Horse shoes? Tied on not nailed?

[John Conyard]

Well I think Romans did have access to nailed horse shoes. But finds are rare, and perhaps even rarer in a military context in Britain, so Comitatus don't use shod horses.

[Ulfwin]

I just stumbled over this thread ...

@ the horseshoe from Hagenbach: I doubt the dating of that horseshoe. The Hagenbach find was dug out by a excavating machine in a gravel pit over a long time, 1961 to 1973. The gravel is dug out under the groundwater level, the gravel from the top layers sliding down in the water, the machine excavating always from the deepest point of the pit. So there are no archeological strata, everything from modern to ancient times is collected in the deepest point. Sure, most finds are dated because they equal other finds with a secure dating. But this horseshoe would be very exceptional for late antiquity, while being normal for a medieval find. So, from what it equals, this is no Roman horseshoe as long as there is no better evidence to compare.
The exhibition of the horseshoe in connection with the Hagenbach Hortfund is in one way correct: it was dug out together with the other items. By a huge machine. But accrediting the same dating without other evidence, that is imho pretty questionable.

Another point, myself being a rider, too: I own an Iceland pony, and it definitely needs horseshoes when I ride much on concrete, macadam, gravel roads. Despite being of a "hard" race. My wife's got an Andalusian horse that never needed shoes. I think, it is a question of the upbreeding. My pony was borne and bred on soft meadows. Her horse was born and bred on hard, dry grounds, full of rocks.

I know from Iceland ponies in Iceland, a land full of hard, vulcanic stone, that they are used pretty hard, in two different ways: either being horseshoed, or with many horses to change during the ride. That means, nowadays (!) when the ranchers ride to their traditional gathering, the landsmot, then it is maybe five or six men riding 200 km to the meeting, driving a number of 30 horses with them and changing the horses almost every hour. The horses without riders don't suffer from abrasion as much as the others, because they don't carry extra weight and because they decide themselves where they put their feet. But the Icelanders have no problems in nailing a somehow fitting horseshoe on a horse during the trip, without the service of a blacksmith, if they see that abrasion goes too far.
Back to Rome: as long as the horses have hard hoofs and there is a system of exchange, there should not be much trouble without horseshoes. The horse sandals, that are made to be tied on, are probably only for special situations, steep ascents e.g. I think, they were removed as soon as possible, because the tying could cause sores, and the pretty flat iron soles would be abraded quite fast. A modern horseshoe with a thickness of about 8 mm doesn't last longer than two times being nailed on, say 10 to 12 weeks when I ride an average of 6 hours a week. That is max. 70 hours of use for 8 mm Iron. The soles of these horse sandals look thinner and would be worn off within a couple of days under a working horse, if they had been on allday use.
Antique authors, as far as I recall, knew well about how important hard hoofs are. When I remember right, Vitruvius recommends in his "X libris de architecturae" to build the floors of horse stables from oak wood, because it is a hard and (if cleaned regularly) dry surface because that is good for hard hoofs.

So far my two Eurocent,

Stefan

[Eleatic Guest]

The Hagenbach find was dug out by a excavating machine in a gravel pit over a long time, 1961 to 1973.

Don't you mean the Hortfund von Neupotz?

The phrasing below indicates that these are two different finds:

Der Hortfund von Neupotz wird den Germanenüberfällen von 259/260 n. Chr. zugeordnet, welche letztlich zum Fall des Limes führten. Er gehört damit zum selben Fundhorizont wie der Hortfund von Hagenbach oder der Hortfund von Otterstadt "Angelhof". Insgesamt sind inzwischen 18 Baggerfunde des 3. Jahrhunderts aus dem Rhein zwischen Seltz und Mannheim bekannt.

[Ulfwin]

Don't you mean the Hortfund von Neupotz?

The phrasing below indicates that these are two different finds:

Der Hortfund von Neupotz wird den Germanenüberfällen von 259/260 n. Chr. zugeordnet, welche letztlich zum Fall des Limes führten. Er gehört damit zum selben Fundhorizont wie der Hortfund von Hagenbach oder der Hortfund von Otterstadt "Angelhof". Insgesamt sind inzwischen 18 Baggerfunde des 3. Jahrhunderts aus dem Rhein zwischen Seltz und Mannheim bekannt.

