Re: 1st century Auxiliary cavalry

[jvrjenivs]

Well, maybe it now is time to split the saddle stuff from this topic and make it his own one? Mods?

Anyway, just to add some more to the interesting post by Crispvs above, I would like to add that recent work by the Limesmuseum Aalen (unpublished sofar, as far as I know) has shown some new lights on the valkenburg cover. Namely that this cover doesn't seem to work in combination with the bronze hornplates. The Limesmuseum Aalen therefore proposed to make 'padsaddle' reconstruction. This saddle was made from leather stuffed with felt and their experimental cavalryman did use it on horseback for a long time.

I'll be meeting their cavalry expert later this year to further discuss all these insights, but just wanted these 2 denarii to the discussion.

[Vindex]

The covers were definitely from cavalry saddles as they still had their complete leather 'horns'. The main differences they exhibited from Connolly's reconstruction were that the sides simply hung down (large trapeziform flaps were sewn to the straight edges of the covers which would have hung over the horse's sides and provided a layer between the horse and the rider's legs) and that there does not seem to have been any padding (here we are reminded about Fronto's criticism in the second century AD of cavalry in Antioch who had been stuffing their saddles with straw).


Crispvs

I have no trouble with the statement that the covers are from cavalry saddles. Where I begin to disagree with Connolly's reconstruction is the wooden "tree" element in riding saddles as I said above. There may have been a small amount of wood to add rigidity to the saddle construction but I doubt very much it interfered with the horse's back.

We have archaeological and icongraphic evidence of what these saddles look like. I don't think it is until you start the experimental archaeology and actually ride in one that the design of a RIDING saddle begins to be influenced.

Although this is a particular interest of mine and I could bore for England, there is far more evidence for horse bits than the saddle and to a horseman these tell you just as much about the riding as the saddle does. In fact it could be argued that it tells you more; it tells you how much seat is needed!

If there is too much wood in the tree it is impossible to feel the horse through the saddle and the horse therefore can't feel you. If I am going at pace with a sword in one hand and a shieled in the other with minimal contact on the rein, I NEED my seat in the saddle, as well as my legs, to communicate with the horse.

The advantage of less wood, or no wood at all is that this gives a perfect interface with the horse's back.

And as a final point if you look at the iconographic evidence the riders sit "in" their horse not "on" them. They're an effective fighting force and they certainly knew how to control their fighting platform, their horse, without damaging it in the process.

Oops...off the soap box

[Vindex]

Thought I'd at least start the topic off with a heading to avoid hijacking the 1st Century cavalry thread any more.

I would like to discuss the four/two horned saddle here as opposed to the hunnish saddle which can perhaps have a different thread.

I think it is boiling down to Connolly's reconstruction versus Junkelmann's (and others).

Clearly it is to be balanced with the archaeological and iconographic evidence coupled with the practicalities of controlling a horse; which was probably as close as the ancient world got to having to deal with a supermarket trolley with four wheels that go in four different directions... :wink:

[P Sertorius Scaevola]

From what I've observed in earlier threads, heard from partners in the field and from closely observing my own flunky saddle, it all boils down to the joints in the frame and the rigidness of the frame construction. The joints keep causing trouble ( read 'break') and the balance between torsion and rigidness seems the Golden Fleece.
One method I've heard of, to get the most secure joint of the frame horns and the lateral bits, is to insert a red hot pin into a slightly too small drilled hole through the wooden horn bits. When this sets tightly in place it aids in securing the construction and external 'splints' are avoided. I'm eager to learn how other Rat Cavalrymen deal with this issue.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, maybe it now is time to split the saddle stuff from this topic and make it his own one? Mods?

Agreed. Done.

[Crispvs]

I am not so sure that it is a matter of Connolly versus Junkelmann. I think it may be more a matter of evidence versus modern assumption.

