Roman bits and other horsemanship equipment

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

What was the bit that digs into the roof of the horses mouth called?
Sorry to pop in here but I seem to remember roman bits with this feature!
Seemed to be a very painful type of bit!

[RUBICON]

Gaius,

there are many but the modern day equivalent is probably what we call the CURB mouth for obvious reasons. These come in various sizes. some horses have very low "mouth roofs" (layman term) and such bits can be extremely harsh.They often come with a curb chain, that goes under the horse's chin. If you look back in the thread, you will see even the nutcracker action of a snaffle bit ( considered to be the"mildest" can also be very harmful if not fitted correctly. I found this pic showing teh varying degrees of the curb available....also I will post another pic of an extreme CURB bit which will back up Lepidina's view of how harsh man has becoem in the pursuit of horse control. In this case I totally agree with her views.

[RUBICON]

Sorry Gaius,

I meant PORT mouth. Here is an example of crude modern day extreme port mouths.

Personally I cant understand or see a reason to use such a bit if a horse is schooled or ridden correctly

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Thanks for the pics, Stefano!
That would be the modern equivilent! The Roman one was actually a plate in the center, which makes these look tame in comparison. I suppose the romans were not into horse whispering.
Still, I would have thought thet those who could have afforded mounts in Roman society would have been more considerate considering the expense. But if they were army mounts with those riding not necessarily from the equestrian classes, the need for absolute, even brutal control of the mounts would probably outweigh the horses feelings. Still, you would think a horses reaction to it would be to rear and throw the rider, rather than comply meekly!? :?

[RUBICON]

True, very true....maybe they were 'considerate' horse riders but evidence suggests that teh roman were not as good as horemen as their auxiliary counterparts.

You are right in suggesting that a horse would be uncomfortable and maybe throw their heads and or rear, but in all disciplines, horses are selected for their acceptance of the task at hand. ie Police horses that are not brave, tense, flighty tend not to waithstand the rigours of police work also, a tense highly excited horse will not cope with teh demands of jumping and or dressage. the same can be said for very calm, quiet horses, they tend not to be good speed horses or quick thinkers! Therefore we could assume that the horses that made it through to the calvary were those that would cope with long marches, battles, screaming tribesman....thos ethat didnt, well i'd hate to think.

As Lepidina would agree with, horses can be quite resilient often putting up with discomfort and pain for quite a while. A horses temperament is what makes a horse valauable, his ability to cope with stress, pressure, smart.. these attributes tend to make horses great horses.

Riding is such an art, and you are so correct in saying that a horse poorly treated will often sooner than later say NO! ( buck, rear, bolt...have a meltdown!)

[Lepidina]

That would be the modern equivilent! The Roman one was actually a plate in the center, which makes these look tame in comparison. I suppose the romans were not into horse whispering.

I've seen pictures of that bit and it's like a razor on the top which pushes into the horse's mouth. Nasty bit!!

A few years ago, I was the assistant at a bitting clinic with Alex (who's last name I can't remember) of John Dewsberry and Kangaroo bits. It was a real eye-opener. There is a lot to consider with what type of bit to use and what a horse is comfortable with. Some horses are happier with a low curb bit because they have thick tounges and low pallets (the roof of the mouth) as snaffles can poke them in the roof of their mouth. Other horses like thicker bits which are actually softer because the thickness spreads out the pressure. But in the wrong hands, even a "soft" bit can be harsh and unforgiving. And in good hands, a "harsh" bit can be as light as a rubber straight bit.

As an example, I was riding a friend's horse in a snaffle and he was a real toad and didn't respect the bit. Ran through my hands, threw his shoulder out, wouldn't pick up the correct lead, tossed his head, you name it. Lazy little spud. Drove me nuts. Then I was out stick and balling (polo practice where you just hit the ball around) and he had his polo bridle on which was a pellham (curb bit) with double reins. While warming up on the flat, he was much better behaved so I though, the heck with the snaffle and started riding him in just his curb with the double reins. The top rein was the one I used most but I had the curb rein there in case he started being a toad. He quit acting up so much and actually started working. Once he was working, he built up some muscle and was a lot easier to ride. So it all depends.

