06-30-2011, 01:58 PM
I’ve being too busy to contribute to this topic, and am re-enacting nearly every weekend through July. Detailed information will go up on the Comitatus site, but bit would be churlish not to post something, even in haste.
Reading the posts so far I agree with the comments made by Crispvs and Paul Karremans.
Early saddles using padded side boards separated by wooden spacers or proto-cantles are attested in the 4th century BC. The four horn saddles can be viewed as a simple development of this design, and are soon in use by various cultures across Western Europe and the Middle East. It is certainly not a failure as a design. It is a successful design in use for half a millennium.
But there are still many questions to be answered about the design, which makes it of interest to saddle reconstructors and Roman military specialists. Reconstructors rely on archaeological evidence, written and iconographic evidence and I note there seems to be a friction between this approach and those with a deep love of horses. Indeed it has even been suggested that in some way I am cruel to horses for using wooden framed saddles, an allegation which is completely unfounded and one based on ignorance. But of course it is the practical experience of an expert that can inform the reconstructor and help them to develop a deeper understanding and a more perfect reconstruction. My butcher taught me more about the design and use of hunting knives than I would have ever obtained from reading a book, and the same is true for horse lovers and their horses.
Roman saddle reconstruction can be reconsidered a rather well worn path. Connolly made around 25 saddles and many many more have been made in the past few years. While some aspects of their design elude us, other aspects are well known within the community interested in such things. Reconstructions tend to fall into the “Connolly camp” using a solid internal frame, or the “German pad saddle school” using a stiff well padded saddle that conforms to the horses back. But of course the truth may well lie somewhere in between.
The evidence from Carlisle and elsewhere all points to the use of solid cantles and horns. These saddle elements may have been re-enforced with metal or other materials. The side boards may have been wood, or something along the lines of leather tubes stuffed with a material to stiffen them. Grass is a possible candidate as used in the Spanish Vaquero saddle. Indeed on RAT our Spanish friend Cesar has suggested this possibility more than once. However the use of side “pads” generally mean the size and weight of the saddle increases to give the necessary stiffness to the saddle. Current “German pad saddles” weigh roughly twice as much as wooden framed examples and are much bigger.
Current opinion favours the use of a wooden internal frame. At one time many people were concerned that the use of a solid frame would mean each saddle could only fit one horse. Yet we can view Roman saddles as akin to later military saddles based on Hungarian Hussar saddles. Such saddles were based on a solid wooden frame, were made in a variety of sizes, and the rider was expected to learn to fold their saddle cloth in such a way to make the saddle fit the horse. As horses lost condition on campaign the troopers would have adjust the padding under their saddles to make the saddle still fit the horse comfortably.
However so far the perfect frame construction has frankly escaped us. The secret probably lies as Crispvs says in the use of various materials to provide both strength and flexibility. We can learn something from the construction of later saddles and the balance of materials used.
Connolly used laminated birch to build the frame and metal brackets to help hold the horns securely to the frame. Such brackets may have been used by the Romans but we lack the evidence. Yet in some cases laminated cantles have split with use and age. But most saddle reconstructions use steamed plywood to make the sideboards, an easy strong option. It seems that some Anglo-Saxon saddles used oak cantles, and currently we are using solid beach for the cantles. Time will tell how effective this will be.
In early reconstructions horns broke from the frame easily, especially front outwards pressure to the sides of the saddle. Connolly’s brackets helped with this. My first saddle made many years ago used long screws to hold the horns into the rear cantle and yet the wooden horns would still come away from the frame under stress. Occasionally the wood of the horn would even split along the grain. The use of hard wood and even horn stopped the horn splitting and screws and glue secured the horn to the frame, but it was hardly a “authentic” solution.
The size of the horns are in part dictated by the surviving copper alloy horn plates, possibly acting as stiffeners to help strengthen the horn. The holes found in these plates could be used to nail the plate directly to the frame. However some plates are of a surprising thickness perhaps suggesting they are for protection and should be sewn externally to the cover. The fact that individual names have been found scratched or punched on to the stiffeners has been used as evidence that they were used externally where they would be easily visible, or internally where they would be visible when the cover was lifted off the frame. Of course not all saddles may have used copper alloy plates. These protectors or stiffeners do not give an absolute indication of the angle of horns which can be derived from sculptural evidence.
