User talk:Gwinva/Horse info

Horse breeds

The best way to look at the breed types is to describe the body build of palfreys, destriers, etc... Don't even TRY to link to modern breeds, thereing lies both edit wars and insanity! <grin> The "Spanish" horse was indeed recognized as the finest, the Andalusian horse as a breed didn't have a stud book until the 1300's but the prototype was older. You can look at the Iberian horse article too ... the Moorish invasions had brought Arabian horse and Barb blood to Europe, adding lightness and agility to native stock. (There probably were earlier infusions too, there are references to light horses brought to Rome via Carthage, and of the Romans getting fine horses from Spain, but this article is on horses and warfare, not the development of horse breeds, so no need to get too anal about the issue).

If you go way back to the domestication of the horse and the Horse#The_.22Four_Foundations.22_theory wild prototypes (described better in the horse article than the domestication article, IMHO), there is the "four foundations" theory of horse breed development, essentially that there were four wild prototypes of early Equus Caballus, each adapted to the environment it lived in. The "forest horse" of Europe was the precursor to the warmblood, the "oriental horse" was the precursor to the Arabian, Barb and Turkoman horses, the "Steppe horse" was essentially the Tarpan, and the "draft" prototype appears to have been an ancestor of both the shetland pony and the draft horse (probably looked something like a Norwegian Fjord Horse). Point is, the people of Europe obtained horses of these different types as they traveled and traded, and by the middle ages had access to all four type from which to mix and match. Montanabw 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hot and cold-blooded

To answer your question, there is sort of a link to the "humours" in that hot and cold blood related to disposition but it isn't quite direct. Essentially, the "hot-blooded" breeds are the light, agile, fiery horses like Arabians, Barbs and Thoroughbreds. "Cold-blooded" breeds are draft horses -- indeed the phlegmatic (calm) versus the choleric (hot - I think?) disposition. "Warmblood" today has two meanings, one being a reference to any cross between hot blood and cold blood breeds, the more modern useage is a specific term of art referring to breeds used in sport horse events like Oldenburgs, Trakhners, Hanoverians, etc...hope this helps. Montanabw 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that even today, worldwide, taken as a whole, a 14.2 to 16 hand horse is still a perfectly average size for a riding horse. The big 16.2 to 17.2 warmblood is a staple of the modern Olympics and show jumping/dressage world, but it is hardly a universal type. And many horses are a bit under the technical 14.2 hand cutoff between horses and ponies...the truth is, any horse over about 13 hands can carry an adult rider (though tall people look a bit ridiculous on one that short) -- just look at the horses being ridden in artwork of ancient Greece -- you can see the riders' legs curled around their barrels, they couldn't have been over 14 hands in some cases! Just an aside. Montanabw 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Horse Sizes

http://www.florilegium.org/files/ANIMALS/warhorse-size-art.html ""A Refutation of the Myth of the Giant Medieval Warhorse" by Siobhan ni Seaghdha, OP"

Also, keep in mind what this article says about a "stocky" horse, as opposed to a tall or heavy horse. Height alone, or even weight, doesn't necessarily correlate to things like saddle fit...Some horses are built in their midsection, where the saddle goes, like apples (flat on top) and others like pears (narrow on top, fat below). For example, a small Arabian or Morgan nonetheless has a very wide, flat back. Some friends of mine tried my wide Arabian tree saddle on their 15.3-16 hand, very stocky, draft-type Norwegian Fjords and it was wide enough to fit them! (though was too short in the length of the tree, so it looked a bit silly, but it didn't pinch.) A saddle that fits a 16 hand Thoroughbred or Saddlebred is often too narrow for an Arabian and pinches their backs. Saddles designed for ponies sometimes are wide enough to fit full-sized horses because ponies are so round (though again, they are so short that they look silly). I currently have a "cow horse" type Arabian with a rotund little belly who measures out to almost a warmblood-width saddle. Her back is like the top of a table, yet she isn't even 14.3 ... Montanabw 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

