Hard riding no saddles or stirrups

[petrinus]

ive been riding all my life, amazing things can be done without a saddle, you just have to make this connection with the animal and fuse, it takes time and trust and lots of falling off, i still fall off sometimes when its a new horse

[Felix]

Wow! hock:

This Ardant du Picq study is fabolous, wonderful, beautiful, fantastic, top notch, amazing, marvellous, prodigious, compelling, enthralling....

Well, I know it was not a very constructive reply but rather an expression of uncontrolled joy.

I had been looking after this kind of stuff since years!

Thanks, laudes awarded!

It would be good to consider Ardant du Picq's famous work rather carefully. He was writing in the mid-19th century, and much of his work is about the psychology of combat - before the term psychology was even invented, let alone any scientific work done on the subject. This does not mean his work is wrong, but it certainly has a limited perspective. For example, he does not touch on the idea of small-unit cohesion at all, dealing only with soldiers as members of official units (platoons, companies, squadrons and larger).

He takes the ancient authors at face value: "In ancient battle victory cost much less than with modern armies, and the same soldiers remained longer in ranks. At the end of his campaigns, when he had soldiers sixty years old, Alexander had lost only seven hundred men by the sword." I don't know where he got that figure, but does anyone here believe it? We have much more nuanced views of the ancient sources than du Picq had access to.

Du Picq was writing a position paper - he was advocating a methology to be adopted by the army he was part of, not an analysis of warfare as such. Clearly, he condemns some current practices, and exhorts his readers to use others. His work is not supposed to be an objective undertaking, any more than Vegitius was trying to write an accurate history of the Roman army. And du Picq was dead wrong about some subjects: he states that cavalry would be hampered by modern rifles and artillery no more than infantry on the battlefield.

"Rifled cannon and accurate rifles do not change cavalry tactics at
all. These weapons of precision, as the word precision indicates, are
effective only when all battle conditions, all conditions of aiming,
are ideal. If the necessary condition of suitable range is lacking,
effect is lacking. Accuracy of fire at a distance is impossible
against a troop in movement, and movement is the essence of cavalry
action. Rifled weapons fire on them of course, but they fire on
everybody.

In short, cavalry is in the same situation as anybody else."

In fact, the effective use of cavalry had just about ceased to exist when he wrote. There would be a few more incidents, such as in Omdurman in 1898, in Palestine in 1918, and Poland in 1921, when cavalry actually fought as such in the field; but these were exceptions.

[floofthegoof]

It would be good to consider Ardant du Picq's famous work rather carefully. He was writing in the mid-19th century, and much of his work is about the psychology of combat - before the term psychology was even invented, let alone any scientific work done on the subject. This does not mean his work is wrong, but it certainly has a limited perspective. For example, he does not touch on the idea of small-unit cohesion at all, dealing only with soldiers as members of official units (platoons, companies, squadrons and larger).

I think it's fair to say that while his ideas might be old fashioned for his time, and we can't rely on his actual knowledge of ancient battles, the fact that he really witnessed cavalry warfare puts him at an advantage compared to us.

I think the work is a very strong argument against cavalry ever being used as a battering ram against infantry. The idea he mentions that actually pressing a cavalry charge home would simply cause mutual destruction is something that seems very plausable to me. The fact that it wasn't done in his time says alot about it's usefulness in earlier times I think.

[Felix]

I fully agree with the general principles. Steady, formed infantry cannot be broken by horsemen on any reliable basis, only by some freak event. The discussion of cavalry engagements is a fair example of typical events, but there are clearly documented cases where the two forces actually did collide. One case, which du Picq should have known about, was the charge of the Heavy Brigade at Balaclava in the Crimea. See http://www.britishbattles.com/crimean-war/balaclava.htm

Nine hundred British cavalry unexpectedly encountered 3000 Russian horsemen:

"As the Heavy Brigade charged, the Russian cavalry force halted so that it received the Heavy Brigade charge stationary. The Russian commander appeared to be seeking to extend his line after crossing the Causeway Heights. The first line of Scots Greys and Inniskillings struck the Russian cavalry, followed by the second line of Inniskillings and 5th Dragoon Guards.
The wings of the Russian formation closed in behind the two lines and the Royal Dragoons charged the wings in the rear. The two forces struggled on the hillside until the 4th Dragoon Guards came up and delivered a further charge into the Russian flank. In Hamley’s words “Then -almost as it seemed in a moment, and simultaneously- the whole Russian mass gave way, and fled, at speed and in disorder, beyond the hill, vanishing behind the slope some four or five minutes after they had first swept over itâ€

[caravus]

The Regional Museum at Xanten, (next to the Cathedral in the small town of Xanten not at the Archaeological Park), has a good display of Roman military equipment, including this hackamore which I photographed on a recent visit.
It is more decorative than the Pompeii example, having a fine side bar with niello, just visible in the image, and a silvered? front section. The loops for connecting to the reins have not survived but it is clear that it is very similar in shape to the object being discussed in this topic and may be of interest.

