guy Posted January 12, 2022 Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) Replica of the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius, the original in the Capitoline museum. We discussed the size of horses in ancient history before. (The UNRV link below is partially broken and deleted.) The theory is that horses in ancient times were smaller than imagined. This article suggests that horses in medieval times were smaller; thus, horses in Ancient Rome were probably smaller, too. Quote Depictions of medieval warhorses in films and popular media frequently portray massive mounts on the scale of Shire horses, some 17 to 18 hands high. However, the evidence suggests that horses of 16 and even 15 hands were very rare indeed, even at the height of the Royal stud network during the 13th and 14th centuries, and that animals of this size would have been seen as very large by medieval people. The high medieval period (1200-1350 CE) sees the first emergence of horses of around 16 hands high, although it is not until the post-medieval period (1500-1650 CE) that the average height of horses becomes significantly larger, finally approaching the sizes of modern warmblood and draft horses. The tallest Norman horse recorded was found at Trowbridge Castle, Wiltshire, estimated to be about 15 hands high, similar to the size of small modern light riding horses. http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/medieval-warhorses-10449.html Edited January 14, 2022 by guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 I think what makes this news suprising for some is the fantasy of heavily armoured knights charging brazenly into the mass of enemy soldiers. History relates a few examples of cavalry trying this and it did not go well. When the Romans talk about cavalry in battle, they emphasise speed and manoever. It was fairly normal for opposing cavalry to face off and also for a cavalry unit to actually open up to allow the enemy though rather than force a collision. Remember jousting, a sport derived from practice. The whole point was to unhorse your opponent without colliding. It often came down to whose horses tired first. Mind you, even with smaller horses, weight makes a difference. If cavalry find you exposed or manage to get into a gap in force, you are going to have a hard time fending them off (though to be fair, many horsemen who got into the thick of a melee found themselves pulled off the saddle by weight of numbers and their life expectancy on the ground was pretty short. One thing that does make me stop to think - no wonder cataphracts and clibanarii did not like galloping. All that weight on a smaller horse put them at risk of losing out in tactics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Novosedoff Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 It can also be seen from the photo of the monument that Aurelius was riding his horse without stirrups to support his feet. This is very true because stirrups were invented later outside the Roman empire by nomads who came from the East. The first stirrups used to be made of leather, but the revolutionary innovation was due to Avars who started to use the iron stirrups, which were more effective in helping the rider to remain stable while shooting his bow, which drastically increased the accuracy of shooting. Btw, isn't it true that ancient people were a bit smaller too? Due to malnutrition etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted January 14, 2022 Report Share Posted January 14, 2022 Average height for a male Roman was 5' 4". They were a little intimidated by Germans who generally had better diets and were physically bigger. Stirrups - Not the game changer they usually get described as, but I can accept they assisted horse archers beneficially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Novosedoff Posted January 15, 2022 Report Share Posted January 15, 2022 (edited) On 1/14/2022 at 3:19 PM, caldrail said: Stirrups - Not the game changer they usually get described as, but I can accept they assisted horse archers beneficially. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPcuD2_4sz4 Watch this video in slow motion, especially the second part when the archer shoots backwards Imagine him doing the same if there were no stirrups. Stirrups drastically reduced the likelihood of falling. The difference between leather stirrups and iron stirrups is like the difference between shooting from the firm ground and from the flimsy soil of swampland. In addition, iron stirrups make it easier to tame a horse, which may be important when the rider has to change his horses often. Edited January 15, 2022 by Novosedoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.