With the demise of the armoured knight, big, heavy horses would still be useful with "modern" (i.e. gunpowder era) warfare to pull heavy loads...moving artillery into place, hauling cannons, supplies, and such. But even then, a large middleweight team of horses with some stamina and agility would be preferable to a slow-moving farm horse, and hence I suspect (though can't cite to evidence) that the great horse sort of bifurcated by selective breeding into the heavy but agile carriage horse breeds like the Friesian and the Dutch Harness Horse, while others were selectively bred to be the slower farm horse draft breeds of today. The modern farm draft horse can pull great weights slowly...like a plow, or a sled full of rocks. A farm horse can't move real fast, but like a tractor, they can pull a lot of weight. A horse used to haul around things in war would have to be big and on the heavy side, but with long legs -- they wouldn't have to pull huge amounts of weight, but would have to be able to move quickly to get things where they needed to be when they needed to be there. Am I making sense? Montanabw 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gaits

Deb Bennett's Book Conquerers: Roots of New World Horsemanship (cited in Horses in Warfare) is a good source on this, if you can find a library copy, she has good material (I don't agree with everything she says, but her info on the Spanish, on European history, and on the four foundations theory is particularly good.)

<<Rounceys, palfreys, jennets and hackneys could be amblers or trotters (ok so far, although one book I have here says ambling is a natural gait and they had to be trained to trot, which runs counter to what the Wikipedia articles say)>>

Depends on the breed. The trot is a natural two-beat gait that covers a lot of ground without tiring the horse, you see wild horses doing it, but it is rather rough to ride (if you don't know how) and can be quite tiring for even an experienced rider, especially one loaded with gear. (anything not tied down firmly will bounce all over the place!)

Ambling horses were preferred in medieval times...the "amble" refers to a number of different gaits, but regardless of the details of the footfall patterns, all of them are four beat gaits that are much smoother to ride than a trot, and for horses naturally bred to them, no more tiring than a trot.

Today most horses trot naturally but have to be trained to do the "ambling" gaits -- ans some can't do them at all! However, some gaited breeds, like the Tennessee Walker and the Paso Fino, don't really trot very easily and I have seen some that don't trot at all. So, historically, which type of horse -- a trotter or an ambler -- was in the majority probably depends on where you lived.

A few horses pace, not that many. In comfort to the rider, the pace is more comfortable than a trot, but less comfortable than the amble.

According to Bennett, people whose horses trotted were those who culturally did most of their horseback riding at a gallop -- the desert Bedouin, for example...they'd ride camels (camels pace, a little more comfortable than a trot) to battle, then switch to their horses to run like hell in a raid or attack!

There is a modern equivalent: Think of people who race motorcycles ... they haul their motorcycle on a trailer to the meet, while they are in air-conditioned comfort of the tow vehicle, then they unload the trailer and get on the motorbike to race...you sure wouldn't race the towing vehicle, but if you rode the motorbike all the way to the race, you'd be too tired to compete! <grin>

<<The destrier and courser were both runners ('courser' comes from Latin cursus, or 'run'). What sort of gait would that be? >>

A gallop, basically. If slow, a canter. As noted above, according to Bennett, most horses that ran (galloped) for a living probably also trotted rather than ambled, though some horses can do both.

<<Sources suggest warhorses didn't trot (hard to do in armour), so what pace would they keep when not running? ie. not actually charging. I remember reading in a non-academic book a comment about destriers being kept to a slow walk so they didn't tire>>

A horse can walk faster than a person can (horses walk at about 4 mph, people at 2-3 mph), so that's not a huge issue, but my guess (and this is a guess but based on Bennett and on modern descendants such as the Friesian, Andalusian and Lipizzaner, who all trot) is that they could trot, and probably did so when not in armour. We know that knights would ride a light horse, (usually one that ambled, apparently) to the battle site, then armour up, mount the charger, and travel a relatively short distance to the actual fight.

From the staging area to the battle, if trotting bounced around the armor too much and the horse didn't amble (and the modern descendants aren't built to amble), they would probably walk or canter -- the canter is a slower, trained version of the gallop. It's somewhat tiring to the horse, they can't sustain it for more than a few miles at a stretch without a rest, but is not as tiring as a full-blown gallop.

