North British Horses

[Vindex]

Larger horses need more food and foreign breeds would be more liable to catch colds in northern Britain.

Which foreign breeds do you have in mind? I can agree with much of what you say but I think that is an unsafe generalisation.

Neither the desert at night (if you're thinking of Arabs) nor parts of the Iberian peninsular are particularly warm and all horses allowed to grow their coat and acclimatise can survive in cold weather.

What is NOT good for a horse is lots of them crammed into a small space so I do have some issues with the "evidence" for stables which some archaeologists seem to infer means small horses were all that was available.

Amongst all the equid skeleton assemblages found in a Roman context the average MAY be 13.2hh but there is no way of identifying what was a true cavalry mount, an animal for mouted infantry or indeed pack animals (not everyone had access to mules!)

[John Conyard]

I am pleased you agree with much of what I have said, and rest assured I have no great wish to convince you of the rest. But let me try and do just that!

I have been careful to in my terminology. 13.2 is the average size of Roman horse in Britain, and indeed for a long time after. I envisage a small native mount, relatively immune to not just cold temperatures but the damp. Wet conditions would be the major issue, and the most common concern would be damage to or diseases of the feet. “No foot, no horse”. Issues with the feet were the major equine health issue during WWI. While desert horses can indeed handle cold temperature, they generally do not do so in a wet muddy field in the rain. Local horses for local conditions.

And small horses are not inferior. We have numerous examples of small native horses out performing imported larger cavalry mounts. Too many to suggest they were inferior. Yet Nobis did suggest that some of the Krefeld-Gellep horses had been selectively bred for size. Which leads us on to the supply of military horses.

While we know relatively little about the military supply of horses, before the later more professional army, it does seem likely that remounts were organised centrally on a provincial level. Hence British horses for British riders. Any possible selective breeding could be at a provincial level. Each province would aim for self-sufficiency, although perhaps not always achieve it and may need help during a major military operation. High status individuals may import racehorses, or horses that were tall or outstanding in some way, but the military took a different approach using native mounts.

Curle is interesting because he was able to differentiate three possible breeds from the skeletal evidence at Newstead, something normally impossible to do. His three fold classification was not however apparent amongst the horses from Krefeld-Gellep. Those ranged from 11.2 to 15.1, with the majority over 13.2. Too often we seem to assume the smaller horses were baggage animals, while the taller ones were for officers. An assumption based on modern opinion. And who wants a people carrier when you can have Ferrari?

[John Conyard]

P.S. I am glad you liked the show Robert. I loved my 12th century armour but was so jelous of my Roman opponent.

[Kegluneq]

P.S. I am glad you liked the show Robert. I loved my 12th century armour but was so jelous of my Roman opponent.

I certainly got more photos of the scale armour! It was a brilliant (and terrifying) display of martial skill, literally just up the road from where I live, so definitely good!
[attachment=5731]IMG_0688.JPG[/attachment]
Fascinating discussion here, long may it continue!

[Vindex]

Too often we seem to assume the smaller horses were baggage animals, while the taller ones were for officers. An assumption based on modern opinion.

I can sure you that is not an opinion I hold.

I think initially I would disagree with your concept of British horses for British cavalry in the first years of the conquest. Ceasar's accounts of fighting the Britons describe charioteers not cavalry. Native British must have been aware of the Gallic tendancy to ride their horses rather than drive them as trade links across the channel were firmly established. The possibility then arises that a decision was made at some point to harness small horses rather than ride them. This is a fairly major edcision as driven hroses are not as versatile as a single mount and we have your people carrier as opposed to the Ferrari - dare I say it, horses for courses?

A horse's natural state is unshod. A horse's natural state is also in the open, grazing and browsing as vegetation is available. When you start to shoe a horse you change the balance of the foot and the natural scheme of things. When you have shod horses kept in deep mud you're asking for trouble unless you take extraordinary care of their feet which, on campaigns is virtually impossible. But, for the most part, the evidence suggests horses of this period were not shod (And the fashion for natural, unshod horses in this modern era is sharply curtailed if you have to do any significant work on tarmac roads as opposed to tracks and turf.

The most interesting thing about Ewart's analysis is, as you say, the fact that differing skeletal types were found, although I have already said that the term "thoroughbred" is not appropriate as it is not a breed of the period. It perhaps suggests a lighter boned animal which in itsef is interesting as thas does not really fit any of the North British breed types.

Perhaps my view of the size of the horse comes from different metrics? A 14.2hh pony is only two inches short of the 15hh so I'm not particularly worried about that (My best polo pony was 14.2hh and I am just shy of 6ft tall). My concern is more the capability of a much smaller horse to tackle the terrain (and ATV if you will).