And it all depends on how you train your horse and how you ride. One thing I've noticed in the horse world is that if you have money to afford whatever horse you want, you typically don't do a lot of training. If a stronger bit doesn't work, you just get another horse. If you're poor like me and have to take what you can afford, which usually means young or green horses, you learn to train your horse to how you want it to be. I'll also be a bit snarky and say that I think I'm a much better rider because of it. Sure I'll never make the olympics because I can't afford the $100,000+ horse but at least I can ride as well as some of them and probably better than a lot of them because I've had to deal with a wide range of horses, not just the good ones.

Now I can say that when galloping down an open field surrounded by other galloping horses, stopping becomes much more difficult so you need something a little stronger to get the horse's attention. Same goes with cross-country riding. Plus being a 5'3" chick, I just don't have the strength to muscle a horse around like the guys. I would think on a battlefield surrounded by the chaos, you'd need something extra so you spending all your energy trying to control your horse.

So I'd think that rich Roman officers could afford nice horses as opposed to the auxillary who might just have one. (The cav had to provide their own horses or at least the initial one right?) And there might be something with having a "wild" horse which was more imposing than a docile one out on the battlefield so you'd need the stronger bits to keep it under control. I've noticed that the horses that are portrayed tend to look a bit on the wild side with flaring nostrils and wide eyes as opposed to more Eeyore-like. Personally, I'd rather ride an Eeyore.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Thanks for th response Deb! I tend to think what you say makes sense, as the aristocrats would have had great horses, but were possibly not the greatest riders, with exceptions, because of that! They were not doing the hard work on the whole, just riding a good mount that obayed them! :roll:
True some would have been good riders, but not all. just as those born with the money are not always best suited to rule/govern those without...

[RUBICON]

So true Deb, so true and as these sports become more accessible to those with money, unfortunately the plight of the horse is going down a treacherous path where horses are becoming disposable.

The sport of jumping is now at a level that unless you are a millionaire, competing at the top is becoming a far distant goal. Now here in Australia, and remember we are way behind Europe, many Young Riders are riding horses worth $700,000.

Now you see riders who can afford experienced talented horses but cant ride them. Once the horse loses confidence or develops problems they "trade them in" for another model. Same in Dressage and Polo I imagine. Deb it is great to hear a well founded sensitive arguement because it is rare nowadays to see a truly talented horses ridden by an equally talented rider. Nice to know there are few of us left who appreciate the horse for what they are. I woudl imagine seeing history repeats itself, maybe this was the case in the equestrian classes....wealth but no skill.

[AthenaK]

Now you see riders who can afford experienced talented horses but cant ride them. Once the horse loses confidence or develops problems they "trade them in" for another model. Same in Dressage and Polo I imagine. Deb it is great to hear a well founded sensitive arguement because it is rare nowadays to see a truly talented horses ridden by an equally talented rider. Nice to know there are few of us left who appreciate the horse for what they are. I woudl imagine seeing history repeats itself, maybe this was the case in the equestrian classes....wealth but no skill.

"Trade them in for another model..." Jeez, how can people not get attracted to the personality of their horse? My horse, Lester, is by no means perfect but at this point there is no horse in the world I would trade him for. We have too much of a history.

But I guess if horses are your business rather than your friends, such things are necessary.

And yes, there are few things more frustrating to see than a good horse ruined by a bad rider. :evil: :evil:

[Lepidina]

But I guess if horses are your business rather than your friends, such things are necessary.

Yep. It's kinda sad. I've seen it with a lot of polo players and even the Amish who tend to view horses as tools instead of pets. One of the grooms at the polo club even jokes that her boss couldn't even recognize his own horses and he's owned them for several years. But if it's not polo season, he doesn't come out to the barn.

Are there any Roman writings about people being fond of their horses? And no, I don't mean in that way.

[RUBICON]

I found thi s while researching famous writers of the horse. Incitatus, the prized horse of Caligula is mentioned everywhere, even to where the night before Incatus was to appear in the great arena, Caligula had his guards travel therough the streets enforcing everyone be quiet so the horse could sleep well in his marble stable.

The horses of Numidia (Algeria) were renown, and the Romanized inhabitants of North Africa passionate about the hunt and the races, where another mosaic portrays a race horse and reads "Win or lose, we love you, Polidoxus."