You can see this sort of thing at horse race meets...the outriders and some race officials are also mounted on horses, and have to go back and forth a lot between races, during the post parade, etc., and usually canter to do so ... then you sometimes see them standing around taking a short rest when the actual race is on the track, unless there is big trouble, then they gallop onto the track to help a thrown rider, catch a loose horse, etc...

You can also look at endurance riding. The longest races are 100 miles, the winners come in at about 12 hours. Mostly they trot, with short walks for rest and short stretches of canter or a light gallop when the terrain is particularly favorable. A horse walks at 4 mph, trots at about 8-10 mph, canters at 12-15 mph, and gallops faster, depending on the horse (modern thoroughbreds are clocked at 35-40 mph, I think the world record for Quarter Horses in a short sprint was over 50 mph)

So, some of this is my theory, some is how I read the work of Deb Bennett and others. Hope this helps! Montanabw 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Horse sizes 2

The daVinci sketches I've seen look very much like a modern Andalusian or a Dressage-bred warmblood. The descriptions are of a well-built horse with powerful conformation. I think the biggest barrier on all this stuff is the imprecision of words like "large" or "small." I really liked the reference to the Lithuanian Draught. That is really helpful! By the way, I measured the "skinny" filly last night. Weight tape says she's 900 pounds, she's also got a bit more weight coming off of winter where she has been sitting around a lot. So, basically there's a 60-80 pound difference between two full-grown mares of the same breed and same height on the same basic diet at the same location. Both mares are quite refined Arabians, "palfrey"-like horses (though they both trot, not amble). Add an inch of height and totally different breeding for lots of bulk and muscle, that could amount to a 150-200 pound difference, easily. Think of the weight range for, say people who are all 5'9" tall. You can have both a 110 lb emaciated supermodel and a 220 pound professional wrestler! Same height, twice the weight. <grin> Montanabw 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Horseshoes

Here is the best online article I have found so far on the history of horseshoes:

http://www.horseshoes.com/advice/invtshoe/winvhrs.htm

Some really interesting stuff on iron in general. Also explains why it's so hard to figure out when horseshoes were invented -- people recycled!

Long story short, your sources are probably not too far off. We probably can credit horseshoes to being widely used in the Middle Ages, even if invented earlier. Looks from this article (and it is well-sourced) that the horseshoe was probably NOT in Europe, at least much, as late as 480 AD, but that the Koran (c. 610 AD) mentions horses' hooves striking fire from rocks, and trust me, barefoot horses can't do that, it requires metal shoes.

So basically the answer is that MAYBE the late Roman period had horseshoes, there is pretty good evidence that horseshoes were around in the Carolingian period c 700-800, but the most solid evidence is a specific reference in AD 910. I'm also going to park this info on the Horseshoe talk page, someone there was asking. Montanabw 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Saddles

You will find this saddle company web site of mild interest to your research: http://www.wintec.net.au/easyChangeGulletSystem/index.html

The point is that, when figuring out the horses who wore medieval tack, size of horse and the width of their backs are not necessarily related. It's all about how their ribcage is built, and the height of their withers. my smallish 14.2-15 h Arabians all take the two WIDEST sizes in this brand of saddle, while a big, 17-hand Thoroughbred may take the medium or narrow sizes. I know a 16 hand quarter horse who wears a narrower saddle than any of my horses, and this horse looks flat-out fat to any observer. However, many Warmbloods do need even wider saddles than Arabians or Morgans. The skeletal studies are the most valuable, when they are out there. I agree, I gotta get some of Hyland's books... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Endurance of horses

Over long journeys, we can only look to historical records, as you have, and compare them to what modern people do and take our best guess. Here's some other situations that may provide guidance:

There were extensive studies done in the early 20th century by the US Cavalry. This is really interesting: http://europauniversitypress.co.uk/journal Read in particular, "Results of Five endurance tests." The article in general is very pro-Arabian, (which is OK with me! <grin>) but the data speaks for itself and was very specific as to distance, weight carried, etc.