So a patrol regime of , say, from Corbridge on the Stanegate up to the Wall and back on a daily basis would be my ideal testing ground rather than on flat, safe ground.

[John Conyard]

By "British horses for British riders" I mean during the Roman occupation. "While we know relatively little about the military supply of horses, before the later more professional army, it does seem likely that remounts were organised centrally on a provincial level. Hence British horses for British riders. Any possible selective breeding could be at a provincial level. Each province would aim for self-sufficiency, although perhaps not always achieve it and may need help during a major military operation. High status individuals may import racehorses, or horses that were tall or outstanding in some way, but the military took a different approach using native mounts." I did not comment on horse supply before the Roman invasion, but if the Romans were not importing in a major way I find it hard to believe the north Britains were importing on a large scale from Gaul.

I am not too sure where we are going with horse shoes, as you say little to no evidence in a military context. Comitatus uses one shod horse who does all sorts of work. The rest are unshod. It is kinder when they stand on your foot. Cavalry is all about the condition of horses feet.

[attachment=5732]193-Copy.JPG[/attachment]


I think small native mounts can handle the local terrain just fine, no need to worry there. Today the Haydon hunt ride all over the middle section of the Wall and small cobs are often used. The bigger question is could larger foreign "breeds" handle the terrain in the Classical period for any length of time. I'll stick to my small native moutain climbers.

[Vindex]

I did not comment on horse supply before the Roman invasion, but if the Romans were not importing in a major way I find it hard to believe the north Britains were importing on a large scale from Gaul.

Sorry, don't understand you there. I wasn't implying the British were importing from Gaul. The Gauls rode and drove;evidence suggests that until the Invasion the British drove. There are plenty of horses on coinage, but I don't remember seeing a pre-Invasion British coin showing a ridden horse. I'd be pleased to hear of any such evidence.

I am not too sure where we are going with horse shoes, as you say little to no evidence in a military context. Comitatus uses one shod horse who does all sorts of work. The rest are unshod. It is kinder when they stand on your foot. Cavalry is all about the condition of horses feet.

My point is that shod horses are not really part of the discussion as the only evidence for shoeing in this period is hippo sandals which may or may not ave been permanent additions to the horses foot, or just added to cope with various terrains. Cavalry is also about the right equipment; a poorly fitting saddle can "lame" a horse just as quickly as a foot injury. You are probably also aware of the term bridle lameness which isn't anything to do with the feet at all but affects the horse's performance.

I'll stick to my small native moutain climbers.

Yep, they're certainly proper ATVs! How much of this riding do you get to do? I mean hill work etc It's a few years since I've really been "off road" (the Falkland Islands were there weren't any roads!!! And my pony then was 14.2hh too) but Salisbury Plain is a God send for fitess work doing distance and hills.

[PhilusEstilius]

I would not claim to be an expert on horses however in my earlier years I did work with small ponies but this was 1,000 feet below ground and 5 miles out under the north sea, this was where they were used in pulling tubs of coal in tiny tunnels and one sat imediately behind the backside of the pony.

Where I hear that the Britains mostly went to war in chariots can this be absoloutly true in all situations for when we find the Romano/British horse and rider brooches these show a rider with of course the spiked hair similar to the one I show here. It has been said that these brooches are of 2nd/3rd century date but the spiked hair might suggest a possible earlier date for some of them.
[attachment=5737]imageMedium.jpeg[/attachment]

[Nathan Ross]

Romano/British horse and rider brooches these show a rider with of course the spiked hair similar to the one I show here.

Interesting image! The spiked hair may have persisted in the far north - those Pictish stones from later centuries seem to show some sort of odd coiffure going on!

Actually the hairstyle on this one looks a bit like the Moorish light cavalry on Trajan's column and the Arch of Constantine. Any chance this might be a depiction of a Moorish rider?

[PhilusEstilius]

Nathan.

I'm not so sure on that one it's a picture I got from a friend however my Richard Hattatt book on brooches does mention that most found do have this spiked type of hair style. These particular kind have been said to be of a religious nature rather that a brooch, in fact they have been considered to have an apotropaic value to avert evil or bad luck.

The horse was indeed an important creature in earlier times where they appear on very early British coinage more in the east Anglia area. Here is another style that I have made a copy of with the inlays yet to be done, they are not a large thing only in the region of 25 to 30mm length they don't appear to be a true brooch but used more for their symbolic value.
[attachment=5738]easyshare2135Medium.jpg[/attachment]