+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? (/showthread.php?tid=8876)
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - RUBICON - 04-04-2007
and here a roman saddle......i know which one i would want to be in!
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - RUBICON - 04-04-2007
a better picture of a jump saddle.......
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Matthew - 04-04-2007
Sure, there's no doubt that Stirrups were an improvement on the level of stability afforded a rider (amongst other things). The question, though, is by how much was their stability improved? Were they a revolution or a refinement? Were Ancient Cavalry in significantly greater danger of being pulled out of their saddles than Medieval Cavalry? I tend to doubt it, but, then, I'm no Cavalry Man (Nice pictures, by the way).
Matthew James Stanham
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - RUBICON - 04-04-2007
Trust me....stirrups give a rider a world of confidence and stability.
Personally I think they were revolutionary! I cannot begin to imagine riding into battle without them. No wonder old saddles were like armchairs!
D D
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Sean Manning - 04-05-2007
Medieval war saddles were rather like 'armchairs' too. I think there is real room for debate over the relative importance of closed saddles, stirups, and training for the effectiveness of different types of cavalry. In particular, as far as I know there is no evidence that early medieval horsemen felt the stirrup was anything special.
Aryaman, I agree there is a lot of evidence of cavalry fighting hand to hand with close-order heavy infantry. Given what I know about horse behaviour, this has puzzled me somewhat. I hope to study primary sources on this in depth one day, as the mechanics and equine behaviour involved are somewhat perplexing.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Tarbicus - 04-05-2007
Is it necessary to put cavalry fighting styles into two camps?: Before the horned saddle, and after its introduction? Does that explain anything to do with differences in how the cavalry fought?
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - L C Cinna - 04-05-2007
I think so. I have no experience riding horses so I can only go with what Junckelmann said about riding with the horned saddle. He wrote that it gives quite a lot of stability.
I think it does make a very big difference if you have a horned saddle or no saddle like hellenistic cavalry. I guess Alexander's hetairoi would have been blown off their horses in no time by imperial Roman cavalry.
The lack of stability would maybe explain why the cavalry got off their horses at Cannae. And imho we have to imagine Alexander's famous charges more like a quick advance and then an attack at slow pace. Those guys had no saddle and a very long lance. looks more like they formed some kind of phalanx themselves just on horseback and made their horses move forward slowly. would still give you a lot of forward pressure imho.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Dan Howard - 04-05-2007
This article demolishes the myth that the stirrup has any useful effect on the couched lance charge.
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php
What the stirrup does is give lateral stability in the saddle which is wonderful for melee fighting. The horns on the Roman saddle would have been just as practical in this regard. The whole point of stirrups initially was to enable horse archers to stand in the saddle so as to provide a more stable platform for firing.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - RUBICON - 04-05-2007
Is it necessary to put cavalry fighting styles into two camps?: Before the horned saddle, and after its introduction? Does that explain anything to do with differences in how the cavalry fought?
Tarbicus qrote:
No you're right Tarbicus, in no way does it reflect the calvary's tactics, the thread maybe went off course where we started discussing that if teh calvary did get amongst foot soldiers, how SECURE were they in the saddle; also how horses behaved on the battlefield.
My arguement is that I dont thnk horses would have coped going into battle head on with a defensive line and it would be suicide if they did.
The introduction of stirrups allowed saddle design to become less in substance ie compared to lounge chair types where security was paramount.
As riding became more of a science and not a necessity, modern day riding is based upon balance as shown by the miniscule saddles of today offering no support at all.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - RUBICON - 04-05-2007
Unfortunately Dan, I have read that article and it shows the writers ignorance of riding as he may well suggest.
To suggest a rider 'Stirrups are a logical step in progression to aid in "rising" from the seat, which must be accomplished from the knees without them. Any rider trained in "English" will recall the hard work of "posting" without stirrups as a way to develop leg muscles and seat. If you mentioned gripping with your knees you would be laughed out of any room of english rider. Gripping with the knees shows someone who has no balance in teh saddle. Your legs simply hang gently by the horses side. YOU NEVER TIGHTLY GRIP with your legs as this is pressure against the horse's side and with som exciteable horses wouldcause them to go even more ape! The very reason, olden day horse were quieter clumper types, not like the current day F1 of horses like the Thoroughbred.
he also suggests that stirrups, dont help in teh impact stage..I agree, teh very reason the old saddles had WAIST hight CANTLES!
The backward force was braced by the rather high cantle.
I'd like to see him try it in a modern day saddle with no stirrups he would fly backwards of impaled on the lance! Saddles have obvioulsy been designed for the need at hand of the era.