While in the 20th century, these horses were probably fed better than their medieval counterparts, they weren't fed THAT much and grain doesn't change a whole lot!

Note too that, just like comparing human sprinters to marathon runners, smaller, slimmer horses (like Arabs or Barbs, bloodstock for the palfrey, and probably for many rounceys and coursers, as well as the hobby) are better for distance, and bigger, heavily muscled horses (like the modern Andalusian or the medieval Destrier -- or even the modern American Quarter Horse) are better for short, fast spurts of speed.

A couple other helpful examples: Appaloosa -- read about the flight of the Nez Perce Indians, mostly women and children, led by Chief Joseph. They had horses, baggage, and were being chased by the army for about 1,200 miles. But they did stop a lot, the trek lasted several months. see also: http://www.fs.fed.us/npnht/index.shtml The modern Appaloosa organization does a reenactment ride each year, covering the route 100 miles at a time, over (I think) a five day period, but it's open to basically any idiot with a horse. (Though I think the horses have to be Appaloosas, it's a promotional thing) To give you a sense of it: http://www.fs.fed.us/npnht/trailride/

So long story short, a modern fat lazy person riding their "pasture potato" horse can still do 20 miles a day for a week without killing themselves. (After day one, they might beg to differ, but no one has died yet!)

Pony Express -- also a more recent event, traveling from Missouri to California. They literally ran their horses most of the way, and to do so needed to change horses every 15 miles or so, riders changed off every 100 miles. They went almost 2000 miles in an average of 10 days. http://www.ponyexpress.org/history.htm There are also a bunch of reenactment rides out there, usually set at about 25 miles a day for several days.

A horse is definitely less tired if running loose or being led that if carrying a rider. So people, when they could, definitely would ride one horse to the battle and fight on another. (Or, in the case of the Bedouin, they'd ride a camel to the battle, then switch to their horse!)

Leading a horse wouldn't slow you down much. It would take more time to move a whole bunch of people and horses, though, because you have supply issues. If the army gets ahead of their baggage train and resupply, they can be in trouble! (See Battle of the Little Bighorn )

The other issue in moving a large group is feeding the animals. With a bigger group, you have to either pack more feed, or spead the animals out over a wider area to graze at night.

On cattle drives in the 1800s, the cowboys would herd a string of horses along with the cattle and then trade off on different animals periodically. In modern times, when chasing cows out of the high country all day, (not that unlike battle for the horse, lots of turns and spurts of speed over rough terrain) cowboys will go through one to three horses a day, depending on how much running around they have to do.

Horses have better vision at night than people, so nighttime fighting would be more limited by the capacity of humans than horses, though of course, not even horses see as well at night as during the day-- they aren't cats!

Hope this helps! Montanabw 16:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd be interested in this, given your earlier question about how far people could travel on horseback. This September, a group is sponsoring an endurance ride over the entire length of the Santa Fe trail, a total of 515 miles in 13 days, with the idea that everyone will cover 50 to 55 miles a day, traveling 10 of the 13 days. They allow people to trade off horses each day, but any given day they must stay on the same horse for the entire 50 miles. They also have a category for "super teams" of four riders with no more than 10 horses between them who will also compete. Equus magazine had a short article on it and their web site is www.sfhorserace.com This pace would be impossible for an army or large group of people to cover, but probably close to doable, even in the Middle Ages, on fast messenger-type horses (Arabian type or early proto-Thoroughbred type) that were well fed, in good condition and the rider -- also well-fed and well-conditioned -- being given a fresh horse each day. The Persian empire had some type of messenger service like this, and the Romans also must have had some type of couriers. Be interesting to know the distances and times they traveled. Interesting, anyway. Montanabw 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

More distance stats

OK, story-writing lady, here's another horses and distance stat: The winner of the Fort Howe 100 mile endurance race, held near Ashland, Montana in June 2006 (translation: rough terrain, semi-mountainous, prairie and forest, hot during the day unless it's pouring cold rain, and in either case, cold as cr** at night) won the race in a time of 10 hours and 24 minutes. Now, the horse wouldn't be expected to go another 100 miles the next day, a horse might do three or four 100 milers a year, tops, plus maybe some 50-milers. Hope this is of interest! Montanabw 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