Ehm. No.

But both finds, Neupotz and Hagenbach, also Otterstadt "Angelhof", Lingenfeld and some more 15 findspots were made while gravel, or better pebbles, was dug out from former sidestreams of the river Rhine.
The book "Der Barbarenschatz", Theiss Vlg. 2006, is in first line about the exhibition of the Neupotz finds, but also shows some things of the other, related, finds. The problems about archeological dating are shown at the example of Neupotz, but pebble-digging is a similar procedure anywhere, isn't it. It's huge machines bringing up tons of pebbles from the ground of a waterfilled hole, drivers see only by chance something that is not pebble, and with great luck are willing to stop work and call for a scientist.
In that book it is explained, that - after 20 to 30 years of pebble-digging - archeologists send divers in the water with sometimes a little success in guessing in which depth the Roman finds may have lain.

Great finds, nevertheless! Great book, too.

Regards,

Stefan

[Eleatic Guest]

Mr. Petrovszky, the Sammlungsleiter Römische Zeit, was so kind to provide this answer on my request about the Roman horseshoe:

Vielen Dank für Ihr Mail! Sie haben tatsächlich recht, was das Problem der römischen Hufeisen anbelangt. Es ist immer noch umstritten, ob die Römer Hufeisen kannten, aber es scheinen mittlerweile einige Hinweise in diese Richtung zu deuten. Vor allem sind es Steinreliefs aus dem Osten des Römerreiches, mit Pferdedarstellungen, auf denen Hufeisen angedeutet werden sowie ein wichtiger Hortfund aus Waldmössingen (Baden-Württemberg), wo mehrere Hufeisen in einem Eisendepot angetroffen wurden, die dafür sprechen. Meine Kollegin, Frau Dr. Bärbel Hanemann hat kurz darüber in Ihrem Aufsatz im Katalog "Geraubt und im Rhein versunken. Der Barbarenschatz", Speyer 2006, 139ff. berichtet.

Die Horte von Neupotz und Hagenbach enthielten ebenfalls Hufeisen, allerdings könnten diese Nachantik sein. Ich will mich zu den Hufeisen nicht äußern, da ich mich nie speziell dafür interessiert habe. Dennoch möchte ich mich nicht so ohne weiteres gegen ihre Existenz zur Römerzeit aussprechen, da zumindest Hufschuhe sicher bekannt waren, warum nicht auch Hufeisen? Und es hat sich immer wieder herausgestellt, dass angebliche technische Neuerungen der Neuzeit, den Römern schon lange bekannt waren.

So, in a nutshell, this particular horsehoe could be medieval or modern, but other evidence has surfaced by now which indicates that the Romans knew horseshoes.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Of course!!! :o D ( ) roll: :lol:

I was wondering if the tied on varients were actually a war shoe for the horse?

[fasta]

I've seen similar shoes/plates on work horses for road surfaces.We even used them on the farm up to the 1900's.I wish my grandfather had kept them to compare.If they are anything like the ones found at digs they can't be used at speed.They fly off or come off at one side and harm the horse.

They would need a very secure fastening to be used in war.

It would be interesting if someone had tested the dig finds design to see if speed can be achieved that would open the combat idea.

[Ulfwin]

Mr. Petrovszky, the Sammlungsleiter Römische Zeit, was so kind to provide this answer on my request about the Roman horseshoe:

Vielen Dank für Ihr Mail! Sie haben tatsächlich recht, was das Problem der römischen Hufeisen anbelangt. Es ist immer noch umstritten, ob die Römer Hufeisen kannten, aber es scheinen mittlerweile einige Hinweise in diese Richtung zu deuten. Vor allem sind es Steinreliefs aus dem Osten des Römerreiches, mit Pferdedarstellungen, auf denen Hufeisen angedeutet werden sowie ein wichtiger Hortfund aus Waldmössingen (Baden-Württemberg), wo mehrere Hufeisen in einem Eisendepot angetroffen wurden, die dafür sprechen. Meine Kollegin, Frau Dr. Bärbel Hanemann hat kurz darüber in Ihrem Aufsatz im Katalog "Geraubt und im Rhein versunken. Der Barbarenschatz", Speyer 2006, 139ff. berichtet.

