22" saddle article in H&H and vet's comment about heavy horses...

[Cortez]

That is an engraving by Albrecht Durer entitled "Der Grosse pferd", i.e. a joke picture or carachature (sp). Most of the illustrations from the later 15thc show quite quality types, and the armour that remains also agrees with this, i.e; not great big heavily muscled horses.

 

[Cortez]

Is it wrong I am much more interested in the historical side of this post than fat people riding?

On the subject of horse armour: Was it really not worn in battle? I understood that whilst it was not of practical purpose it was for a great part used for decorative purposes and as a sign of social standing and material wealth? Was its use therefore mainly confined to jousting and ceremonial occasions?

Cortez: Can I do some work experience with you!?

I expect horse peytrals (chest armour) and croupers were probably worn, but they are just so difficult to make work that they were abandoned pretty quickly. The padding that had to be worn underneath was also unwieldy. So yes, probably more for ceremonial and showing off than for actual battle (although there are accounts of it being used at Pavia and San Remo - late 15c Italian battles).

Yes, but it's not as much fun as you might think

 

[Zuzan]

Not sure I'd give a cartoon much merit towards this argument....

This is probably more accurate.. http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/paolo-uccello-the-battle-of-san-romano

the above horses to my eye look decidedly like baroque types (Lippi / old hispano)

As for a breed that is still around today which isn't a draught the Cleveland Bay is probably it .. as far as the British Isles are concerned..

The CB is descended from the Chapman Horse which may well be the remains of the Roman cavalry horse .. the Chapman was crossed with iberian / barb types during the crusades and subsequently heavily influenced by the Byerly Turk.. (and some other Turk horses) The Byerly Turk was bred by the Ottoman Empire as an armoured cavalry horse.. there are remains of the equine body armour that indicate it wasn't arab / barb type at all..

NB true draught breeds have less dense bones (although more of them.. ) than horses bred for riding / packing.. and PS the Clydesdale was a product of crossing draught breeds with CBs...

CBs in their pure form are good heavy weight hunters.. so would imagine they would be well up for smaller men in armour.. There are different types of CB from the smaller compact (around 15 - 16 hh) to the larger rangier agricultural and then those that hark back to the Yorkshire Coach horse (CB x TB) types.

So sorry HH no I don't think draughts were ever bred for carrying an armoured man into battle.. tho some might have been in part bred from the horses that did.

 

[Littlelegs]

The vets comment is slightly bizarre imo. This theory that's bandied around about 'riding light' really winds me up. It's not possible to defy gravity however well you ride. Whether you're 6stone or 16, that's what you feel like to the horse. The only difference is that if you don't ride well, you'll feel heavier than you actually are. So its not leeway for a too big rider to be on a horse because they ride well, just a case of a lower limit for someone who rides badly.

 

[kerilli]

fascinating stuff, thanks everyone. having seen a model horse and rider in full armour (at the Tower of London or somewhere?) i assumed that they always protected the horses that much... crazy huh? it makes sense that it was v difficult to get the plates to fit, slide, not rub etc.
Cortez, tell us more, please!

 

[kerilli]

The vets comment is slightly bizarre imo. This theory that's bandied around about 'riding light' really winds me up. It's not possible to defy gravity however well you ride. Whether you're 6stone or 16, that's what you feel like to the horse. The only difference is that if you don't ride well, you'll feel heavier than you actually are. So its not leeway for a too big rider to be on a horse because they ride well, just a case of a lower limit for someone who rides badly.

Yes, absolutely. Physics is physics. If I carry a knapsack with 5 stone in it, it might feel harder to carry if it's knobbly, or shifting, or whatever, but it cannot possibly weigh less than it weighs! That was 1 of the parts of the quote that really annoyed me, it just gives more ammunition to the people who try to use that as an excuse imho.

 

[Cortez]

Oooh, I think everyone has probably had enough of a history lesson by now; not exactly relevant to most people's daily lives with their hosses, 'tho it is the day job around here

 

[Charem]

Facinating stuff.

Back to the original question, does anyone know a horse that would be able to carry a 22inch saddle without it comming too far back and pressing on the horse's loins? My dad has a 17.3hh horse and he couldn't take more than a 19 inch saddle.

 

[camilla4]

Oooh, I think everyone has probably had enough of a history lesson by now; not exactly relevant to most people's daily lives with their hosses, 'tho it is the day job around here

Maybe not, Cortez, but I think quite a few of us are interested anyway - keep it coming!! Maybe a new thread...?

 

[eahotson]

I dn't thik that anyone ith any sense would sugest that a heavir rider can ride very light weight horses bcause they ride well.Its only meant o say that a LOTdepends on th riders abiity the fitof the tack and te way tha the horse is schooled.I weigh around 12 stone.Ibought a 14.2 Welsh cob with plenty of bone.The girl I bought him off weighed about 2 stone less than me.e had a horendous back and a dropped right quarter.His sadle didn't fit and his schooling had been ignorant and harshHe now has a correctly fitted saddle, good physio and (courtesy of lovelyinstructor) correct and sympathetic schooling.My saddle fitter is mazed at how much better his k is as I have a proper saddler and regular checks from both saddler and pysio.He can roll now! He coudn'twhen I bought him, not properly.He had to roll on one side, std up and henroll on the other.

 

[tallyho!]

With all due respect... vets have strange views about horses sometimes...

 

[Star_Chaser]

I agree that they weren't as tall, as a rule, but even a short guy, if muscular (as a knight would have to be... have you ever tried to wield a sword?!?!) would be heavy.

Its true they were heavy. even if you look at the jousting shows that are still around although they don't wear full armour they are still heavy and the horses are anything from 15hh up to 17.3. They still have to carry a decent weight none of the poles used are lightweight either although they are balanced.

 

[Rollin]

The Irish Draught isn't all that terribly old either, I'm afraid. The Irish Cob, on the other hand, is probably much older and had the "Irish Hobby" as a progenitor. By studying and measuring extant sets of armour, both for men and horses, the closest fit is an old fashioned Spanish horse, Lippizaners and Connemaras. All 15h or less and not massively muscled either.

Please don't forget the oldest breed of horse in Britain, the Cleveland Bay which will happily gallop all day with 15 stone on board. Our old stud books record details of their powers of endurance and weight carrying ability.

Research conducted by Henry Edmunds, Cholderton Estate, Wilts traces the origins of the CB to the Sarmartian Cavalry who protected Hadrian's wall during the Roman occupation of Britain. His historical research is supported by a recent and large genetic stud of the CB which shows it is genetically linked to the Kabardin of the Caucasus Mountains.

Henry is one of three finalists for the BBC Food and Farming Awards, Farming category so you should soon see him on Countryfile.

If you are interested, here is his article on the Southern Cleveland Bay Club website.

http://www.southernclevelandbayclub.co.uk/#/cw-1201-long-perspective/4559314892

enjoy

 

[dominobrown]

On the saddle subject- go to the article and see what the master saddler says- he wouldn't be happy fitting a 22 inch saddle.
Another point- We are far fatter and much more unfit that the average medieval person. A fit person carries themselves better. Knights started training when they were like 10 years old? Some probably would be pretty good riders in most cases. Also if you rode a horse everyday, all day you would end up pretty fit!

 

[Jesstickle]

Cortez you're wrong. I haven't had enough at all. Fascinating stuff.

Zuzan and Rollin, the stuff about CBs is also really interesting.

I'm enjoying this thread


FWIW I can't imagine many horses carrying a 22 inch saddle. Mine is really rather long but even he couldn't take more than 20 inches (oo er misses! ) I don't suppose.

I ride in an 18 inch saddle though and I'm 5'2'' and a size 12. I just hate to feel hemmed in so it isn't like everyone who wants an 18 inch saddle actually needs one. On Nitty I squeeze my butt into 16.5 inches but I don't like it!

 

[tallyho!]

Old war horse breeds like the Spanish Norman, Warlander ... there may be another one or two I have forgotten... are making a comeback, if very rare... at least the warlander is.

 

[SusannaF]

Yep. The big big heavy drafts were created in the 18th/19th century. Nothing to do with knights.

 

[Apercrumbie]

Thanks for all the specialist knowledge Cortez, it's really interesting.

I'm afraid that I don't buy the "but horses used to carry men into battle" argument for reasons already stated, namely the development of the modern horse and the probable lack of equine longevity. However I also think that some people are far too precious about what weights some horses can carry. Yes some horses may struggle to carry someone of 12/13 stone but most wouldn't really and sweeping statements like this annoy me as it actually disregards the horse.

Also really interesting about the Cleveland Bay's, it's such a shame there are so few now as they sound like such fantastic horses. I understand that some are making concerted efforts to increase numbers, does anyone know what effect, if any, this has had?

 

[Cortez]

Its true they were heavy. even if you look at the jousting shows that are still around although they don't wear full armour they are still heavy and the horses are anything from 15hh up to 17.3. They still have to carry a decent weight none of the poles used are lightweight either although they are balanced.

If you mean the silly "jousting" show on TV at the moment, that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with historical research or reality. The horses are wrong, the armour is wrong, the technique is wrong, the lances are wrong, and as for the "riding"; give me strength!

 

[Cortez]

Old war horse breeds like the Spanish Norman, Warlander ... there may be another one or two I have forgotten... are making a comeback, if very rare... at least the warlander is.

These "breeds" are made up modern attempts to recreate an idea of what horses were like in some unspecified time period - they are lovely horses, but they are not Medieval breeds. The Warlander is a cross between PRE and Friesian, and funny how they all seem to originate in America....................

 

[kerilli]

Fascinating stuff.

Back to the original question, does anyone know a horse that would be able to carry a 22inch saddle without it comming too far back and pressing on the horse's loins? My dad has a 17.3hh horse and he couldn't take more than a 19 inch saddle.

Nope. I've known a couple of HUGE horses in my time, the sort who walk with their head up high above me (I'm 5'10") rather than beside me. Neither was particularly long in the back... which they'd have to be to carry a 22" saddle and not have it pressing on the loins. My wb eventer was 18.2 ish (never measured him tbh) and took a 7' rug, no bigger.
Also, the longer the back, the weaker it will be (physics again) so a short back is better because it is stronger... but even less likely to be able to carry a 22" saddle...

Going to look up Warlander and Spanish Norman now. Some great info coming up on this thread, thanks!

 

[frannieuk]

My comment, and forgive me if it's been raised before, is how many horses have enough length of back to take a 22" saddle before you're shooting close to the last rib?

ETA Posted at the same time Kerilli!

 

[Cortez]

I wonder has anyone ever ridden in, or fitted, a western saddle? They have much larger seats and very long panels that go right back over the loins, yet the horses seem to manage OK. Western riders (in the US) are often quite, ahem "large" and on teeny little Quarter Horses. They also seem to survive. That's me riding in the armour a few pages back, BTW, 5'9", over 11 stone, and on a 14.2h horse.

 

[tallyho!]

These "breeds" are made up modern attempts to recreate an idea of what horses were like in some unspecified time period - they are lovely horses, but they are not Medieval breeds. The Warlander is a cross between PRE and Friesian, and funny how they all seem to originate in America....................

Well I've learnt something new today!

 

[tallyho!]

I wonder has anyone ever ridden in, or fitted, a western saddle? They have much larger seats and very long panels that go right back over the loins, yet the horses seem to manage OK.

Then that is wrong. There is very clear instruction about the western saddle should not reach the loins... I often thought they were too long but after a demo and experience day years ago at Mendip Stud we were shown very clearly that the skirt shouldn't go past the last rib. THe spanish saddle often "look" like they are very far back but when you look closely, they are similar to english saddle lengths.

 

[Rollin]

Thanks for all the specialist knowledge Cortez, it's really interesting.

I'm afraid that I don't buy the "but horses used to carry men into battle" argument for reasons already stated, namely the development of the modern horse and the probable lack of equine longevity. However I also think that some people are far too precious about what weights some horses can carry. Yes some horses may struggle to carry someone of 12/13 stone but most wouldn't really and sweeping statements like this annoy me as it actually disregards the horse.

Also really interesting about the Cleveland Bay's, it's such a shame there are so few now as they sound like such fantastic horses. I understand that some are making concerted efforts to increase numbers, does anyone know what effect, if any, this has had?

Cleveland Bay again - I am ashamed to say that under the current management the number of pure bred CB's had declined in less than five years from 70 to just 13 this year, 5 of those in the USA.

I am the only breeder of pure bred CB's in the whole of mainland europe. I own four pure bred mares, one part-bred and a 'sparks'* compliant stallion. Thanks to the intransigence of my breed society in coming to an agreement with French National Stud on the registration of pure-bred foals born in France, we have lost 5 breeding seasons and bred just one pure bred foal.

UK breeders are encouraged by financial assistance from the HBLB, this is not available to overseas breeders.

*selective mating scheme aimed at preventing inbreeding.

 

[Apercrumbie]

Rollin that is just tragic. I sincerely hope that something can be done.

 

[Orangehorse]

That is very sad to hear about the CB.

But this is a fascinating thread - although maybe a bit off the 22" saddle topic.

I had also read that the Knights horses were not all that tall, but a horse of around 15 hh is going to be "sounder" - once they start getting better they are more prone to problems. That is why ponies have less problems than horses as they are "over enginered" for their size. Wasn't it Henry VIII who started breeding taller horses?

If you look over to America then as is said above, very tall heavy men ride quarter horses and the like of around 15hh or smaller. There was a recent discussion on the Morgan horse DG about how much they could carry and it came out at around 14-15 stone, but these are not jumping.

I didn't know about the history of the Cleveland Bay - how interesting!

 

[Littlelegs]

The most suitable horse I've ever met for carrying weight was an 18.2 hw hunter, was an absolute tank. He could only wear an 18.5 " saddle though. Yes, he was short coupled, but if he hadn't been he wouldn't have been the weight carrier he was.

 

[Tnavas]

16hh Heavy Horse with 18 stone rider - no sweat - Horse is a pure Clydesdale - bred not just for draft work but to be ridden as well.

As to the comment about lightweight riders riding like a sack of spuds - this is very true, any rider of any weight who is not in control of their balance and movement will be a heavy rider - crashing down onto the horses back.

A rider with good muscle control and balance may weigh more but will land softly and lightly on the horses back so not causing the horses back muscles to be strained.

I've just bought an 18" saddle which fits her well and still leaves ribcage spare.

Lets not forget the hardy little Welsh Mountain ponies - they were ridden by the hill farmers and carried sheep as well.