[Peroni]

Thanks for the nice picture Chris.

Your tour of the Limes museums was obviously very rewarding!

[petrinus]

bravo frater


nice pic indeed, hey does anyone here make repro saddles like this and i can i take my horse to most events? i mean are there usually horserank present or not worth the effort

also anyone know if pilum were employed from horse as done so excellently by maximus in that flick we all know and love (most of us atleast)

[caravus]

Perhaps few are interested in this obscure topic of the 1st C Roman hackamore (and in fact the bridle as a whole) but can someone who does know about these things please direct me to any published paper which goes into the details of the archaeological evidence supporting the particular bridle reconstruction on show in the Valkhof Museum, Nijmegen and illustrated here.


I am particularly interested in the use and positioning of the narrow buckles which are shown on the straps in this reconstruction. This type of buckle is well-attested in the archaeological reports of 1st C forts and they were clearly used for cavalry harness straps, but how do we know they were used on the bridle?

Have perhaps two or four buckles like this been found somewhere in association with a hackamore and bit only, and in a context where no other harness fittings (like strap junctions, phalerae, harness pendants) were found? I can't find such a reference.

The bridle reconstruction of of Lawson, A.K. in 'Studien zum römischen Pferdegeschirr', Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 25, 1978, p 131-72 on page 144 shows one without any buckles at all.

Papers on reconstruction of Roman horse harness in general usually concentrate on the arrangement of fittings for the horse's "body" and do not seem to go into any kind of detail for the "head".

Any information gratefully received.

[Lepidina]

Hi all,

Chiming in late I know but you're using the term "hackamore" wrong. A hackamore is specifically a bitless bridle, which as the description implies, is never used with a bit. See pics of different styles here:

[url:jgznzcnq]http://ellenofstad.com/articles/hackamoreseng.htm[/url]

The "hackamore" that you are discussing is actually a "caveson" or a noseband. It looks like it pushes down on the horse's nose when the rider pulls back on the reins. There might be some action on the top of the horse's head as well. The reasoning for this is a) you don't want to be hit in the face if the horse throws his head up when you stop and b) more control on the horse. There are modern cavesons that have similar effects tho' not as severe as a full metal one.

Pictures of different cavesons are here: [url:jgznzcnq]http://www.eurosaddlery.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=78[/url]

For bits, the one in the reconstruction is a curb bit, which is a bit that has shanks where the reins attach. The bit in the photo with the saddle is a snaffle bit, specifically a "loose ring snaffle." A snaffle is any bit with a joint in it. The most common type is a plain snaffle with one joint in the middle but there are bits with 2 joints (3 piece bit like a French link or a Dr. Bristol.)

As for staying in the saddle all day long, you get used to it. One of the reasons for saddles is to distribute your weight more evenly on the horse's back so the both of you don't get sore.

[Caius Fabius]

Some how I get the impression that many of the folks writing about cavalry and infantry have not 1. ridden and trained horses, and 2. done a whole lot of research. I haven't done as much research as some, but I do read a lot of books. I spent 4 years as a 'cowboy' off and on, and I own a small cattle ranch (off and on). Being a cowboy means fixing a lot of fence, birthing cattle, and working with horses. It can also mean riding until you are bowlegged, and actually training a horse, getting bucked off by a horse, kicked by a horse, bitten by a horse, smushed by a horse, and even doctoring and caring for horses.....

Anyway, you can train a horse to do anything, once. You trick him or her into thinking it won't hurt. (just like a young private in the army). I can teach a horse to run alongside a longhorn cow. That means I can get him to run alongside a mean and nasty longhorn cow who will disembowel him, once. I can teach a horse to jump over a hedge. That means I can teach a horse to jump over a hedge on the edge of a cliff, once.

