WRT the Battle of Hastings? Numbers seem a little off, or rather, a little high. Willian probably had half that number. Additionally, William's knights were less than decisive. In a time when battles lasted a few hours at the most, Hastings apparently (according to the sources) lasted most of the day, from about dawn to dusk. William's cavalry had great difficulty against the English, who had arrayed themselves on a ridge that IIRC straddled the Old Roman road from the coast. So not only was Willaim charging up-hill, but he was additionally charging into the shields and spears of the English. The English fighting style of the day was a shieldwall...essentially fighting men would array themselves much like a Greek phalanx with shields nearly overlapping, presenting the enemy a wall bristling with spears. As long as they kept the formation and remained steady (the front ranks were often made up the best armored and steadiest of men, usually wealthy freemen oweing fyrd service, or even the household troops -- Housecarls -- of the nobles and the King) horses will not charge through such an impedement. Additionally, the terrain was such that Willaim couldn't turn the flanks. Some of the sources suggest that one branch of King Harold Godwinson's army became emboldened at the latest failed charge of Willaims knights and tried to pursue. They broke formation and were destroyed by the knights. This breach allowed the knights then to roll up the flanks and (eventually) kill Harold (though the sources differ on how he was killed). > OTOH, this site says they carried under 300#: Yes, I agree more with this. My sources (such as Prestwich, Contamine and Nicolle) suggest the size and power of warhorses were more for the endurance they could provide, rather than sheer lifting (or carrying) power. Additionally (to dispell more myths) a fully armored fighting man in plate armor was quite agile, and probably less burdened than a modern infantryman wearing a full pack. Sources (not to mention modern reenactors) show that a fully armored man could leap over the hindquarters of his mount and do other feats. Additionally, horse armor was rare in European armies until much later. Although there is tantalizing mentions of mail bard for warhorses as early as the late 12th C, horse armor didn't really appear to be popular (unless you count the heraldric bard of earlier times -- trappers and such -- which may have hid padded armor that was surprisingly effective against slashing blows than one would think) until the 14th C, when leather and/or steel armor was used to protect the head and chest of horses. It wasn't until a century later that full plate bard would come to use, probably starting early in the 15th C, but becoming more popular (relatively speaking) around the middle to late 15th C. Damon. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