So, in a nutshell, this particular horsehoe could be medieval or modern, but other evidence has surfaced by now which indicates that the Romans knew horseshoes.

Okay, I read the article from Dr. B. Hanemann.
She writes "....was die ... heftig diskutierte Frage über die Existenz römischer Hufeisen erneut aufwirft. Hufeisen sind weder in literarischen Quellen erwähnt, noch scheint ein lateinisches Wort dafür zu existieren. Unter den Bilddarstellungen römischer Zeit glaubt man inzwischen, auf zwei Reliefs genagelte Hufeisen zu erkennen. .... Zu den beachtenswerten Funden gehört der römische Hortfund von Waldmössingen, ein zum Konglomerat verbackenes Eisendepot, das vier Hufeisen enthielt....
Unabhängig davon, ob man von der Existenz römischer Hufeisen ausgeht ... befinden sich drei neuzeitliche Exemplare unter dem Neupotzer Fundmaterial..."

She talks about two Roman reliefs, on which meanwhile it is believed to recognise nailed-on horseshoes. And about an iron find from the Roman vicus Waldmössingen, containing 4 horseshoes. But still she doesn't take position if there were horseshoes or not. Just questionmarks.

I have ordered the publication about the Waldmössingen find and about the horseshoe visible on a Dacian relief. I will report my impressions as soon as possible.

Eleatic, don't take me wrong! I do neither believe in horseshoes nor in the opposite. I just want to check the evidence. There are many things with many questionmarks, and as long as my horse wears modern horseshoes I'd never tell the public, that these are modern but Romans had similar. I'd just say: modern. When the evidence is - in a vague way - convincing myself, I'd say: maybe Romans had, there is some evidence. When the evidence is exact and reliable, I'd have a Roman horseshoe replicated and would say: on my horse's hoofs, modern, but have a look, this is the replica of a Roman horseshoe.

So I don't want to fight one horseshoe find after the other, nutshell by nutshell :wink: , I have no fixed opinion, I am just looking for proofs. Okay, I am wondering why there are not thousands of horseshoe-finds, because they are quite effective, so if known they would have used them frequently, they wear off and get lost from time to time, mostly on a ride and in deep, wet ground, so they should be the ideal finding material. Even hobnails from Roman shoes are found after 2000 years, why not horseshoes? Should be an every day find. They had the technology and it would have been useful. Why don't we find the remnants everywhere? At least in cavalry forts? Should be plenty. So you may call me prejudging in a way. But I will gladly change my attitude as soon as I find the mentioned sources convincing.

Cheers,

Stefan

[Eleatic Guest]

To revive the intriguing debate, an excerpt from Lynn White's seminal Medieval Technology and Social Change, a bit dated now (1962), but still an expert treatment of the subject:

There is no present firm evidence of the nailed horseshoe before the end of the ninth century...There is no literary evidence that the Greeks, Romans, or Franks had the horseshoe: the closest they came were hipposandals and soleae attached with thongs or wires either for ornamentation or to help the healing of a broken hoof. Since the veterinary care of horses was of much concern to military writers, their failure to mention the shoe has more force than have most arguments from silence. Likewise there is no ancient or early medieval representation of horseshoes...

The earliest unambiguous excavated evidence of horseshoes comes from nomadic rider-graves of the Yenisei region in Siberia in the ninth to tenth centuries. Simultaneously, nailed horseshoes are mentioned in the Byzantine Tactica of the Emperor Leo VI,6 who reigned from 886 to 9II. And in the West we probably hear the first sound of shod hooves in the last decade of the ninth century when Ekkehard's Waltharius says 'ferrata sonum daret ungula equorum'.

In 973 Gerhard's Miracula Sancti Oudalrici speaks of nailed shoes as being habitual for those going on journeys. In 1038 Boniface of Tuscany was exhibiting his status by using silver nails in his horse's shoes. By the later eleventh century they must have been very common, for under Edward the Confessor (d. 1066) six smiths at Hereford annually each produced 120 shoes from the king's iron as part of their taxes.