As a general rule, we should always start with the archaeological and literary evidence and work outwards from there, adding informed assumption only where the archaeological evidence is lacking or ambiguous. We must then be prepared to change our assumptions when new evidence comes to light. For too often the reverse happens and people start off with assumptions about how things must have been based on their own experience and then try to make the archaeological evidence fit those assumptions. However, we are not Romans and we do not think like Romans. What might seem obvious or sensible to us may not have seemed obvious or sensible to the Romans.

When Connolly published his reconstruction of the saddle in 1988 he used the available archaeological evidence and extrapolated from that. We now know, following the Carlisle discoveries, that he was only partially right. The Carlisle saddles had been neither padded nor sewn under. Junkelmann's saddle also predates the Carlisle finds. I was told by Dan Peterson that Junkelmann had tried using Connolly saddles and had found them unsatisfactory. He had according removed the frames and found that they seemed to work better. However the horns, I was told, tended to pull in and hug the rider on the resultant 'pad' saddle.
Now, I acknowledge that Junkelmann has a great deal of experience of working with horses and certainly has a very good understanding of Roman cavalry, but the pad saddle does not seem to fit easily with the evidence we now have to draw on

We can see that the Carlisle covers are the same as the Valkenburg cover but more complete so any reconstructions based on the Valkenburg cover must be revised in the light of the newer evidence. We can also see the clear evidence on the Carlisle covers of frames, which seem to bear out Connolly's reconstruction of the saddle tree, if not his reconstruction of the saddle itself. Added to that we have the sculptural evidence of a number of stelae which show saddles with horns. These horns to not seem to be depicted pulling in to hug the rider as I am told happens with the pad saddle reconstruction. The sculptures also often appear to show the flaps which were found still attached to the Carlisle covers.

The flaps on the Carlisle covers show that the saddle covers could not have been sewn under, which surely is an essential requirement for a pad saddle. They also show clearly from the well defined stretch patterns on them that the saddles they came from had little or no padding, which is supported by Fronto's criticism of cavalry who put straw in their saddles to provide padding.

Therefore, it seems that the pad saddle, for all Dr Junkelmann's experience of riding, is not in accordance with what the current state of the evidence is telling us.
What we have here then, is a clash between reconstructions based on the evidence and reconstructions based on modern assumptions.

A truly scientific approach would be to take what the evidence shows us and try different ways of reconstructing it according to the evidence and using them to find out what part of the possible range is workable and what is not, before resorting to putting modern assumption before the evidence.

The Romans must have known what they were doing. Just because we still do not fully understand what they were doing it does not mean that we should throw out what we know of their practice because it does not seem to fit with our own limited experience.


Incidentally, on controlling the horse, when I was learning to ride I was taught to control the horse mainly with my feet and to exert only minimal control with the reins. I am not sure that I ever felt the horse directly through a modern saddle but I certainly felt his movements with my feet and after a while was able to both respond to the horse and control him almost entirely with my feet. Food for thought?


Crispvs

[Vindex]

Well, maybe it now is time to split the saddle stuff from this topic and make it his own one? Mods?

Areed. Done.

Thank you! Thought I was cracking up... hock:

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Hello!!

I think by now only two ways are proposed: saddle with wooden tree versus saddle treelees.

I really think there are another way: a saddle with a tree made of a combination of hard pieces who give stenght (the two "bridges") joined in a substructure of a semirigid material. I'm thinking in straw or a similar material, what is the material used traditionally in making the spanish saddles.

For the horns, i think is out of doubt is the most breakable piece of the saddle. I think there have to be made in a flexible material, like compressed straw between layers of leather. To give the form of the horn, the bronze covers are used, and such way explains the presence of the sewing holes in the border of the bronze covers.

Of course, all of these have to be tested... ;-)

[Vindex]

Hello!!

I think by now only two ways are proposed: saddle with wooden tree versus saddle treelees.