Maybe someone did care!

Aelian writes of the horses of Libya and, in criticizing their lack of care, provides some information as to what it should be.

"These Horses are exceedingly swift and know little or nothing of fatigue; they are slim and not well-fleshed but are fitted to endure the scanty attention paid to them by their masters. At any rate the masters devote no care to them: they neither rub them down nor roll them nor clean their hooves or comb their manes nor plait their forelocks nor wash them when tired, but as soon as they have completed the journey they intended they dismount and turn the Horses loose to graze."

Oops maybe they didnt care!

The Christian apologist Tertullian, who was born in Carthage, where there was a circus, was not so enthusiastic about the races and writes in De Spectaculis (IX),

"Equestrian skill was a simple thing in the past, mere horseback riding; in any case there was no guilt in the ordinary use of the horse. But when the horse was brought into the games, it passed from being God's gift into the service of demons."

Funny how history repeats itself. even back then the horse was a commodity.

[RUBICON]

"Race horses were carefully bred and their conformation and pedigree a matter of importance. They did not begin racing until they were five years old (although Columella says that three-year olds could begin training but should have a year's training before competing, VI.29.4) and often had long careers afterwards. The best horses came from stud farms in North Africa and Hispania, and were transported to Rome on special ships (hippago) designed for the purpose. Most often, those that competed in the Circus were stallions, which also were in demand for breeding."


I also found this, Columella seem to understand the maturity process of the horse in both soundness and mind!

Even these days we have two years old racing, considering horses probably dont start maturing til 5.

This could also help that thread about what type of horses were used by the romans?

[AthenaK]

Are there any Roman writings about people being fond of their horses? And no, I don't mean in that way.

Rubicon mentioned how Caligula enforced quiet so that his horse could sleep well, but I have heard that Caligula even tried to make his horse a consul! :o D

[tommy303]

There was an interesting book which came out some years ago, Training the Roman Cavalry: From Arrian's Ars Tactica, by Ann Hyland. The author is an accomplished equestrian rider and trainer herself, and devoted considerable effort into practicing the techniques written about by Arrian and using reconstructions of Roman cavalry equipment and saddles.

Bibliographical informations is:

Training the Roman Cavalry, by Ann Hyland, Grange Books, London, 1993.
ISBN 1-85627-899-9

[Ti Cl Nero]

Hi,
I was going to mention another book by Ann Hyland; not being a rider myself, I can't judge her approach; I read with great interest, then, dario's note about this author in the first message of this topic.
Anyway, back to what Rubicon wrote about sources, particularly Columella, it may be worth adding a few sources listed by Ann Hyland, in the chapter dealing with general early training, in her book "Equus - the horse in the Roman World" (1991, ISBN 0-300-0477070-3):

- Pelagonius, author of a Ars Veterinaria, states that a racehorse's education starts as a 3 years old, though it can't compete in races until 5 - while domestic horse can be used at 2.
- Varro - I'm quoting Hyland here, who refers to the De Re Rustica - recommends handling the foal while young and accustoming it to the chink of bits rattling in the stable. At 3 years of age, as soon as it is handleable, a young lad should lie across its back a few times . The next step is for the youngster to sit astride the colt.
- Virgil ( Georgica III, whose english text is easily retrievable online: http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/georgics.3.iii.html ) referring to cavalry and racehorses, also states (among many other suggestions about horse training) that at three, a horse can be ridden and taught correct paces and postures in the training ring.

I have heard that Caligula even tried to make his horse a consul!

He used to send his soldiers on the day before the games and order silence in the neighbourhood, to prevent the horse Incitatus from being disturbed. Besides a stall of marble, a manger of ivory, purple blankets and a collar of precious stones, he even gave this horse a house, a troop of slaves and furniture, for the more elegant entertainment of the guests invited in his name; and it is also said that he planned to make him consul.
(Suetonius, Vitae Cesarum, Liber Quartus: Caligula LV.3)

One of the horses, which he named Incitatus, he used to invite to dinner, where he would offer him golden barley and drink his health in wine from golden goblets; he swore by the animal's life and fortune and even promised to appoint him consul, a promise that he would certainly have carried out if he had lived longer
(Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, LIX.14.7)

(Both translations from Loeb Classical)

Valete