The saddles we offer for sale have no such issues and the horns are very secure. Instead it seems the stress was transferred to the joint of the front cantle and side board, and this is where Jurjen’ s saddle gave out. The first batch of saddles had a plywood cantle which didn’t help. Now beach is used and the joint is secured with brackets and bolts to make a bullet proof frame. However such a strong frame may have its own draw backs. Certainly the leather covers are stretching into the frame in record time!
The McCellan saddle is partially held together using rawhide as were many older saddles and I suspect that rawhide would also have a role to play in securing the joints in Roman saddles. As it dries and shrinks it would hold joints together while providing an element of flexibility. I find it hard not to see these saddles as very organic, made of wood, goat skin, rawhide, sinew etc.
I have not mentioned the nature of saddle covers, but will point out that the triplet straps are used in our reconstructions to secure the leather cover to the frame. A practical use for them as well as using them to suspend decoration or your enemies heads. Most modern leather needs considerable work to make it suitable for saddle covers.
When making such saddles for sale there is a tension between the customers wish for a saddle that will last forever and fit any horse or backside, and an accurate reconstruction using the correct materials. Many riders, myself included, are probably larger and heavier than the average presumed Roman rider. Often personal kit is unfit for purpose and for use on horseback. So production saddles have to be durable and tough to handle any weight and mishandling. Dropping saddles may deform the wooden frame and even break horns, and riders generally request the unbreakable saddle. Making the saddle work on the horse takes time and patience, in the some way it takes time to make personal kit work on horseback. Getting seven riders to understand their saddles and tack up their horses safely is one of my major re-enactment achievements! I look forward to Jurjen’s first public displays and enjoy seeing photos of Cesar’s events, especially his Republican impression. But there is a limit to how much such saddles and public displays can teach us about construction.
Reading the posts so far I agree with the comments made by Crispvs and Paul Karremans.
Early saddles using padded side boards separated by wooden spacers or proto-cantles are attested in the 4th century BC. The four horn saddles can be viewed as a simple development of this design, and are soon in use by various cultures across Western Europe and the Middle East. It is certainly not a failure as a design. It is a successful design in use for half a millennium.
But there are still many questions to be answered about the design, which makes it of interest to saddle reconstructors and Roman military specialists. Reconstructors rely on archaeological evidence, written and iconographic evidence and I note there seems to be a friction between this approach and those with a deep love of horses. Indeed it has even been suggested that in some way I am cruel to horses for using wooden framed saddles, an allegation which is completely unfounded and one based on ignorance. But of course it is the practical experience of an expert that can inform the reconstructor and help them to develop a deeper understanding and a more perfect reconstruction. My butcher taught me more about the design and use of hunting knives than I would have ever obtained from reading a book, and the same is true for horse lovers and their horses.
Roman saddle reconstruction can be reconsidered a rather well worn path. Connolly made around 25 saddles and many many more have been made in the past few years. While some aspects of their design elude us, other aspects are well known within the community interested in such things. Reconstructions tend to fall into the “Connolly camp” using a solid internal frame, or the “German pad saddle school” using a stiff well padded saddle that conforms to the horses back. But of course the truth may well lie somewhere in between.
The evidence from Carlisle and elsewhere all points to the use of solid cantles and horns. These saddle elements may have been re-enforced with metal or other materials. The side boards may have been wood, or something along the lines of leather tubes stuffed with a material to stiffen them. Grass is a possible candidate as used in the Spanish Vaquero saddle. Indeed on RAT our Spanish friend Cesar has suggested this possibility more than once. However the use of side “pads” generally mean the size and weight of the saddle increases to give the necessary stiffness to the saddle. Current “German pad saddles” weigh roughly twice as much as wooden framed examples and are much bigger.