I have books on training US Cavalry horses, (I used to be a Mexican -American War and American Civil War re-enactor, we used horses for cavalry, artillery and officers). I have books on training Napoleonic cavalry written by French horse trainers, and Russian Cossacks. I also have parts of books written by ancient cavalrymen in my collection. They all say the same thing. You can train a horse to attack formed infantry, once. If the horse is moving fast, and with the other horses in 'the herd' and they think they won't get hurt, then they can do it. Afterwards, mostly only the ones who didn't get hurt will do it again. Some horses are just mean. Those are the ones that will do it again and again just for the fun of hurting someone/something. These are usually stallions, but geldings and mares can sometimes be mean too.

I know my 'expertise' isn't enough to convince anyone, and I don't expect you want to see the scars from horse bites and such, but here is a narrative from the Memoirs of Denis Davidov, a Russian cavalry general and cossacki partizan from the 1800's

"...General Suvarov had the horses trained to gallop at full speed and were accustomed them to break through the central ranks of the enemy's firing line. To achieve this, he saved the manoeuvre for the end of the training period, relying on the memory of the animals, and reinforced with a verbal command that they knew would signal the conclusion of the exercise.
For this purpose, he had half of his troops dismount and stand with carbines loaded with blanks. The soldiers were separated from one another by the distance necessary for one horse to gallop between them. The other half remained on horseback, aligned opposite the gaps of the facing infantry, and then were ordered to attack. The foot soldiers were told to discharge their weapons at the very moment when the horses galloped through their lines. The riders would then dismount and the training manoeuvres were over. The theory was that instead of being frightened by the shots being fired directly at them, the horses would look forward to the moment of facing the infantry fire, remembering that the sound of the shots would be followed by their being reined in, haltered, or returned to stables. Indeed, they would neigh and be eager to charge!
Of course, these exercises were not without cost to the foot soldiers, because sometimes more than one horse or rid fer would burst through the narrow gap, causing injury, even death. That is why the soldiers so hated this exercise, especially if they were to play the role of infantry that day."
"In the Service of the Tsar against Napoleon, the memoirs of Denis Davidov, 1806-1814" translated by Gregory Troubetzkoy 1999 ISBN 1-85367-373-0 Greenhill Books, London.

The French horse trainer used similar methods. You can tell a modern reenactor on the blackpowder battlefield who has not trained his horse to stand for the firing of cannon or even smaller weapons. Usually he is walking, and trying to catch his horse......

There is no reason to doubt that similar training would teach a horse that it could ride through a mass of formed infantry, and if it was gong fast enough, it would be too late to stop when it ran into spears. This would be very expensive, but losing a battle is more expensive. The only thing that would stop the charge would be the failure of the riders to carry through, or something totally unexpected, like the appearance of elephants or camels or something.

[floofthegoof]

Nice info charles. As someone who deals with horses, how would you rate the danger to the rider if the horse can't keep his feet inside all those mangled infantrymen? Keeping in mind that the rider knows what's coming even if the horse doesn't, can you jump off a falling horse with sufficient control to defend yourself against the probably shaken enemy infantry you will be surrounded by when you land?

[Lepidina]

As the queen of "involuntary dismounts", it depends on how the horse is going down and how secure you are to begin with. Usually, if a horse is going down, you are going down with it and your best chance is to roll clear. If there are guys all around you, chances are you'll land on top of something sharp and pointy. Most of the time, it happens so fast that you are on the ground before you know it.

Plus with the 4 pomels, you'll have a harder time swinging clear as you've got to get your leg over them in order to clear the horse. With a modern english saddle, you can basically grab mane, drop your stirrups, and flip your right leg over the horse as you push yourself clear. You have to be pretty well balanced to land on your feet. Your horse can't be at a dead gallop as inertia is NOT your friend at this point. (Remember, as you are sliding off, you are still going at the same speed as the horse so sticking a landing at 15+ mph is nearly impossible and even if you do, you'll probably end up breaking a leg or two.)

Movie horses are trained to always fall to the left. (Movies produced under the current SPCA regs as a lot of the old Westerns just tripped the horses, which is also easy to spot.) The saddles usually have a rubber stirrup on that side so it doesn't hurt the horse. The riders also know how to roll away from the horse and tell the horse when to fall so they can prepare. You don't have that luxury in battle.

A modern comparison would be like riding a bike that is starting to go out of control. How many times have you managed to jump off a bike that is getting away from you and landed securely enough to keep fighting? Could you do it if you were carrying a shield and a spear or a spatha?