More than vaguely interested, it was fascinating to see what they had to say, thanks. I actually have changed my thinking around quite a bit on this matter due to the whole project and some of your research. At root, I believe that most modern horses of almost any breed you can point to are bigger than their ancestors of even 100 years ago, let alone 500 years ago. What strikes me here is figuring out what may have given rise to the "Shire horses (or Percherons, take your pick) are the descendants of the Destrier" thinking--draft horse breeders certainly take it as an element of their faith...why? Are we possibly looking at things like late medieval plate armour that was so elaborate and heavy--but designed entirely for ceremonial purposes--that only a heavy horse could carry it? Don't know.

The Irish Draught is a pretty big horse, but I am personally a person who prefers a riding horse in the 15 hand range, so I find it interesting that the modern "bigger is better" school of horse politics is sort of taking a hit on this. (I don't mind, I am not a fan of the monster 17-hand warmblood) Draughts and Sport horses (and Warmbloods, for that matter) can clearly be identified as a type of horse that became popular with the cavalry of the 18th and 19th centuries, essentially created by crossing thoroughbreds on draft and carriage horses, though it looks like there were also a lot of horses of Arabian horse and Thoroughbred blood back then too. They were all breeds that pretty much spelled the end of the ambling horses, though..speed was what mattered. (One could suggest that the lighter cavalry horse represented the triumph of the rouncey?) FYI, if you ever have a chance to look at an Andalusian, Friesian, or Lipizzaner, these horses could well be the most direct descendants of the destrier. The "cob" as I understand British useage is quite akin to horses like the American Morgan horse, a stout and sturdy riding breed that clearly could pack around a solider and a least some armour.

Well, cool food for thought, thanks for sharing. Montanabw 23:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and all that

Oh no problem. Glad to help. I only have something like 450 pages on my watchlist now (most of the horse breed articles, among others). I care the most about the ones I've made some major contributions on.

So you are moving? Moving is never fun, even when it's across town. Hope all is/was/will be going well.

In other news, to bug you with my stuff, I was at a show out here about a month ago where someone had an Andalusian stallion and was showing it in some hunt seat classes. We don't have many Andalusians out here, and fewer yet that show (most seem to be older horses retired from circuses or exhibition teams and the like, not good at showing, but do a great Spanish Walk...) so I've not seen many younger ones up close in real life, and it has been quite a few years since I saw the last one. What struck me about this guy is that he was HUGE! He was only about 6 or 7 years old, I think, but over 17 hands if he was an inch, though slim, hadn't developed the big cresty neck, though his neck had a nice arch and was well-set. He was also a dark bay (many, many Andalusians are gray, especially what makes its way out here), so the judge and I (I was ring person for the show) were debating between ourselves "what IS that horse?" both of us (and the judge was carded, she was no idiot) thinking he was a big warmblood or something, maybe an Irish Draught (there's a fad out here for those at the moment), but shaking our heads because his head shape and way of going was definitely NOT warmblood, and he was too refined to be a Percheron cross (there are a fair number of those around here). So, being as how I wasn't the judge, I asked. His owner just glowed at me for asking, and told me she had just recently imported him from Spain.

My point in this whole rambling tale is that it is pretty clear that most modern horses of any breed are probably somewhat taller on average than their ancestors in the middle ages. (I'm guessing at least a good hand, even for "little" horses like Arabians, probably more for the bigger ones) The only other Andalusians I have seen out here have mostly been older, mature stallions that always seemed to be all neck, but also quite tall (all at least 16 hands) and, well, fat. They looked like fairly agile tanks (One I knew reasonably well was nicknamed "Sherman," in fact). That and partbreds, which were mostly smaller and slimmer, having mostly been crossed on Quarter Horses (a cross now called an Azteca), or Arabians. Yet, historical records suggest they were all originally somewhat smaller, and the way the art of the time had everyone on horses where their feet dangled well below the belly of the horse, well, you can only blame some of that on a bad artist, it was so consistent in art. An Andalusian like this fellow could have easily qualified as a "great horse" back then, but had the oomph to sustain a battle...put that boy in armor and ask for a gallop at a person on foot, they'd run screaming! In the hunter under saddle classes he was in, when the judge called for the hand gallop, he was down the side of the arena in about five strides (OK, that's an exaggeration, but he easily had twice the length of stride of most of the ordinary Quarter Horse-type animals he was up against.)