I really think there are another way: a saddle with a tree made of a combination of hard pieces who give stenght (the two "bridges") joined in a substructure of a semi rigid material. I'm thinking in straw or a similar material, what is the material used traditionally in making the spanish saddles.

For the horns, i think is out of doubt is the most breakable piece of the saddle. I think there have to be made in a flexible material, like compressed straw between layers of leather. To give the form of the horn, the bronze covers are used, and such way explains the presence of the sewing holes in the border of the bronze covers.

Of course, all of these have to be tested... ;-)

I would agree that rigidity can be given without using wood and I would also agree that it is going to be a lot of trial and error.

I am hoping to have a proto type ready by the middle of next month but my horse is off the road (good timing on her part LOL!). I am aiming at treeless (or "pad" if you prefer) and then building on that. Each saddle will have rigourous tests which I will document so they are the same for each desgin but I plan to test the basic design on an advanced dressage simulator to make sure I can use my seat before it goes anywhere near a horse.

(And by the way I have an expert saddler to guide me to ensure correct proportions/distribution for a horse's back).

My saddler has also mentioned that the horns could be strongly packed with feathers which would give strength without brittleness.

Any thoughts?

[jkaler48]

I get the impression from the discussions above that a Roman saddle may have been an assemblage of items
that was placed on the horse rather than something we think of as a single item like a modern saddle.

[Crispvs]

Moi,

It is not often I quote myself, but here goes:

"Therefore, it seems that the pad saddle, for all Dr Junkelmann's experience of riding, is not in accordance with what the current state of the evidence is telling us.
What we have here then, is a clash between reconstructions based on the evidence and reconstructions based on modern assumptions.

A truly scientific approach would be to take what the evidence shows us and try different ways of reconstructing it according to the evidence and using them to find out what part of the possible range is workable and what is not, before resorting to putting modern assumption before the evidence.

The Romans must have known what they were doing. Just because we still do not fully understand what they were doing it does not mean that we should throw out what we know of their practice because it does not seem to fit with our own limited experience."



The Carlisle covers PROVE the existence of frames or at least frame elements. They also seem to prove the literary evidence for there having been little or no padding. Please get used to that. We are now post 2004 Carlisle conference and thus the evidence is public. The idea of the pad saddle is pre-2004 and our understanding has moved on since then. Frankly I don't care if a pad saddle works or not. It is not in accordance with the surviving evidence and therefore is not a Roman saddle. We can still debate exactly how the bronze horn plates were attached and what exactly their true function was, but since the publication of the Carlisle covers, the continuing idea of a pad saddle is the reconstructive equivalent of a reanimated corpse.

If your saddle is to be of any worth as a reconstructive experiment, it is essential for it to be built in such a way that it wears in the same way that the Carlisle covers have worn, and that means putting frame elements which will replicate the frame revealed by the impressions in the Carlisle covers in every version you test.

Crispvs

[BlackLamb]

Perhaps we should make a difference between reconstructing the saddle the way it was and designing one to use in shows and performances without damaging the back(and other parts) of the horse... the horned saddle was not used for such a long time compared with other types of saddles.
So maybe they were there themselves (and their horses) not quit happy with them...... 8)

[Crispvs]

Well, a four horned saddle is shown on the Monument of the Julii at St Remy, dating to the mid first century BC and many are shown on mid first century AD cavalry stelae. The Carlisle covers probably date to the early second century AD. Even this small sample gives a range of around a hundred and fifty years. So if something was used for a hundred and fifty years or more it is hardly likely that it was thought to be unsatisfactory. In fact such a timespan suggests that it was felt to be ideal for a considerable time.
There seems to be no appreciable difference between the features of the saddles shown on the mid first century AD stelae and the features exhibited by the Carlisle covers, meaning that whatever changes may have occurred in saddle design since Caesar's time, between perhaps the AD30s and the AD130s four horned saddle design remained unchanged. As the saddle you are trying to recreate presumably fall within this period you should be taking the evidence of the Carlisle covers, with their horns, skirts and evidence of frames and a lack of padding, along with copper-alloy horn plates as the primary features of your reconstructions and experimenting with these proven elements to come up with a saddle which is in accordance with all of these elements and at the same time works on a horse (presumably with a suitable blanket) without hurting the horse.
If the reconstruction omits even one of the elements I have listed, then it simply will not qualify as a reconstruction of a Roman saddle and you will have learned nothing about Roman saddle design.

ALWAYS start with the contemporary evidence and work out from there. NEVER use the evidence as little more than an adjunct to your understanding of the world we know today for a reconstruction.

Remember that the Romans used it for a long time so it must have worked well. Reconstruct your saddle from all of the known elements and see where it takes you - you never know - it might just take you to a correct and effective reconstruction from which we can learn much. :grin:

On the other hand, if you make yourself a pad.......... :evil:


Crispvs

[Vindex]

Crispus/Paul

I do hear what you are saying and I can assure you that I have most of the documented evidence piled up in books around my desk.

From iconographic evidence it is very hard to see the full saddle design usually because of the fact it is either covered by the rider or by a blanket/cover of some description.

The archaeological evidence is, as always, open to interpretation. We have horns, we have covers we have iron horse bits (which you do not mention) and we have tombstones. Everything else is conjecture, best guess and SHOULD be functional ie work on the horse.

I am not ignoring the evidence of the Carlisle covers but I would ask you to consider that as well as the ridden horses the Roman army had a considerable number of pack animals and as I have frequently said a pack saddle and a riding saddle are different things entirely.

It could be argued that the percentage of pack animals required by the army far out weighs the number of cavalry mounts and JUST possibly their equipment out numbered the cavalry horse's too. Perhaps it is just as likely to be left lying around to rot in the ground for us to find (perhaps more likely - if I was riding out of camp, I'd be ON my saddle would I not?).

So instead of assuming I am ignoring the evidence and that my research will inevitably produce either a)a wrong design (in your view) or b) a wooden tree'd saddle I think that my approach is scientific enough.

I said I would start with a pad saddle did I not? If I start with a pad saddle and experiment with it the results will speak for themselves. Just because I appear to not be following your well argued advice it does not mean that I am ignoring it or that my approach is wrong.

And as a final point I can't really do all the research on my own because there is a fundamental difference between the way a woman sits in the saddle and a man - our pelvis is different and we sit on a horse differently.

That wasn't considered when everyone accepted the Connolly/Hyland research was it? And proving a desgin by using a wooden, gymnastic horse is not enough for scientific research in my opinion.

So, I am NOT ignoring the evidence but I will balance it with ALL the evidence available...and that includes the action of the bit, a GOOD pair of hands and a GOOD seat in the saddle.

[jvrjenivs]

Well, I've to say I'm a bit with Olga in this. That means you always have to keep the purpose of the replica in mind (note I say replica here). Although I personally always favour a reconstruction over a reproduction, it mostly have to do with funding what to choose. If I had 20K available for a single saddle, I would love to go the scientific way, do 2 years of testing different designs, etc. But I don't have that, so I need something that looks good and works for horse and rider.

Untill now I didn't see any signle Roman saddle with tree that did a good job and was a good reconstruction. Also the 'connolly' saddles as used by ESG, Comitatus and formely by Junkelmann and Gauthier all have modern padding in there. The new comitatus design also has modern parts in it (nylon webbing, etc). As said both our frames broke withing 15 hours of moderate use. I would say that there's something wrong with the construction then. The saddle was repaired, but with modern bars and bolts. Not really an historical approach either.

And this all is apart from new insights we get every day about the saddles. I'm totally with you Crispvs in your reasoning, although I hesitate to put so much worth on the carlisle wood. No wood was found elsewhere and we've enough saddle covers which suggest otherwise. Not to mention the bronze hornplates that are found everywhere, and doesn't fit the Carlisle and Valkenburg covers!