[Caius Fabius]

Not all cultures value self preservation above honor and duty.
In any battle, some people funk out. The ones on the flanks need to be the steadiest. I can remember receiving incoming fire. Some of the guys just fell on the ground and wouldn't move. I was more stupid, even when a bullet threw splinters into my hand, I was more interested, and didn't really think I was going to get killed or badly hurt. Not brave, just stupid. I guess I wanted approval of my sergeant, who was a combat vet. He started firing, then several others did too, then we went toward the enemy. very confusing. my job was to lead, so I lead, even though I was only headed for the tracers and muzzle flashes. Well aimed fire, the threat stopped. Some of the guys were excited, some were scared, some seriously had to change their underwear....
But no one ran away. Even the ones who froze at first did better the next time.
What I am saying is that trained men and trained horses could do a lot more than modern people give credit for. You may know the charge is dangerous, but man rationalizes, and figures "I won't get hurt", it will be some other guy.

I have several different versions of the Crimean War Charge of the Heavy Brigade, (and the light brigade, and....) From the Russian side, from the British side. There was not too much of a charge, the sides were too close, they waded into each other and started flailing away with swords. Since the Russians were wearing heavy overcoats, they didn't take many casualties, since the British had helmets and bigger horses they didn't either. The battle was won, when uncommitted British units took the larger force of Russians in the flanks, and forced them, by shear weight to sidestep and then give way. The light brigade of British charged formed Russian infantry, and broke some of the units, but were repulsed by the heavy losses from the artillery and the light cavalry Russian reserve, which clogged up the end of the valley. At the same time, French light cavalry routed formed Russian infantry on the flank of the valley. The Russians had decent morale, and stood well against infantry in the battle of Inkermann (and had stood until almost destroyed at the first Battle on the River Alva), but were unable to prevent the sabre and lance armed cavalry from charging into their deep infantry formations armed with smoothbore muskets with fixed bayonets and making the Russian infantry withdraw.

US Cavalry charges in the ACW were usually unsuccessful, because the long range rifles used by the infantry did not allow significant numbers of cavalry to come into contact with the formed infantry, who were usually also behind fences or entrenchments.

Gallic cavalry had the same problem when fighting at Alesia, against Roman missile weapons and entrenchments.

Cavalry had (has) a place, in ancient warfare. We as re-enactors are not willing to throw away our horses or our own lives on a game. In a real battle, the first few horses and riders who crash into a enemy formation and die will only make it easier for the rest of the cavalry to destroy that formation! (Exactly how the French Heavy Cavalry broke enemy infantry squares during the Napoleonic wars).

It's all very well to read the memoirs of the commanders, but to understand how stuff works, you need to study the first line trainers and supervisors. They usually know more about how things are done than some aristocratic highly educated, member of the 'good ole boys' club who happens to be "in command".

Don't ask a field marshal about training horses, ask a mule skinner, teamster, horse-master or cavalry sergeant.

[Lepidina]

Don't ask a field marshal about training horses, ask a mule skinner, teamster, horse-master or cavalry sergeant.

Completely OT, what the heck is a mule skinner?

BTW, my old instructor is Cadre Noir from France, the French cav school. VERY interesting training as well as very versatile. Francois has done practically everything on the English side of the horse world. I need to either learn French or pester him to translate more of the old French master's writings.

[Caius Fabius]

The Wild West (and military transport) used lots of mules to pull wagons. The 20+ mule teams per wagon in the west were not unusual. (One of my ancestors was a mule skinner). Long story short... Mule skinners were so skilled with their whip, they could kill a 'horse-fly' on a mules rump without touching the mule's skin. They were skilled enough so they could "skin' a mule that was being bad, even several yards away from the driver's box. (Yes, there were some gruesome duels fought with mule whips in the streets of mining towns (but they don't seem to make movies about that)).

My ancestor was carrying a load of borax from the mine to the railhead. His 3 wagons were pulled by more than 30 mules, all in one hitch, so you only needed one driver. On his way home a blizzard came up suddenly and he was forced to wrap himself up and lay in the wagon under furs. The mules just went ahead and went on back to the mine, without any active human supervision. He survived because his mules saved his life.

My father was in the 10th Mountain Division in WW2 (US Army). He was a "ski trooper" but when the Division was using mule transport, any of the 'country boys' who could work with mules suddenly found themselves with a new extra duty,...'mule skinner'. History repeats itself.... maybe I should buy a couple of mules, The neighbor across the street here has a couple for sale...... already trained to pull a wagon or buggy..... like I need another hobby. :roll: