Roman saddle & Stele of Silius

[Vindex]

It depends on what your point of research is. Evidence of a fighting force using a tried and tested design which lasted for a minimum of four centuries could indicate (in my opinion only, of course) that the saddle was in use before this time.

The image from the Republican period (admittedly tenuous but room for the tunic and pteruges to be depicted without the encumbrance of horns) and the Scythian saddle (traced from 5th C BC - see here:
http://dariocaballeros.blogspot.co.uk/20...d-bit.html ) have trees but no horns.

The horns add stability and suggest a difference to the way of fighting or the terrain over which the cavalry was fighting - such as Northern European forests and hills/valleys ie Gallia in all its forms - . It may even suggest the transfer from mounted infantry to cavalry; a point for debate for sure.

[attachment=12408]003a798c831504dafca028ba.jpg[/attachment]

From my own perspective the development of the tree-less pad saddle to the horned saddle indicates a difference as described above but does not necessarily instantly mean the use of wooden trees in the saddle. (Why reinforce wooden horns with bronze fittings?) Connolly made that assumption due to his observation of stretch marks on a leather saddle cover; no more than that. Yet it is slavishly followed by re-enactors who produce copy of copies and ignore the evidence from Connolly himself and John Duckham, the principal rider in the reconstruction saddle, that the wooden frame and the necessity for lots of padding under it to protect the horse makes it inherently unstable - hardly something you would wish when carrying lance and shield.

Add to this that the saddle is only as good as the bit on the bridle and the bit is only as good as the rider's hands.

PS - the Scythian saddle depicted in the link above bares a very strong resemblance to the Argentinian Gaucho saddle which is also made from two tubes of thick hide tubular columns to take pressure off the horse's spine.