SOURCE: Lynn White: Medieval Technology and Social Change, Oxford 1962, pp.57-59

So the late ninth century AD is the terminus ante quem for the appearance of the horseshoe and the earliest evidence is from far far away in eastern Siberia. Can we beat that?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

What period are the nailed shoes on display at Corbridge(I think) or one of the other wall museums?

[D B Campbell]

What period are the nailed shoes on display at Corbridge (I think) or one of the other wall museums?

I have been right the way through the collections of the Hadrian's Wall Museums (Housesteads, Corbridge, and the Clayton Collection, which is mainly Chesters) and they are conspicuous by their rarity.

So is there actually an example of a Roman nailed horseshoe? (I note that Fraser, quoted above, gives no proof of his sweeping statement.)

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Sorry, i missed Mikes post earlier. But i am sure there was a nailed horse shoe in a display, somewhere. In fact I am also sure I have a picture of it...
But, I cannot recall what the find context was, but I thought it was Roman....but i should have paid attention possibly.... :oops:

[mcbishop]

I have been right the way through the collections of the Hadrian's Wall Museums (Housesteads, Corbridge, and the Clayton Collection, which is mainly Chesters) and they are conspicuous by their rarity.

So is there actually an example of a Roman nailed horseshoe? (I note that Fraser, quoted above, gives no proof of his sweeping statement.)

I was hedging my bets :-) ) I have never excavated a stratified example of one nor found one in any collections that was indisputably Roman. Problem is, when one was found on a Roman site in days of yore, if it was rusty enough it was very easy to interpret it as Roman. They may indeed have been used (just as lorica segmentata may have been used by auxiliaries) but I have never seen any evidence that proves this was the case. Evidence is key in such matters.

Mike Bishop

[Eleatic Guest]

What period are the nailed shoes on display at Corbridge (I think) or one of the other wall museums?

I have been right the way through the collections of the Hadrian's Wall Museums (Housesteads, Corbridge, and the Clayton Collection, which is mainly Chesters) and they are conspicuous by their rarity.

So is there actually an example of a Roman nailed horseshoe? (I note that Fraser, quoted above, gives no proof of his sweeping statement.)

I read a bit about it yesterday and plenty of alleged Roman horseshoes have surfaced over the last hundred years, with a sizable part excavated by professional archaeologists in a clear Roman find context. However, there are at least as many counteropinions forwarded so that the whole topic has become pretty polemical. The clear terminus ante quem is the 7th-9th century AD, earlier finds beginning with the Celts are hotly debated.

To give you a taste of the back and forth, footnote taken from Lynn White:

Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie, vi (1924), 2056. G. Carnot, Le Fer cl cheval cl travers l'histoire et l'arcMologie (Paris, 1951), reviews the earlier literature and is convinced by nothing before the ninth-tenth century. Since then M. Hell, 'Weitere keltische Hufeisen aus Salzburg und Umgebung', Archaeologia austriaca, xii (1953), 44-49, and H. E. Mandera, 'Sind die Hufeisen der Saalburg romisch?', Saalburg-Jahrbuch, xv (1956),
29-37, defend early datings, whereas L. Armand-Caillat, 'Les Origines de la ferrure a clous', Revue arcMologique de l'Est et du Centre-Est, iii (1952), 32-36;
P. Lebel, 'La Ferrure a clous des chevaux', ibid. 178-81; F. Franz, 'Kannten die Romer Hufeisen?', Der Schlern, xxvii (1955), 425, and M. U. Kasparek,
'Stand der Forschung iiber den Hufbeschlag des Pferdes', Zeitschrift fur Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie, vi (1958), 38-43, agree upon the ninth-tenth century.

A cautious pro by an expert can be downloaded here: Erwin Ruprechtsberger - Hipposandalen und Hufeisen. Die Hufeisen aus dem Ennser Museum

[D B Campbell]

... plenty of alleged Roman horseshoes ... with a sizable part excavated by professional archaeologists in a clear Roman find context.

I'd be interested in these!