Current opinion favours the use of a wooden internal frame. At one time many people were concerned that the use of a solid frame would mean each saddle could only fit one horse. Yet we can view Roman saddles as akin to later military saddles based on Hungarian Hussar saddles. Such saddles were based on a solid wooden frame, were made in a variety of sizes, and the rider was expected to learn to fold their saddle cloth in such a way to make the saddle fit the horse. As horses lost condition on campaign the troopers would have adjust the padding under their saddles to make the saddle still fit the horse comfortably.
However so far the perfect frame construction has frankly escaped us. The secret probably lies as Crispvs says in the use of various materials to provide both strength and flexibility. We can learn something from the construction of later saddles and the balance of materials used.
Connolly used laminated birch to build the frame and metal brackets to help hold the horns securely to the frame. Such brackets may have been used by the Romans but we lack the evidence. Yet in some cases laminated cantles have split with use and age. But most saddle reconstructions use steamed plywood to make the sideboards, an easy strong option. It seems that some Anglo-Saxon saddles used oak cantles, and currently we are using solid beach for the cantles. Time will tell how effective this will be.
In early reconstructions horns broke from the frame easily, especially front outwards pressure to the sides of the saddle. Connolly’s brackets helped with this. My first saddle made many years ago used long screws to hold the horns into the rear cantle and yet the wooden horns would still come away from the frame under stress. Occasionally the wood of the horn would even split along the grain. The use of hard wood and even horn stopped the horn splitting and screws and glue secured the horn to the frame, but it was hardly a “authentic” solution.
The size of the horns are in part dictated by the surviving copper alloy horn plates, possibly acting as stiffeners to help strengthen the horn. The holes found in these plates could be used to nail the plate directly to the frame. However some plates are of a surprising thickness perhaps suggesting they are for protection and should be sewn externally to the cover. The fact that individual names have been found scratched or punched on to the stiffeners has been used as evidence that they were used externally where they would be easily visible, or internally where they would be visible when the cover was lifted off the frame. Of course not all saddles may have used copper alloy plates. These protectors or stiffeners do not give an absolute indication of the angle of horns which can be derived from sculptural evidence.
The saddles we offer for sale have no such issues and the horns are very secure. Instead it seems the stress was transferred to the joint of the front cantle and side board, and this is where Jurjen’ s saddle gave out. The first batch of saddles had a plywood cantle which didn’t help. Now beach is used and the joint is secured with brackets and bolts to make a bullet proof frame. However such a strong frame may have its own draw backs. Certainly the leather covers are stretching into the frame in record time!
The McCellan saddle is partially held together using rawhide as were many older saddles and I suspect that rawhide would also have a role to play in securing the joints in Roman saddles. As it dries and shrinks it would hold joints together while providing an element of flexibility. I find it hard not to see these saddles as very organic, made of wood, goat skin, rawhide, sinew etc.
I have not mentioned the nature of saddle covers, but will point out that the triplet straps are used in our reconstructions to secure the leather cover to the frame. A practical use for them as well as using them to suspend decoration or your enemies heads. Most modern leather needs considerable work to make it suitable for saddle covers.
When making such saddles for sale there is a tension between the customers wish for a saddle that will last forever and fit any horse or backside, and an accurate reconstruction using the correct materials. Many riders, myself included, are probably larger and heavier than the average presumed Roman rider. Often personal kit is unfit for purpose and for use on horseback. So production saddles have to be durable and tough to handle any weight and mishandling. Dropping saddles may deform the wooden frame and even break horns, and riders generally request the unbreakable saddle. Making the saddle work on the horse takes time and patience, in the some way it takes time to make personal kit work on horseback. Getting seven riders to understand their saddles and tack up their horses safely is one of my major re-enactment achievements! I look forward to Jurjen’s first public displays and enjoy seeing photos of Cesar’s events, especially his Republican impression. But there is a limit to how much such saddles and public displays can teach us about construction.
John Conyard
York
A member of Comitatus Late Roman
Reconstruction Group
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.comitatus.net">http://www.comitatus.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.historicalinterpretations.net">http://www.historicalinterpretations.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com">http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com
York
A member of Comitatus Late Roman
Reconstruction Group
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.comitatus.net">http://www.comitatus.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.historicalinterpretations.net">http://www.historicalinterpretations.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com">http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com