Roman bits and other horsemanship equipment

[tommy303]

Tiberius,

I am not so sure we really need question Hyland's approach to training, nor her interpretation of the training of cavalry horses in the ancient world. Today, as has been mentioned by other members of the forum, many a good horse has been ruined by a poor rider. Unfortunately this is true, and I should imagine that much of it has to do with the modern world in which we live (and some of us try to escape on occasion). It is probably true that many see a horse as a mere tool to use once in a while, but in ancient times, and indeed up well into the 20th century one could say that in many instances one's livelihood, if not one's life, depended on how well one treated and the thoroughness with which one trained one's horse or horses. There was an affinity between rider and horse which is quite rare today. Most people now, at least in the USA, know how to drive but far fewer know how to ride a horse in an expert fashion. When I was young, a good many decades ago, there were still a lot of men and women who knew how to ride but not how to drive, my grandfather being one. He grew up with horses and never made the transition from horse to automobile.

I think that with a large argrarian population, the Romans were probably quite good with horses and respectable riders, although perhaps not militarily by their own admission. The strength of the Roman army was its infantry and it was probably simply more effiicient for the Roman state to hire people who were militarily adept with horses than to try and train their own native sons. I think it would therefore to be wrong to presume that the Romans landed gentry were not good riders and that techniques were radically different from other time periods.

[RUBICON]

Fair point Thomas. True, maybe as the horse to any calvary rider was his what he relied on for one transport and two his own safety, I woudl imagine that they would have taken some interest in teh welfare of their mount. I guess the question lies in what knowledge was available in true horsemanship.

I see it daily when you talk to the 'oldies" they can pick a good horse and even better rider immediately and they often comment on the wealth made riders. They used to ride 30km to school muster cattle and ride home every day, horses were their livelihood, and I imagine this was probably like any calvary mount.

The training techniques and views expressed by Ann are quite commonplace and she is simply illustrating what we call breaking horses in....ie getting them used to being handled, bridles and ultimately ridden. Horses dont start maturing in body and mind til approx. 5 years of age, and their ability to handle pressure is what sets a good breaker from a bad one.

I dont think Tiberius was questioning Ann but merely not being experienced in this field he cant judge what she is writing.

There are many writers of past centuries such as xenophon and others who write extensively about Horsemanship, its just bizzare that for so many eras afterwards thehorse has suffered teh plight we have extensivley discussed. It is quite sad that in actual fact, there are not many positive writings on teh horse during Roman times?

[Ti Cl Nero]

Tiberius,

I am not so sure we really need question Hyland's approach to training, nor her interpretation of the training of cavalry horses in the ancient world.

Tommy,
thanks you for your reply.
So far, I've been looking at Hyland's book under a different point of view, being interested in her comments about specific military matters: what I was looking for in "Equus", was a comment about probatio of horses in III century auxiliary alae; that's why a debate dealing with radically different aspect of her works - with which I am far less familiar and which I can't, then, judge (thanks Rubicon, that's exactly what I meant) - sounds so interesting to me.
Regards.

[RUBICON]

Just to add, as Deb and Athena may agree with, as a competitive rider when you start a horse as a youngster, break it in, educate it, improve it and then start it on its competitive career with the ups and downs ( excuse teh pun as Im referring to a career in Showjumping). from their first competition where they use all their bravery to tackle a course that is only 1ft high to the days they canter down to a Grand Prix course of around 5ft - 6ft high, teh same feeling of ectasy is the same. When they help you out and leave te fences up when put in situatiosn where they couldnt really jump teh fence, you feel such a bond and a sense of gratitude that cant be explained until you have experienced it.

What I can never understand is how when if I feel so grateful to my horses when they canter safely around a shwojumping course, could a calvary rider not be thankful when a horse has bought him home safe from the battlefield?

[RUBICON]

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-840X(1992 )2%3A42%3A1%3C122%3ATHITRW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5


ust found this review of Ann's book....its not exactly positive stating that her knowledge and experience in training a horse is sound, but in the context of the transport horse, "the shortcomings are obvious" OUCH!

[RUBICON]

http://www.eclectic-horseman.com/newsle ... aAppia.php


Just found this site. Th ewriter seems quite positive in her fiindings!

[Lepidina]

When I was young, a good many decades ago, there were still a lot of men and women who knew how to ride but not how to drive, my grandfather being one. He grew up with horses and never made the transition from horse to automobile.

That was true for some part of the population involved with agriculture or the wealthy landowners. People in cities or lower-class or lower middle-class people didn't own horses or necessarily know how to ride. I need to find a source, but one quotation I hear a lot is that there are more horses in the US now than there were 100 years ago.

Certainly in Victorian England, more horses were used for transport than for riding as a riding horse was a luxury, esp. in the cities.

So the average cavalry man might be greatly endeared to his horses but not necessarily the average farmer. Plus the average cav guy would be able to read and write and thus record his feelings as opposed to the farmer.

As for starting domestic horses at 2, that was probably more for driving and plowing as it is safe to drive a horse at 2 because it doesn't stress their joints as much. Riding a horse that early is harmful because it stresses a horse's still developing joints. I can't stand the fascination with the racing industry here in the US because the horses are ridden far too young and break down. Barbaro is a prime example of that. I'd go on but that's a whole other tirade.

Need to get the Hyland books. I meant to borrow them from a friend last night and forgot to ask before I left. Heck, I just need to steal his whole library. It would make research a lot easier. [/quote]

[tommy303]

Hello Lepidina,

I would think, in the ancient world at least, oxen and mules would have been more common as beasts of burden than horses. The latter were much smaller than the Victorian Age's very large draft horses developed for pulling street cars, agricultural machinery, and freight wagons. That aside, you statement is well taken. There would of course be less affinity among city folk whose major exposure to horses would have been at the local race track or circus.

I would expect though, that the majority of cavalry recruits for native born units probably came from rural rather than urban settings, and that most were probably of some weath rather than what we would call simple farmers. Farmers in Roman times might own a plot of their own or they might work in a collective for some large landowner. Small farmers, when faced with the choice of buying and providing upkeep for either a horse, mule or oxe, would probably have chosen either the mule or oxe for work, but even so would still have lavished at least some attention and possibly affection on what was both a sizable investment and necessary tool of his trade.

I believe your analogy to the numbers of horses in the USA today as compared to the 19th and early 20th century is essentially correct. Mules were more numerous than horses and preferred by many. If I recall, General George Crook's preferred mount on campaigns was a mule.

A horse would have been an unnecessary luxury to a small Roman farmer, and best left to those that could afford them. It would likely have been the sons of the larger landowners who formed the organic cavalry attached to the legions since they would have been the ones who could afford to both breed and train horses. Under the circumstances, I would presume the majority of native born cavalry to have been sons of the patrician and upper level equestrian classes.

In Republican times, before the reforms of Marius, the monetary qualification for service tended to sort men into units based upon what they could afford to equip themselves as. Equipping oneself as a cavalryman was exceedingly expensive and was probably a naturally limiting factor, explaining to a large degree the relatively small cavalry forces originally fielded by the Romans and the practice of recruiting larger cavalry formations from foreign sources later on in Roman history.

[RUBICON]

"but one quotation I hear a lot is that there are more horses in the US now than there were 100 years ago. "


The racing industry alone would outnumber horses of past decades. Breeding programmes that now produce horses like packaged goods assembly lines has seen horses become a formidable industry of the 21st century.

Simply look at Germany, i think there are over 90,000 registered riders at the elite level strivng for 4 positions on an Olympic team...they all have a horse let alone a team of horses.

Breeding is big money, I guess what this thread is about again.