11-16-2012, 12:59 AM
But there are pad saddles and there are pad saddles...and by pad I just mean no fixed tree ie stuffed leather (which is still used across the world today for saddles designed for long days); and I don't see any harm in challenging long held beliefs...its good for research, surely? I've seen a Junkelmann designed pad saddle and I wouldn't favour that as a design either.
And thre's nothing to say (yet) that just because the saddle "horn" has now become a securing point of a different nature it is NOT attached to wood; just unlikely to wrap around the horse's side so far.
There are two bits of dodgy scultpure to look at on the Orange arch which I only noticed when I looked at the image in more detail. The rider on the far right also has the same "horn" on his saddle as the chap on the right, but his leg is over it so that takes some explaining. :errr: One could be shoddy Friday afternoon work...two is a different matter.
Archaeological evidence has come up with pieces of leather and leather covers and saddle horn plates (or stiffners if you will). It has come up with a "tentatively" identified saddle shaped piece of wood (Carlisle); and there is a case to argue that the saddle horn plates are designed to be sewn to something not rivetted.
And yes, there is the iconography which quite clearly shows the position of saddle horns in many respects; but they tend not to show very large saddles standing off the horses back indicative of wooden framed saddles (the funeral stele of course where you can see the saddles clearly). I would argue that there must be room for the development of the saddle or even different types of saddle for different terrains.
If you follow the archaeological/iconographic evidence (ignoring the chaps on the arch), riding styles go from bare back, to a simple cloth, to an all singing, all dancing allegedly rigid tree horned saddle with little interim development. The horns develop, I am almost convinced, by the need to brace the leg to give a firmer seat in order to wield a sword or fight with a lance (as opposed to throwing it), carry a shield AND control the horse.
The wooden tree'd saddle reconstructions I have come across (including a Connolly saddle; and the re-constructions of Connolly's re-construction) appear to break in the same place and it it is NOT in the area covered by the saddle "stiffners". They break in the front for the saddle and these breakages appear to be due to the requirements of the saddle to take the strain of the rider leaning out to "fight".
I don't believe any Roman cavalryman would have persisted with a design which broke nor one which could potentially damage his horse's back when it did break. (and I am not talking from sentiment here; a damaged horse means the lack of his fighting platform and a reduction in the capability) Modern reconstructed saddles with inflexible wooden side boards(holding the front and rear horns in place) can be VERY uncomfortable for the rider for any length of time and in some instances actually prevent the rider from getting the leg on the horse properly. (Pretty essential for a safe seat)
If the "horns" were lower down on the saddle and were used to brace the back of the leg to stop it moving when the rider DID lean out of the saddle, there would not be the same points of strain on a wooden framed saddle; and I could understand the position of the bearing straps on the horse far better in this instance too. I would argue that their point of security is lower than the point of balance for an accepted, wooden tree but neatly placed for a lower horned saddle.
Now you see the cause of the :woot: :woot: :woot: in my first post
mile:
And thre's nothing to say (yet) that just because the saddle "horn" has now become a securing point of a different nature it is NOT attached to wood; just unlikely to wrap around the horse's side so far.
There are two bits of dodgy scultpure to look at on the Orange arch which I only noticed when I looked at the image in more detail. The rider on the far right also has the same "horn" on his saddle as the chap on the right, but his leg is over it so that takes some explaining. :errr: One could be shoddy Friday afternoon work...two is a different matter.
Archaeological evidence has come up with pieces of leather and leather covers and saddle horn plates (or stiffners if you will). It has come up with a "tentatively" identified saddle shaped piece of wood (Carlisle); and there is a case to argue that the saddle horn plates are designed to be sewn to something not rivetted.
And yes, there is the iconography which quite clearly shows the position of saddle horns in many respects; but they tend not to show very large saddles standing off the horses back indicative of wooden framed saddles (the funeral stele of course where you can see the saddles clearly). I would argue that there must be room for the development of the saddle or even different types of saddle for different terrains.
If you follow the archaeological/iconographic evidence (ignoring the chaps on the arch), riding styles go from bare back, to a simple cloth, to an all singing, all dancing allegedly rigid tree horned saddle with little interim development. The horns develop, I am almost convinced, by the need to brace the leg to give a firmer seat in order to wield a sword or fight with a lance (as opposed to throwing it), carry a shield AND control the horse.
The wooden tree'd saddle reconstructions I have come across (including a Connolly saddle; and the re-constructions of Connolly's re-construction) appear to break in the same place and it it is NOT in the area covered by the saddle "stiffners". They break in the front for the saddle and these breakages appear to be due to the requirements of the saddle to take the strain of the rider leaning out to "fight".
I don't believe any Roman cavalryman would have persisted with a design which broke nor one which could potentially damage his horse's back when it did break. (and I am not talking from sentiment here; a damaged horse means the lack of his fighting platform and a reduction in the capability) Modern reconstructed saddles with inflexible wooden side boards(holding the front and rear horns in place) can be VERY uncomfortable for the rider for any length of time and in some instances actually prevent the rider from getting the leg on the horse properly. (Pretty essential for a safe seat)
If the "horns" were lower down on the saddle and were used to brace the back of the leg to stop it moving when the rider DID lean out of the saddle, there would not be the same points of strain on a wooden framed saddle; and I could understand the position of the bearing straps on the horse far better in this instance too. I would argue that their point of security is lower than the point of balance for an accepted, wooden tree but neatly placed for a lower horned saddle.
Now you see the cause of the :woot: :woot: :woot: in my first post
mile:
Moi Watson
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