Stirrups are there for support, in modern day posting of the trot, removal of the stirrups is only used to teach riders to be able to get a more secure leg on teh horse ie the calf down to the ankle. This is the only area that should be in touch with the horses side.
Gripping with the thighs and knees is usually seen amongst beginners and or poor riders, but in saying this, gripping with your knees and lower leg would have been a MUST in a saddle of oldern times which had no stirrups.
As for firing arrows of in the standing position, stirrups woudl have helped, but I think that armies of old, with or without stirrups would have kep their body weight close to teh horse's back where it offers you the most support. These riders of old, including trh romans woudl have been good riders with good balance, trust me, saddles with horns etc may help but you still need to stay in the saddle, at the gallop, turning, amongst the confusion of battle....if anyone doubts this, get on a horse now and ride with no stirrups.
The writer then goes on to say he would rather perform the tasks at hand in a saddle with stirrups. Stirrups would have aided mounting and dismounting and definitely for support as horses woul dhave been a necessary mode of transport. I doubt there were riding classes to learn how to ride before you got your horse riding license.
Training of horses although written about for centuries has only become a necessity and a requirement since equestrian sports developed and judges required 'guidelines' as to what training was correct or incorrect! As equestrian sports developed so has teh need for improved training techniques and more educated horses to cope with the demands of those sports. One only has to look at the way horses and riders jumped fences at the turn of teh century compared to the way it is done now!
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - RUBICON - 04-05-2007
Unfortunately Dan, I have read that article and it shows the writers ignorance of riding as he may well suggest.
To suggest a rider 'Stirrups are a logical step in progression to aid in "rising" from the seat, which must be accomplished from the knees without them. Any rider trained in "English" will recall the hard work of "posting" without stirrups as a way to develop leg muscles and seat. If you mentioned gripping with your knees you would be laughed out of any room of english rider. Gripping with the knees shows someone who has no balance in teh saddle. Your legs simply hang gently by the horses side. YOU NEVER TIGHTLY GRIP with your legs as this is pressure against the horse's side and with som exciteable horses wouldcause them to go even more ape! The very reason, olden day horse were quieter clumper types, not like the current day F1 of horses like the Thoroughbred.
he also suggests that stirrups, dont help in teh impact stage..I agree, teh very reason the old saddles had WAIST hight CANTLES!
The backward force was braced by the rather high cantle.
I'd like to see him try it in a modern day saddle with no stirrups he would fly backwards of impaled on the lance! Saddles have obvioulsy been designed for the need at hand of the era.
Stirrups are there for support, in modern day posting of the trot, removal of the stirrups is only used to teach riders to be able to get a more secure leg on teh horse ie the calf down to the ankle. This is the only area that should be in touch with the horses side.
Gripping with the thighs and knees is usually seen amongst beginners and or poor riders, but in saying this, gripping with your knees and lower leg would have been a MUST in a saddle of oldern times which had no stirrups.
As for firing arrows of in the standing position, stirrups woudl have helped, but I think that armies of old, with or without stirrups would have kep their body weight close to teh horse's back where it offers you the most support. These riders of old, including trh romans woudl have been good riders with good balance, trust me, saddles with horns etc may help but you still need to stay in the saddle, at the gallop, turning, amongst the confusion of battle....if anyone doubts this, get on a horse now and ride with no stirrups.
The writer then goes on to say he would rather perform the tasks at hand in a saddle with stirrups. Stirrups would have aided mounting and dismounting and definitely for support as horses woul dhave been a necessary mode of transport. I doubt there were riding classes to learn how to ride before you got your horse riding license.
Training of horses although written about for centuries has only become a necessity and a requirement since equestrian sports developed and judges required 'guidelines' as to what training was correct or incorrect! As equestrian sports developed so has teh need for improved training techniques and more educated horses to cope with the demands of those sports. One only has to look at the way horses and riders jumped fences at the turn of teh century compared to the way it is done now!
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - RUBICON - 04-05-2007
Unfortunately Dan, I have read that article and it shows the writers ignorance of riding as he may well suggest.
To suggest a rider 'Stirrups are a logical step in progression to aid in "rising" from the seat, which must be accomplished from the knees without them. Any rider trained in "English" will recall the hard work of "posting" without stirrups as a way to develop leg muscles and seat. If you mentioned gripping with your knees you would be laughed out of any room of english rider. Gripping with the knees shows someone who has no balance in teh saddle. Your legs simply hang gently by the horses side. YOU NEVER TIGHTLY GRIP with your legs as this is pressure against the horse's side and with som exciteable horses wouldcause them to go even more ape! The very reason, olden day horse were quieter clumper types, not like the current day F1 of horses like the Thoroughbred.
he also suggests that stirrups, dont help in teh impact stage..I agree, teh very reason the old saddles had WAIST hight CANTLES!
The backward force was braced by the rather high cantle.
I'd like to see him try it in a modern day saddle with no stirrups he would fly backwards of impaled on the lance! Saddles have obvioulsy been designed for the need at hand of the era.
Stirrups are there for support, in modern day posting of the trot, removal of the stirrups is only used to teach riders to be able to get a more secure leg on teh horse ie the calf down to the ankle. This is the only area that should be in touch with the horses side.
Gripping with the thighs and knees is usually seen amongst beginners and or poor riders, but in saying this, gripping with your knees and lower leg would have been a MUST in a saddle of oldern times which had no stirrups.
As for firing arrows of in the standing position, stirrups woudl have helped, but I think that armies of old, with or without stirrups would have kep their body weight close to teh horse's back where it offers you the most support. These riders of old, including trh romans woudl have been good riders with good balance, trust me, saddles with horns etc may help but you still need to stay in the saddle, at the gallop, turning, amongst the confusion of battle....if anyone doubts this, get on a horse now and ride with no stirrups.
The writer then goes on to say he would rather perform the tasks at hand in a saddle with stirrups. Stirrups would have aided mounting and dismounting and definitely for support as horses woul dhave been a necessary mode of transport. I doubt there were riding classes to learn how to ride before you got your horse riding license.
Training of horses although written about for centuries has only become a necessity and a requirement since equestrian sports developed and judges required 'guidelines' as to what training was correct or incorrect! As equestrian sports developed so has teh need for improved training techniques and more educated horses to cope with the demands of those sports. One only has to look at the way horses and riders jumped fences at the turn of teh century compared to the way it is done now!
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - RUBICON - 04-05-2007
Oopps..sorry for that posting 3 times.....trigger happy!
hock: hock:
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Dan Howard - 04-05-2007
I never said the article was totally accurate. My point was that it provided good evidence to suggest that stirrups had little to no effect on the development of couched lance tactics. If you disagree with this I'd like to know why. It is the saddle that makes most of the difference, not the stirrup.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - RUBICON - 04-06-2007
Ok, having not entered a jousting exercise, my knowledge is based upon years of riding. Years of different situations on the back of a horse and in different saddles from flat seat jumping saddles, to deep seat dressage saddles to our very own Australian stock saddles with huge knee GRIPS obviously designed for stockwork where horses are turning quickly much lik eteh American western saddle with similar knee stops and horn and very couch like!
the closest I can come to from a situation similar to the impact and sudden removal of forward motion is a horse suddenly stopping in front of a fence. Stirrups would help as most riders could with shortened stirrups braced their lower leg forward to stop the rider being thrown forward. Our current day saddles dont have large sections at the front and rear of the saddles like the old jousting saddles. As we now ride/jump with a shorter leg position we can utilise teh use of stirrups for one bracing, and carrying our weight OFF the horse's back over a fence and upon landing where teh stirrups take all the weight of the rider and not the horse's back. Going across or dwon hill, riders can put their legs forward to brace themselves as we dont have the front and rear supports.
Although medieval riders did, and i cannot see how that sudden forward motion would not cause severe thigh bruising if not removal of your crown jewels?
Going downhill or uphill they woudl have constant pressure on teh fornt and rear of tehir waist regions
Unfortunatley we are not comparing apples with apples. The old medieval riders with their couch like saddles rode with very long straight leg positions probably offering no support from stirrups (a common problem seen these days with riders with long stirrups, soon shows up their very poor sense of balance. Unfortunatley todays riders are NOT held in by such deep supportive saddles.
If medieval riders had ridden in shorter stirrups they could have used the stirrups to very much help themselves brace against impact.
This is proven very much by paintings and writings of the the old days where it was commonplace to have a very long stirrup. Riding positions have changed whereby riders nowadays are more effective via use of their legs.
So I agree, the saddle is very important, without those deep saddles the jouster would have been spat out backwards but the correct length and use of stirrups would have aided more support for bracing the forward motion of the rider.
I have no information whether saddles back then had adjustable stirrup lengths like today.
Once again, saddles were designed for the purpose at hand. poor riding skills (if no natural talent) meant the average rider needed a lot of support staying on a horse, ie the deep couch saddles...high canters .. horns etc I just think shorter leg lengths& stirrups would have been a huge step forward for the jouster.
Just because they didnt think of it doesnt mean it wasnt more beneficial. as I said, riding as a science developed much later!