So just thought I'd share the observation, given that we have done so much to look at the research on what they really had back when, and how that compares to what is out there today. It is so important to remember that the idea that a horse was the size of a "Hunter," all depends on the culture WRITING the book more than the culture they are writing about, I appreciate you putting me onto some good authors. It is a fascinting study.

Oh, FYI, some more distance stats from the Tevis Cup. Remember this is a 100 mile race in California that basically goes practically from below sea level near Death Valley over the top of the Sierra Nevadas, not sure highest elevation, but close to 10,000 feet. In short, it's extreme terrain. "The fastest win at the Western States Trail Ride was 10 hours and 46 minutes. The slowest win took 16 hours and 23 minutes, and the average win time is 13 hours and 36 minutes, or a rate of 7.48 miles per hour." ( http://www.horsechannel.com/english-horse-training/tevis-cup-27817.aspx ) Another pretty good article here, though the bit on "knee action to get over rocks" is inaccurately stated and made me cringe. http://theunion.com/article/20060727/TODAYSFEATURE/107270125 Well, ta ta for now. Montanabw 16:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if knights could walk or fight in armor, they could use riding aids, perhaps not terribly subtle ones, but definitely they could give leg commands. You can't ride if you can't move--you'd fall off the horse as soon as it moved faster than a walk! Obviously they had control with legs, because legs give the "go fast" commands. Horses are sensitive to weight and pressure, thus a heavily armored rider would actually have a tremendously obvious use of weight-- If you turn your head on a well-trained horse, that is enough shift of your weight to cue them to begin a turn. After riding for 40 years, I am still being reminded that if I look down while riding I will throw my horse onto the forehand, so if 10 pounds of human skull moving six inches affects a horse, 250 pounds of armored rider most certainly does! As for the phrasing in the article, you can sure tweak it if you want, as "legs" in the broader sense does include "legs with really obnoxious spurs." I kind of wonder (just me speculating) if the obnoxious spurs weren't in part a result of needing something to get through the barding??

Now, the images you use as examples aren't all that extreme, many western riders today have a similar "backward" seat, the leg aids may not be terribly subtle and far from the riding aids of classical dressage, but one-handed neck reining can only accomplish so much too (and many medieval bits were even more horrendous than the spurs). Bottom line is that a horse had to be pertty quick to respond to very little rein cue, and be trained to work off of legs and seat (the classical masters insisted upon it) whatever weapon they used, there would inevitably be times when they'd have to drop the reins and use both hands for something, so a horse would have to be trained to respond to legs and weight shifts.

Now, there are also modern examples we can look at. For example, riders in the Arabian horse competition called "Mounted Native Costume" (more like "Hollywood costume," but I digress) have to control a horse through several layers of heavy fabric, usually lined with felt or vinyl. If it isn't the modern equivalent of basic barding, I don't know what is! (Here is an example: http://www.arabiancostumecreations.com/ ) I know from having ridden in this type of competition myself, you can control a well-trained horse just fine with simply a little stronger leg aid (basically squeezing with the calves), you don't even need to add spurs. And they usually ride some of the most high-spirited horses in these classes because they are all about flash and drama, a horse with high action places higher-- but they still have to behave. Now, if I rode a horse into combat with leather barding or something, I'd definitely add spurs to be on the safe side, but they definitely can feel your leg close against their sides through even heavy fabric. You couldn't put metal armor UNDER the rider's legs, as just sitting on the horse would make plate armor irritate the horse so bad they'd probably buck rather than be of any use in the battlefield.

Ok, so now I wrote another book. Welcome back to the fray! And yeah, things coming by ship take at least half of forever. Montanabw^(talk) 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)