Hard riding no saddles or stirrups

[Felix]

Logical explanation of behaviour rests on understanding the values of the persons involved. The values of soldiers are not those of civilians; and the values of Roman society, or medieval French society, are not those of modern America. It might be worth looking at Lendon's "Soldiers and Ghosts" in this regard - it just came out in paperback.

I do like citing sources. Of course, they all have their biases, and scholars make careers of trying to understand them. But if one decides that the sources should be thrown out wholesale, then you are essentially deciding that they have nothing to say that you don't already know - in which case, why study the past at all?

One more case to the examples cited by Caius. At Gettysburg in 1863, the Confederates' right wing had broken through the Union defense at the Peach Orchard, and was moving to outflank the main Union defense line. To buy enough time to build a new defense, the Union general on the spot (Hancock) had to slow down the Confederate division of Anderson. He had one understrength regiment of 262 men, the First Minnesota. At Hancock's order, they ploughed into the entire Rebel division. The ground was clear, and the men could see exactly what they were getting into, and they had all been in battles before, and knew what to expect. Within 10 minutes, 215 of the men were casualties, including all but three officers.

They bought just enough time for Hancock to bring up the next reinforcements, and stabilize the Union line.

[Caius Fabius]

I have the hardback of "[amazon]Soldiers and Ghosts[/amazon]" and the hardback of "[amazon]The Last Full Measure: The Life and Death of the First Minnesota Volunteers[/amazon]. Another good book is...[amazon]Through Blood & Fire: Selected Civil War Papers of Major General Joshua Chamberlain [/amazon] of the 20th Maine, who did a bayonet charge with empty muskets, but took less casualties than the 1st Minnesota in that action.

When college professors like Chamberlain or Robert Lee wrote about warfare, you get the feeling that they knew what they were talking about. (Or read the letters of George Washington...) I do like to collect diaries from combat soldiers of various nationalities, and try and relate them to my and my friend's experiences to see if we are all the same, or if something has changed. I think modern society has changed, but the modern soldier on the ground has a closer connection with the ancient soldiers than some well-read professor who found a great adventure in watching a car wreck or an anti-war demonstration, once, many years ago. :lol:

[floofthegoof]

Patton said it best:

"Nobody ever won a war by dying for his country. You win the war by making the other poor bastard die for his country."

:lol:

[Ron Andrea]

Earlier this discussion concentrated on "hard" stirrups, after acknowledging "soft" stirrups--I assume in the form of a simple leather loop--left few artifacts. Does that mean the soft stirrups didn't exist or that we have let the potential availability of artifacts drive our scholarship?

Were soft stirrups good for anything other than helping mount? Or were they perhaps helpful to ease the legs during a long ride.

I assume, they could not be stood in for fighting or archery, that's why hard stirrups were eventually adopted. Hard to believe harness makers and riders would opt for a more complicated article if the simpler one worked better. Is that a safe assumption?

[Marcus Julius]

I am still 'flabbergasted' by the idea of 18 pairs of mules pulling a train of wagons across the prairie. We'll probably never see something like that again. Now it is hard to find anyone who can hitch ahorse or mule, let alone pack them properly.

WARNING: Off topic content ahead. Skip to the first spacing if you prefer. I can assure any of you with any doubt, that mules are far superior to horses. Except as a battle mount. Those who haven't been properly exposed claim that mules are stubborn. Those who have been properly exposed know the truth to be that mules are smart, and know better. In my family, the only thing a horse is good for is breeding with a jack, and carrying a mule to term.

Anyway, to get back on the topic at hand: Going all the way back to the original question. No, it's actually not all that difficult to ride bareback. Look at how long the Native Americans did it, riding through herd upon herd of buffalo, or charging the U.S. cavalry. However, there is plenty of evidence to show that the Romans did actually have saddles. My surprise, not that long ago, was the form of saddle.

[Carvettia]

I also recall that some saddles finds from Carlisle presented at the Carlisle Conference (Oct 2004 I think) - dont know if these are published yet. Quita Mould was working on the leather covers - 2 covers, apparently removable with skirts. Also they had found part of a wooden "tree" which answered (at least on that particular saddle) whether a solid "tree" or just padded with straw (as had been suggested by the saddler in Southport who has made his own very good alternate version of the Connoly saddle). Both systems work, so both may be possible. Evidence of a "tree" on one doesnt necessarily mean "tree" on all.

On another slant, I also recall seeing a photo of stirrups from Pompei, so perhaps not all saddles the same - some may be stirrup-less, some may not.

Hilary

There is now a reproduction of the four-horned saddle in Tullie House Museum in Carlisle. Touch, smell, sit on it - if you can vault onto it! This example is shown without stirrups. I'm not sure whether the leather outer is built over a wooden tree or is stuffed with wool or straw, and w/o being destructive I couldn't find out

[garrelt]

Bare in mind that you can also make stirrups from organic material like leather or wood, hard to find after so many years in the ground.

An example can be found in the book Pferdeopfer- und Reiterkieger which belongs to the exhibition in Burg-Linn in Krefeld Gellep.

http://www.archaeologie-krefeld.de/news ... Pferde.htm
This site is in German

[Carvettia]

I quite accept that the first stirrups were probably not metal but rope, horsehair, rawhide, hardened leather, wood, horn, and finally metal. (After all the word stirrup comes from "stiga rap" mean "climb rope" so it doesn't have to imply metal!)

Can anyone confirm whether stirrups or indications of stirrups have been found in Sarmatian/Alan contexts? I have read (somewhere, but can't find a reference) that they've turned up in archaeo digs at periods which would be within the Roman ascendancy in Europe. And is there a copy available anywhere of the Strategikon, which I have been told mandated stirrup use for the Roman Army in 580AD?

I gather this can be a bit controversial so let me say: I am only asking for info, not propounding an argument; I do not ever take movie images as historical truth (King Arthur - blech!); and I have not read Scythia to Camelot.

[garrelt]

Stirrups are mentioned in the Mauricius Strategikon on the left side of the horse of the capsarius to pick up a wounded person from the Battlefield.
One was placed at the front of the saddle for the rider one at the back for the wounded person .
You can see what could be a leather stirrup on the Silver dish from Isola Rizza.
A picture of it is in :
Die Langobarden, Archaolgie und Geschichte.
Wilfried Menghin, Stuttgart 1985

[Robert Vermaat]

Isola Rizza dish:
http://utenti.lycos.it/campagneparallele/longobardo.jpg

[garrelt]

Thanks Robert for the link.
I don't have to scan it now
:wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

My pleasure. :wink:

Of course, I should add that I'm not sure that the image shows a stirrup. Aren't the rider's legs supposed to be braced forwards into his stirrups in expectation of the impact of his lance on the victim? But as the leg is shown bent backwards, to me this is more reminiscent of a saddle without stirrups.

[garrelt]

My pleasure. :wink:

Of course, I should add that I'm not sure that the image shows a stirrup. Aren't the rider's legs supposed to be braced forwards into his stirrups in expectation of the impact of his lance on the victim? But as the leg is shown bent backwards, to me this is more reminiscent of a saddle without stirrups.

Even a rider without stirrups puts his/hers feet forward.
If you put you foot/legs back you will give the horse the signal to go forward, in fact you are giving it the spurs.
A experienced rider puts his/her feet forward when riding bareback or without stirrups.
On impact with the target you put your feet back, this is a natural behavior , otherwise you go of the horse backwards.

If you look at the picture of the dish, you can see what could be a soft stirrup at the point where the foot goes over into the ankle.
Whit full Armour on you really need a help to get on the horse.

[John Conyard]

The dish illustrates the rider's leg in the classic "no-stirrups" position. As Robert pointed out. The rider is braced nicely for impact.

This weekend I'm riding as a Union cavalryman at an American Civil War event. So this week I've left my Roman saddles at home, and am taking a crash course in learning to ride with stirrups. This is an amusing diversion from my normal equine fun and games.

I have never ridden with stirrups before last Monday evening. Stirrups are great for getting on horses. They make things so easy. The rising trot is simply enough and took just a few minutes to understand, and a good hack to master. You can certainly trot for much longer periods. My overall impression is that whilst riding in my four horn, or even a steppe saddle without stirrups, you do feel part of the horse. I don't like poetic statements about the horse and rider being as one, but you do respond to each other. The 19th century military saddles are really just steppe saddles with stirrups. But there is a feeling of greater artifice. Stirrups can be an extra aid for balance, and so I worry less about my centre of gravity. They seem a lazy idea, and just something else for the horse to carry.

As a Roman jobbing in the 19th century I don't think stirrups will catch on. But guns definitely do have a future.

[garrelt]

The dish illustrates the rider's leg in the classic "no-stirrups" position. .

Correct it is what you normally do before an impact or in gallop, it goes natural.
I have, until now, no experience with the horned saddle.
Most of the time that I was on a horse I rode without a saddle or just with a blanket or a sheepskin.
It can also be that I've learned a different way of riding.