Size of ancient horses

[Cipher]

I remember reading in Caesar's commentary that German horses were much smaller than Roman ones, and I'd expect eastern horses used for the cataphracts would be fairly big, but I have no idea on their actual heights. Is there any conclusive data on ancient horses' size, particularly for those used in war?

[jvrjenivs]

I would suggest you to get a copy of "A biometric study of equids in the Roman world." by Johnstone, Cluny Jane.

PDF freely available on ethos: [url:1qj3rkth]http://ethos.bl.uk[/url]

[Cipher]

Thanks, but it seems it's no longer available for free.

[jvrjenivs]

Mmm, then I don't know anymore where I did get my PDF version from. But indeed it seems that Ethos doesn't have it digitalized, as by now.

[caiusbeerquitius]

[url60tiur7]http://www.york.ac.uk/media/archaeology/documents/researchdegrees/phdthesis/CJohnstonePhDvol1.pdf[/url]

[Cipher]

Thanks for the link, it's a great read.

[Vindex]

Hi...I'm going to re-read bits of the paper listed but, as with most things, size doesn't really matter! LOL

Strength and stamina are what are required and the denseness of the bone in the leg structure is a good indication...but one thing there will be very little evidence of is the hoof - the size and shape of the foot in relation to the leg. What is termed as conformation - makes a big difference to the work a horse can do and how long it can last doing the work.

As for size - consider of a Shetland pony, Nowegian Fjord, Camargue, Mongolian Native ponies, British Native ponies such as the Welsh Section C, Dartmoor, Exmoor. Not big horses but strong, economical movers and sharp enough for cavalry in the period as opposed to Freisian, Ardennes, Percheron...all much taller, 'draft' horses which are strong, up to good weight but not necessarily fast (excellent "shock" cavalry though...you wouldn't want to stand in the way of any of this lot charging at you! hock: )

[Dan Howard]

Draft horses are useless as mounts. Their barrels are too wide and their gait is wrong. Even when trotting, a draft horse becomes almost unridable since they "galumph". Draft horses don't appear until the 17-18th century when roads begin to improve and carriages become the standard means of transport. It is a myth that they were used as heavy cavalry mounts. The ideal heavy cavalry mount was 15-16 hands tall, agile, intelligent, with good endurance. Today the closest equivalent would be a hunter.

[Vindex]

Draft horses are useless as mounts. They are too big, not agile, and their gait is wrong (they can't even gallop). Draft horses don't appear until the 17-18th century when roads begin to improve and carriages become the standard means of transport. It is a myth that they were used as heavy cavalry mounts.

On the contrary, draft horses (and not always crosses with lighter breeds) are currently used for pleaure riding and even dressage (eg Shires, Clydesdales and lighter Percherons). Some breeds have been "refined" to maintain slow, even paces for pulling wagons and carriages and find the three time canter and four time gallop more difficult to maintain but are not required to do so (Suffolk Punch and potentially the Ardennes, but I think I may be being a bit harsh on the latter...think "A Knights Tale"). Modern draft horses may not have been heavy cavalry mounts, but the taller and more up to weight horses had to be bred somewhere to produce the required weight carrying qualities required...how do you get larger horses from all the small native ponies portrayed as Roman cavalry mounts?

Is the assumption that they are small because one has to vault to mount as there were no stirrups? Horses of any size can be trained to bend a knee for the rider to "step" on to...

[Dan Howard]

Draft horses are useless as mounts. They are too big, not agile, and their gait is wrong (they can't even gallop). Draft horses don't appear until the 17-18th century when roads begin to improve and carriages become the standard means of transport. It is a myth that they were used as heavy cavalry mounts.

On the contrary, draft horses (and not always crosses with lighter breeds) are currently used for pleaure riding and even dressage (eg Shires, Clydesdales and lighter Percherons). Some breeds have been "refined" to maintain slow, even paces for pulling wagons and carriages and find the three time canter and four time gallop more difficult to maintain but are not required to do so (Suffolk Punch and potentially the Ardennes, but I think I may be being a bit harsh on the latter...think "A Knights Tale"). Modern draft horses may not have been heavy cavalry mounts, but the taller and more up to weight horses had to be bred somewhere to produce the required weight carrying qualities required...how do you get larger horses from all the small native ponies portrayed as Roman cavalry mounts?

Is the assumption that they are small because one has to vault to mount as there were no stirrups? Horses of any size can be trained to bend a knee for the rider to "step" on to...

I'm not sure how you get "small" from a horse that is 15-16 hands tall. This was the typical size of a medieval destrier or coarser. Clydesdales and Pecherons did not exist at the time. The closest modern equivalents are hunters and endurance horses. A good book on the subject is Andrew Ayton's "Knights and Warhorses".

[Vindex]

I'm not sure how you get "small" from a horse that is 15-16 hands tall. This was the typical size of a medieval destrier or coarser. Clydesdales and Pecherons did not exist at the time. The closest modern equivalents are hunters and endurance horses. A good book on the subject is Andrew Ayton's "Knights and Warhorses".

Thank you for the reference, I have read extracts but not the whole book, but I will endeavour to do so.

I think we're heading for a circular discussion here! The point I am trying to make (and clearly not doing a very good job at it) is that although I know Clydesdales are Percherons are not "of the period" they have to have been bred somewhere from something...they didn't just appear in a given Century, they have been bred for characteristics.

As for hunters and endurance horses - I agree with you, but they are types of horses not breeds and vary considerably in height and weight. Endurance horses are commonly bred from or wholly Arabs while hunters traditionally are "riding horses" crossed out with ligghter blood for speed, and good bone for soundness. (My own hunters have, over the years,ranged from a wiry 15hh English Thoroughbred as tough as old boots and stamina to die for - but a bit too small for hedges LOL! - and a 17hh "fashionable" Dutch warmblood type who could jump but was a wuss on the hunting field).

Size and weight bearing are one thing you can tell from archaeological evidence, the bravery, intelligence and suitability of the types of horses avilable will only ever by conjecture

[Dan Howard]

As for hunters and endurance horses - I agree with you, but they are types of horses not breeds and vary considerably in height and weight.

This was how it was in the Middle Ages. Horses were classed according to the task they performed, not according to their breed, though some regions such as Normandy were well known for producing good horseflesh. This might help a little. It is an excerpt from an early 16th C English song

A courser for the warrior
A rounsey for the squire,
A sumpter for the baggage-train,
A screwbald for the friar.
But I will braid the jennet
And shine the bridal-reign
For the riding of my lady
When she is home again.

A destrier for the jousting,
A hackney for the maid,
A palfrey for the princely one
Who preens it on parade.
But I will gloss the jennet
That is cosy in the hay
For the riding of my lady
In the merry month of May.

[Vindex]

:lol: