North British Horses

[Nathan Ross]

What kind of horses would be available to the native peoples of northern Britain during the Roman period?

Earlier Britons (perhaps later ones too) were famous for their use of chariots - might this suggest that British horses were too small to be used effectively by mounted men in battle? The horse was a prestige animal in some areas (Uffington, several British coin types and Pictish reliefs show them) - but did the northern Britons have cavalry? The Vindolanda 'Brittunculi' tablet mentions that the locals have 'very many cavalry', but that they dismount to throw javelins - so were the horses only used for transport?

Later Pictish stones show mounted warriors, but depictions of battle show men fighting on foot, against mounted enemies...

[mcbishop]

What kind of horses would be available to the native peoples of northern Britain during the Roman period?

It's worth reading what Ewart had to say about the bone evidence for equids from Newstead in Curle's report.

Mike Bishop

[Nathan Ross]

Thanks, Mike.

The skulls and limb-bones... show that the garrison of the Newstead Fort had in their possession (1) broad-browed big-boned ponies of the 'forest' or robustus type from 11 to 12.2 hands; (2) slender-limbed ponies of the ' Celtic' variety, of the 'plateau' type from 11.2 to 12.2 hands, and 14 hands ponies of the 'Libyan' variety of the 'plateau' type built on the lines of the finer kinds of desert Arabs.

The smaller horses are suggested as 'native' breeds, if I'm not misreading this. So it looks like a native British horse might have been between 11 and 12.2 hands average. Is that very small? I understand a modern riding horse is about 15 hands, but I could be wrong...

Is there a minimum size at which a horse would be effective in battle? - as a mount, I mean, rather than pulling a chariot.

[Vindex]

Ewart's analysis is certainly impressive but I would add a note of caution in references to the Thoroughbred in the piece linked by Mike (a "breed" only really surfacing in the 17th century from Arab, Barb and Turkoman horses). Thoroughbreds tend to start at about 15hh and are certainly not a Native breed.

The Arab is more interesting, but the references to a "dished" face can be misleading as certainly some Arab blood lines show hardly any pronounced shape to the horse's face (like the classic Crabbet lines bred in Britain in the 1880s). The over pronounced dished face and the very fine specimens you see in Arabs today are, in my opinion, the showing world going mad and exaggerating the type rather than the breed charactersitics of stamina and durability. If I am to be convinced of the influence of the Arab in Roman horses, however, you need to look at more than their skulls. Arabs have a pronounced high tail carriage and in some cases may actually have less lumbar vertebrae than a "standard" horse. I'd be looking for that in my bone assemblage as well as the dished face to confirm the presence of Arab blood.

Suprisingly Ewart makes no reference at all to the Iberian horse whose forebears can have just as much a claim on prehistoric "cave art" as the other Northern European types described by Ewart. Indeed the Sorraia has many similar characteristics of the Przewalski horse but is larger and finer in type. It is also in many respects more the confirmation and size of those horses depicted on iconograpgy in the Roman period (which are certainly not Arabs). Characteristics of the breed make it short coupled and very strong in its hindquarter enabling it to hold the classical movements described by Xenophon and still part of haute ecole today (Lippizanas at the Vienese Riding School for example). Iberian stock rather than Arab stock is my favoured "Roman" horse.

With regards to Native British horses, Welsh ponies can have a pronounced "Arab" look in so far as they have a dished face and can be fine boned; these tend to stay under 15hh (except the Welsh Section D which is a larger boned and taller animal). These do not have such a pronounced tail carriage, however, but are certainly a favoured breed for modern drivers who engage in "scurry" driving; this is about as close to chariot driving as you can get!

Without wishing to bore you any further, the Brittunculi tablet seems to me to described mounted infantry in so much that they are transported to the battlefield on horseback but fight on foot. This does not mean to say that you cannot fight from a 14hh pony. Any horseman will tell you that the amount of girth a horse has (the width and strength of the "barrel" of the body) has more to do with ride-ability than height. The term is "takes up the leg" or "rides big"; so although you are not on a very tall horse, it certainly feels that way when you ride it. This is due to confirmation (how the horse is put together) and strength as opposed to size.

As for the Northern British - the horse may have been small but if it took up the leg it would not matter. Native Scottish/Northern ponies are pretty small - the Shetland and Eriskay - but the Fell/Dales type are ridden and draft animals; and maddeningly, the latter can also have quite a fine head although they have feathered "draft" legs.

Bet you're sorry you asked now...

[Nathan Ross]

Bet you're sorry you asked now...

On the contrary - an impressive analysis.

I'm guessing that these little native ponies would be quite tough, with a lot of stamina. Would they struggle under a heavier rider - say a 6-foot man of around 15 stone - or would the bigger bones and shorter legs make up for the height difference?

[Vindex]

My personal opinion is that it would be difficult for a very tall man to fight from a small horse for very long or very effectively and weight would be a secondary consideration (although fully armed and wearing armour will add significantly to the burden).

It has more to do with points of balance and how far you can lean out of the saddle without falling off! I also have an incling that since we are in an era of no stirrups, long legs would hang too far down and either catch in the horse's forelegs or even the ground (bushes, tussucks of grass etc)adding to a lack of balance. In my opinion, a strong, good conformation horse which takes up the leg of about 15hh would be an ideal mount for a taller person.

Coming from a polo playing background even WITH stirrups I could be knocked off balance by my foot being caught by my pony's foreleg at the end of its stride (I mean its leg is so far back and my foot is so far forward; hope that makes sense?).

A good pony will come back underneath you if it feels you wobble in the saddle if you've over stretched and the point of balance has been breached; a bad pony will let you fall (and if anything like one of mine stand and look at you on the ground with an expression of long suffering :razz: !)

[Nathan Ross]

since we are in an era of no stirrups, long legs would hang too far down and either catch in the horse's forelegs or even the ground (bushes, tussucks of grass etc)adding to a lack of balance.

I read somewhere (perhaps in Aitcheson's Picts and Scots at War) that Pictish riders possibly sat far forward on the horse with their legs sticking forward, presumably to keep their feet free of the horse's legs. I don't know whether this is derived from experiment, or just the Pictish stone reliefs, which often appear to show the rider's feet projecting in front of the horse! Would this be a feasible seat? I imagine it would be very uncomfortable for anything but short rides...

[John Conyard]

Johnstone C.L.2004 “A Biometric Study of Equids in the Roman World” (Ph.D. thesis, Uni. of York 2004) gives a good analyse of surviving bone evidence from the Roman period. The average height for a horse in Britain is given as 13.2, and a little larger in France at 14 hands. Interestingly the average height for surviving horse remains from London for the Roman, Saxon and medieval periods is also given as 13.2 in the Museum of London report.

A 13.2 pony can carry a modern rider with equipment easily enough. The little grey I ride in Comitatus shows is 13.2. http://comitatus.net/cavalryphotos.html and http://comitatus.net/greekcavalry.html

Saddles are great for hanging equipment from, but I can see a Pict would not really need a saddle. I am 5’9” and my feet hanging down do not really get in the way of the horse. This is a bit more 6th century but the weapons combination and small shield would be similar for a Pict.


[attachment=5701]026-Copy.JPG[/attachment]

[attachment=5702]020-Copy.JPG[/attachment]

[attachment=5703]045.JPG[/attachment]

[Vindex]

It is, of course, feasible to ride like that and there is one school of thought which will instantly cite various North American tribes and their small horses; my answer to that is , yes, they were very good light infantry, but the horses they were riding derived from Spanish horses imported by the Conquistadores, so we're back to Iberian stock so strength and ability! I would also add, however, that Plains Indians do not have the same amount of low level, dense vegetation obstacle as the North European Roman cavalryman and as we are time and continent seperated I am dubious about any comparisons in this area.

As for Native British horses, again, yes you can ride like that and it takes considerable skill to do so as the points of balance are different. Not riding with any saddle at all naturally makes you sit in an "L" shape and the knees become an essential anchor point. How effective you can be fighting like that is something I've yet to try. My comment would be that with the introduction of the horns on a saddle pad to allow the knees to brace rather than grip, that creates a whole new centre of balance and strength and therefore rider agility.

All of these methods of riding require a strong, indpendent seat something which modern riders in any sphere can be very lazy about; they rely too much on stirrups for balance and sadly hanging onto the horse's mouth too. With the bitting we see it is clear to me that the essentials of a good, firm seat on a horse and light hands is unarguable. After all, if one carries a weapon and shield, how else do you control the horse but from the legs and the seat? And if the horse is too "small" for the length of leg (bearing in minds my comments about taking up the leg), it has to be the seat.

There is also the evidence from the iconography. Greek sculpture and art shows the rider sitting as you have mentioned far more often than in the Roman equivalent. Roman evidence, however, shows the leg going backwards towards the horse's flank. I am open to any ideas as why this may be the case; it could be indicative of the horns on the saddle putting the leg in a different position. It could also be the "aid" by which the rider makes the horse adopt what is generally held to be the levade - the horse balancing on its hind legs and in a half "rear". Again this is one of the movements implied by Xenophon and would be handy for a cavalry horse to use as the striking out forelegs would keep the close enemy at a distance neatly comparable to a thrusting spear.

EDIT: as John's photographs have appeared as I was drafting this response, you can see how the leg has a tendancy to naturally grip up and back, not forward). I would also point out that in discussing human height, you have to consider the length of limbs as much as you would a horse.

as an aside, the skeleton assembalge from Krefeld-Gellep, a sufficiently confirmed Roman context, and auxiliary to boot, indicates that the group of six horses found there are all in the 15hh bracket.

[PhilusEstilius]

Here are pictures of the group Comitatus wearing the Straubing Chamfrons I made some time back, these horses appear to be about 15 hands height and the chamfrons tend to fit without any problems even looking a bit small for them, however most of the Straubing pieces are in the region of 40cm to 43cm in length the Vindolanda and the Trimontium leather ones that I have also made not counting the pole piece were about 40cm length

I would think looking at the horse John Conyard has shown could wear the Vindolanda or the Trimontium leather pieces very well indeed. I do wonder if in fact the tribes of the northern regions could have also had such larger animals in Roman times.
[attachment=5708]cav159Medium.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=5709]cav168Medium.jpg[/attachment]

[Nathan Ross]

the skeleton assembalge from Krefeld-Gellep, a sufficiently confirmed Roman context, and auxiliary to boot, indicates that the group of six horses found there are all in the 15hh bracket.

I do wonder if in fact the tribes of the northern regions could have also had such larger animals in Roman times.

I would guess that the larger horses used by Roman auxiliaries (15 hands or so), if they were not already in Britain at the time of the conquest, would have become established there quite soon. Roman garrisons would presumably have needed a supply of horses, and unless they kept them rigorously segregated from the local population there would have been an element of interchange.

But if the smaller big-boned native horses of 11-12 hands had evolved to suit the environment, how well would these larger breeds (or whatever we call them) have survived in the far north?

As for the Picts - if later carvings etc are anything to go by, they seem to have picked up very little Roman influence. In fact, I wonder whether the Severan campaigns of the early third century so depopulated the border region that tribal development in the north continued in a kind of cultural vacuum - which might explain why the Picts appeared so savage and alien when they reappeared a century later. Might their horses also have lacked the Roman or continental influence that would produce larger animals more suited to cavalry warfare?

[Kegluneq]

But if the smaller big-boned native horses of 11-12 hands had evolved to suit the environment, how well would these larger breeds (or whatever we call them) have survived in the far north?

Isn't this point rendered moot if the cavalry horses are kept fed by official supply lines and warm by being kept in the barracks (where applicable)? I mean, horses of that size can survive in Northern Britain now...

15 hands sounds sounds very large for a cavalry horse. From what I've heard and seen from re-enactors (inc. John Conyard who I was lucky to see at Mercer Park in Clayton Le Moors earlier this year), horses of smaller stature - by modern standards - are also more nimble, which is very useful if you are fighting with a sword from horseback. I imagine cavalry horses were selected on the basis of health and strength rather than sheer physical size. The Krefeld-Gellup site does sound interesting though.

Going back to horses and diet - I know that the size of cattle, pigs and other livestock can vary greatly depending on how much they are fed whilst growing, and that smaller animals can be more easily managed. Is the full size a horse can reach determined solely by breed or does its diet when young also have an effect on how big it can eventually grow to? Is the size of a horse directly proportional to its status?

[John Conyard]

The photos Brian posted show 14.2 and 14 hand mounts from years ago!

The average size for Roman horses in Britain seems to be around 13.2 mark. I am sure there were 15 hand horses, even a 17 hand horse, but the average was 13.2. In the Roman period and much later. Size of horse dictates speed of manoeuver so |it is good to see re-enactors on ponies. My current mount is 13.2 and Amy used a 12.3 last year.

Such mounts make fine cavalry horses. Larger horses need more food and foreign breeds would be more liable to catch colds in northern Britain. Small native cobs can be left out all year and an still be fast and strong.

It is easy to fight in armour bareback on a small horse. It is great fun.

[John Conyard]

The photos Brian posted show 14.2 and 14 hand mounts from years ago!

The average size for Roman horses in Britain seems to be around 13.2 mark. I am sure there were 15 hand horses, even a 17 hand horse, but the average was 13.2. In the Roman period and much later. Size of horse dictates speed of manoeuver so |it is good to see re-enactors on ponies. My current mount is 13.2 and Amy used a 12.3 last year.

Such mounts make fine cavalry horses. Larger horses need more food and foreign breeds would be more liable to catch colds in northern Britain. Small native cobs can be left out all year and an still be fast and strong.

It is easy to fight in armour bareback on a small horse. It is great fun.

[attachment=5725]061_2012-11-08.JPG[/attachment]

[attachment=5726]077-Copy.JPG[/attachment]

[John Conyard]

The photos Brian posted show 14.2 and 14 hand mounts from years ago!

The average size for Roman horses in Britain seems to be around 13.2 mark. I am sure there were 15 hand horses, even a 17 hand horse, but the average was 13.2. In the Roman period and much later. Size of horse dictates speed of manoeuver so |it is good to see re-enactors on ponies. My current mount is 13.2 and Amy used a 12.3 last year.

Such mounts make fine cavalry horses. Larger horses need more food and foreign breeds would be more liable to catch colds in northern Britain. Small native cobs can be left out all year and an still be fast and strong.

It is easy to fight in armour bareback on a small horse. It is great fun.

[attachment=5728]061_2012-11-08-2.JPG[/attachment]

[attachment=5729]077-Copy.JPG[/attachment]

[attachment=5730]098-Copy.JPG[/attachment]