The more I look at the archaeological evidence for equine equipment the more I am convinced some items ascribed to cavalry equipment are, in fact, equally used by mules and oxen and the drive/pack animal as opposed to ridden.
I am not on my home computer at the moment, but I have various photographs as evidence if required.
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!
Quote:The more I look at the archaeological evidence for equine equipment the more I am convinced some items ascribed to cavalry equipment are, in fact, equally used by mules and oxen and the drive/pack animal as opposed to ridden.
I am not on my home computer at the moment, but I have various photographs as evidence if required.
In this general vein, there's a lovely photo of an elaborate rein trace in the Carlisle Millenium Project publication, which features a figure of an infant deity and which must have been used by drive animals of some description (p502). Howard-Davis attributes the item to use with an official vehicle of some description, so that would support the idea of non-cavalry animals being associated with elaborate decorative fittings.
I'd be interested to see some of your photos if they are pertinent to the thread. At the very least, decorating pack animal harnesses with pendants and the like would make them (and their burdens) that much easier to pick out of a crowd.
Oh dear...my photographs are far more mundane than that - the bits are what I am refering to which suggest pack and driven animals as opposed to ridden; and who is to say if they are military or civilian?
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!
Quote:Exactly, the Roman area covers a wide area of different ecological circumstances and their fauna.
For instance, in large parts of the Levant, ox-carts were disappearing in late antiquity, even though the Romans vainly tried to stimulate their use with fiscal measures (Bulliet, the Camel and the Wheel)
By the way, I suspect the abundance of mules in principate and 19th century armies has somewhat obscured the fact that, compared to cattle, mules are expensive animals in purchase and upkeep. And from what I have heard, they are difficult, bloody-minded animals to work with, oxen are much more docile and phlegmatic. To the British army in South Africa, the mule-trains were a constant worry.
Mules are used as pack animals even today as they can negotiate terrain that even horses cannot manage. They can go up very narrow and winding paths to mine workings, and there are still some countries today who use the poor beasts as transportation of loads in and out of mine workings. using Mules would have some appeal to an army that is going to march over rough terrain instead of going by road.
That is why the Parthians and Sasanid Persians only used pack-animals: Since they had abandoned the use of wheeled vehicles (and of the chariot), they had also abandoned road building and moved their baggage on pack-animals over dirt tracks (Bulliet). However, in the east mules were even more expensive than horses, so while the Romans used mules, the Iranian dynasties preferred the ass and the dromedary camel, using mules to carry soldiers, war gear or treasure. Cattle and hybrid camels (cross between the two-humped and the one-humped camel) were used as heavy duty pack-animals. Asses and mules were more popular in mountainous terrain.
As threatened - something for an ox (lower part in first picture) and something which I think is for a pack or driven mule.
(If you think the spikey things on the side are cruel, they could be construed as such but there are still parallels in modern equestrianism for keeping equids straight. Some animals strongly favour the left or right, a bit of a nightmare if you have two poled up together!)
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!
Your asumption that the bit on the lower picture is part of a mule's equipment is very interesting. What made you think that? This type of bit only existed during the early empire, already disappearing in the 2nd century CE, and even though those spiky parts look frightening and military, it lacks the forcefull impact of the Hebelstangtrensen and Kandaren that were also used, so your idea has much to recommend itself. Their use could then coincide with the high point of mule use in the Roman army.
The second bit (from Newstead) is in many ways very different from the more common horse bits found and the VERY narrow allowance between the iron bar in the animal's mouth and the uncompromising piece which goes around the animal's jaw are also different to other types of perceived ridden horse bits. This suggests to me that the Human hand and the reins were not as close as one would have from a ridden position as any leverage on the bit would incur instant jaw pressure as opposed to the longer shanked curb bits you see (in cavalry stele for example).
People insist on calling this a hackamore (which is itsn't but thats a long, old argument!) and hopefully you can see the difference in the position of the part in the mouth - with the curved, flat element - and the part which affects the jaw which is near the rein rings at the bottom (this is also from Newstead).
[attachment=7002]NewsteadCurb.jpg[/attachment]
(Picture courtesy of Scottish National Museums)
It is only a supposition based on my understanding of bit types in modern equestrianism; but I am coming to the conclusion that many bits we see in Roman contexts could really be for driven, not ridden, animals.
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!
The Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos, chapter 57, states that:
Quote:The infantrymen are to travel everywhere on foot if they can, each pair of men with one mule to carry their shields and necessities. Every four of these infantrymen must also have one man whose responsibility it is in time of battle to watch over their horses, goods, and the rest of their necessities. (translated by Eric McGeer, excerpted in Sowing the Dragon's Teeth, p. 99.)
The Praecepta Militaria of Nikephoros II, chapter 2, has almost the exact same info. I missed it the first time. (also in McGeer, p. 23)
This is the first exact figure I've found, from Roman military manuals rather than modern speculation. It's a late phase in the development of the Roman army, true, and things may have changed. There doesn't seem to be any comparable cavalry figure unless the reserve horses can do double duty w/light loads.
The Roman mules probably weren't any stronger than modern mules, and I'm inclined to use Furse's estimates of modern pack and draft abilities [with modern harnesses instead of badly-reconstructed Roman ones] rather than Roth's estimates. 90 kg including the pack saddle for pack mules.
I think this document came under fire for giving instructions on how to hobble pack animals at night (er, possibly not the right word - tying their legs together so they couldn't wander at night).
Thanks for the photos Vindex! As I think I've mentioned in the past I have an outsider's interest in this aspect of military life.
You should bear in mind that ancient mule breeds were potentially smaller than modern breeds, and certainly smaller than the standard Western Mule these days (US Breed); remember, the majority of the horse stock they were bred from were smaller than our modern breeds.
Robert - you're welcome! I have LOTS of photos of pieces of horse equipment if you would like anything else!
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!
I saw that some in this thread casually mention mule-carts, and suggest referring to modern examples to reconstruct their carrying capacity, but according to Landels (Engineering in the Ancient World), carts pulled by mules (and sometimes horses) were only light passenger vehicles, as the throat-and-girth harness dominated until the 9th century CE, when more effective types of harnessing finally came into universal use in Europe (although some were already developed in the late Roman period, but somehow, few seemed to have been interested in adopting these new technologies until far into the Middle Ages). The throat-and-girth harness is effective for heavy pulling only with oxen. With asses, horses and mules it only works as long as the load is far less than the equids would actaully have been able to pull. So, 1/2 ton for a mule cart is far too much. Mule carts were not used for supplying the troops, pack mules were.
Quote:I saw that some in this thread casually mention mule-carts, and suggest referring to modern examples to reconstruct their carrying capacity, but according to Landels (Engineering in the Ancient World), carts pulled by mules (and sometimes horses) were only light passenger vehicles, as the throat-and-girth harness dominated until the 9th century CE, when more effective types of harnessing finally came into universal use in Europe (although some were already developed in the late Roman period, but somehow, few seemed to have been interested in adopting these new technologies until far into the Middle Ages). The throat-and-girth harness is effective for heavy pulling only with oxen. With asses, horses and mules it only works as long as the load is far less than the equids would actaully have been able to pull. So, 1/2 ton for a mule cart is far too much. Mule carts were not used for supplying the troops, pack mules were.
Dear Eduard,
That sounds suspiciously like the theory of the French soldier Lefebvre de Noettes as revived by Lynne White. In the last few decades, his ideas about the inefficiency of ancient horse-harnesses have been very strongly criticized. M. Demetrius' link gives one overview from a Romanist's perspective, but one can also find good work by medievalists.
I think that Maurice strongly implies that Roman armies used carts drawn by horses and mules in his day.
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
