Re: [L3] Re: Warhorses
> 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? I don't know about mail, but certainly Roman cavalry used other types of horse armor -- scale and/or lamellar, either metallic, hardened leather, or made of horn. The Romans were influenced to a degree from Eastern peoples, such as the Sarmatians, oriental Germans (Goths, etc) and of course the Parthians and Sassanid Persians. So much so that they adopted some of their cavalry fighting styles (Cataphractarii and Clibanarii) as well as horse armor. Fragments of such panoplies have been discovered by archaeologists, as well as primary sources of the time discussing such troops. Damon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Warhorses
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. > > 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
Re: [L3] Re: Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)
> 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
[L3] Re: Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)
> Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [I wrote] > > I'll try to find some on-line pix of the various > > riding styles (knight vs. Moor) etc. > The reason why I inquired is because, as you may > know, I have a history > degree, and would tenatively describe myself as a > military historian. I have > plenty of source material on the subject. But when > you say that Arabians > "revolutionized" cavalry, you must be very careful > to define specifically what you mean. "Arabians and Barbs," I wrote; the 'revolution' was in the changeover from heavier-type horses to lighter, more responsive ones -- although this is certainly from the horseman's perspective, and I daresay the introduction of guns had a far more revolutionary impact on warfare than a change of riding technique. It was not overnight, as the Muslim invasion began in ~711 AD, and conflict continued for centuries. http://www.sulphurs.com/history.htm "Regardless of the exact influence of one breed over another [Iberian Sorreia and North African Barb - there is some evidence that the Barb came from the Sorreia and not the other way 'round], it is evident that the exchange of blood was mutually beneficial and that it produced many similarities between the two breeds, to the point that the modern Barb resembles the Iberian stock and the Criollo horses of South America. During the almost eight hundred years in which Spain and Portugal were in constant war with the Moors, horse and horsemanship had become finely attuned to the war exercises. This superb war horse was the one that the conquistadors introduced and dispersed throughout the New World together with the a 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.") [This site is somewhat biased in favor of the antiquity of the Iberian horse and its influence - but so are Arabian, Appaloosa and many other breeders/sites! IMHO, the Arabian and the Iberian are both very important in the history of horsebreeds - but not coincidentally, I adore both.] I also mentioned 'other oriental horses' and they were introduced to the Iberian Penninsula at various times: http://www.appaloosa-crossing.com/history101.htm "Great quantities of Oriental blood were introduced into Spain centuries prior to the birth of Christ. Periods of civilization and/or invasion of the peninsula include those of the Iberians (originally from north of Africa), peoples of the Alamanni, Basques (province of Navarre), Carthaginians, Celts, Cimbrians, Franks, Greeks, the Moorish invasion of 172-175 A.D., the Muslim invasion of 711 A.D., Ostragoths, Phoenicians, Romans, Suebi, Teutons, Vandals, Vistigoths, and perhaps some others (and not in order given). Each of these civilizations brought horses that had an influence on the native horses of Spain." [although the Sorreia-type has I think the more ancient claim and influence, and I believe that it is also found in cave paintings.] >For example, I'm a big proponent of > the Late Medieval > military revolution of using fully mounted armies. > This revolution was > strategic, rather than tactical (most of the troops > would ride to the > battlefield, but dismount to actually come to grips > with the enemy). So obviously our terms differ. 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? http://www.imh.org/imh/kyhpl2a.html#xtocid165601 "In 1066, William the Conqueror of Normandy put 3,000 horses on 700 small sailing ships and headed across the channel to England. William had come to secure his right to the English throne from King Harold. They met in a valley near Hastings where William's army was victorious due largely to his cavalry assisted by archers. They charged into the wall of shields put up by the Saxon infantry, but shields were little defense against war-horses and knights." > For more information, I would highly reccommend > looking at medieval history > books. In particular, Michael Prestwich in _Armies > and Warfare in the Middle > Ages: The English Experience_ has some good info on > warhorses in medieval > England (which would probably be applicable to other > areas of Europe, > especially as the English busily imported breeding > stock from Spain during the 14th C). And from Friesland as well: http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/friesian.html "From records of the past we know that the Friesian horse of old was famous. There is information from as early as 1251 and there are books in which Friesian horses were mentioned and praised from as early as the 16th century. "Armored knights of old found this horse very desirable, having the strength to carry great weight into battle and still maneuver quickly. Later, its suppleness and agility made the breed much sought after for use in riding schools in Paris and Spain during the 15th and 16th centuries... "...The well-known E
