Top post: further illustrating the evils of of replying before reading all posts (I'm referring to myself here!)
> Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [I wrote] > > "..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). Ah, that ties in well with the Moorish riding style influence/possible tribe name concept of my Arabian horse books. > > 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. I had wondered about the length of time for battles - even lighter horses cannot charge about for hours without becoming exhausted. Watch the way polo ponies heave after a single chukker. <snipped interesting account of battle tactics> > > 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. I was surprised to read on one of the sites (from my L3 post) that Romans and some Oriental tribes used chainmail on their horses -- do you think this is correct? This site has some interesting articles on ancient horse cultures: http://users.hartwick.edu/iaes/horseback/intro.html Debbi Tycho And The Daisy Maru ;) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
