Author
|
Topic: Recommendations for Horse Breeds?
|
|
chef de chambre
Admin & Advocatus Diaboli
Member # 4
|
posted 01-09-2002 07:27 PM
Hi Jeffrey,Although several breeds "pedigrees" obstensibly go back to the middle ages, the breeding for differing type for differing purposes (for example Freisians undergoing a breeding programme to become carriage horses in the 18th century) have made it so that no modern breed is a perfect duplicate of it's Medieval forbearers. Medievals bred for "type", anyhow, rather than for purity of a bloodline, and a Medieval breeding programme would probably give a modern pure-bred breeder horrors. What you are looking for greatly depends on where and when - the "Middle Ages" covers a thousand years of history, and what made for a good mount by "type" changed over the course of it as tactics and weapons changed. The "type" that is most appropriate for a 15th century courser would be what in modern terms a "heavy hunter". If you intend to mount it from the ground in full plate, then you had best not exceed 15.3 HH in height. For temperment, you want a quiet, courageous, willing horse that is obediant to the rider, especially if you are trying to replicate moves from a fechtbuch. Other than that, knock your socks off. If you want a 'palfrey' (as in a horse of quality that a knight would have ridden for "show" on a more daily basis), then some sort of a gaited horse is a must. The terms Destrier, Courser, Rouncey, Palfrey - all indicate a "type", and a job description, rather than any breed. Hope this helps. -------------------- Bob R.
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
Brenna
Member
Member # 96
|
posted 01-09-2002 10:39 PM
You might want to look at a Foundation bred Quarter Horse bloodline outcrossed with a TB or draft. You will get a more refined body type that is round and stock with out the bulky look of most modern drafts.Another destrier wonderful body type are the Friesian/Morgan crosses. Make sure though you get a Morgan out of the preservation bloodlines of Lippit or Government Remount. These are the stocky, round, strong, fearless horses with smooth forward gaits that are the true descendants of Figure--not the nasty modern show ring version of the Morgan that looks like a shorter Saddlebred. Welsh Cobs are very nice too and many of them are in the 15.2 range. Again, stocky, strong and fearless with a bunch of brains under their long bushy forelocks. My beastie is a pretty nice combination of Belgian and Foundation bred Quarter Horse, but he's a bit tall. 16.2 hands is not easy to mount from the ground in armor. He was bred specifically as a field hunter, a good hunter who actually chases the fox and hounds needs the height for the big stuff in most cases. Brenna -------------------- Where in this world can man find nobility without pride, friendship without envy, beauty without vanity? Here, where grace is laced with muscle, and strength by gentleness confined. He serves without servility; he has fought without enmity. There is nothing so powerful, nothing less violent; there is nothing so quick, nothing so patient. England's past has been borne on his back. All our history is his industry: we are his heirs, he is our inheritance. Ladies and gentlemen: The Horse! - Robert Duncan's "Tribute to the Horse"
Registered: Dec 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
CassandraDL
New Member
Member # 263
|
posted 01-12-2002 01:40 PM
Hi! I'm also new to this page and I would like to get other people's opinions too on this topic, and see how they compare with what I've come up with. Part of my ideas arise from having been involved with Blue Star, Al Khamsa and Bedouin Source arabians over the last couple decades or so. These are horses whose pedigrees contain nothing but horses documented to have come from only stock bred by the Bedouin tribes. (Disclaimer: if there are any AK breeders on this list, I'm not trying to start a "was Abbeian 111 actually a Hamidie horse" war or anything, just explore a point!) These horses are very pure in pedigree and breed pure, and so are very useful in making "custom" crosses. I also have bred Anglo-Arabs for many years, which have been incredible performers, both sport and theatrical-wise. Anyway, what I've seen is that the medieval horse probably stood between 15 and 16 hands based on a couple of things: in almost all of the images that I've seen from various periods throughout the middle ages the riders' feet extend below the horses' bellies (even granted that the "toes down" position seemed to be common); also, although I know that there were some individuals who were tall then, it seems like the median height for people was much shorter than now. Shoot, even the Gen-X kids are huge compared to most of my generation, and I was much taller than my grandmother. If you allow even a 1/4" to 1/2" difference in the size of someone's hand between now and then, it would put an 18 hand horse now around 16 hands then. Then too, while I can see how a bigger horse packing more momentum (mass x velocity) would be useful in late period jousting, I doubt that a man at arms on the battlefield would choose one. Just trying to mount or being able to maneuver and actually reach to effectively hit an opponent would be compromised. The bottom line I'm trying to get at I guess is that it seems like the 15-16 hand figure for destriers would be accurate. Many modern equine sources also indicate that a horse's weight-carrying capability decreases above 16 hands, and the smaller horses are perfectly capable of carrying a fully armored knight. Or perhaps this may be why they were led to battle. My son-in-law owns a Percheron/Belgian cross mare that is considered stunted as a draft. She is maybe 15.1 or 15.2 at 5 years of age, but is incredibly strong; she is also very cooperative and brave and will try her heart out for her owner, the essence of a war horse. My Blue Star stallion is 14.2 standing on his tippy toes, and yet has competed and won in many horse sports against larger breeds, and was ridden in medieval theatrical presentations by grown men with no problem. My present horse is the 2 yo granddaughter of my old Anglo mare. She is the result of the lady we used to board with turning my daughter's Anglo mare out with that lady's Blue Star-Standardbred/Walking horse colt. What a mis-mash! "Mouse" is plain bay, but will be a nice horse for my mounted archer persona as she is a nice type of riding horse, but not flashy. I hope no one takes offense to any of my ideas/opinions. I enjoy bouncing thoughts off of like-minded people as it helps me get new ideas for my own theories.
Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
chef de chambre
Admin & Advocatus Diaboli
Member # 4
|
posted 01-12-2002 04:13 PM
Hi Cassandra,I Think you are dead on regarding average height of a warhorse, principaly from an issue of mounting from the ground in harness. One thing to keep in mind though, size of people or animals is most closely a function of diet, following genetic disposition. Medieval people were not typically short - not as is commonly thought of. In the late Middle ages, diet was usually adequate, and forensic studies of Medieval cadavars have given an average height for a male of between 5'6", and 5'10" - I am average for a Medieval male - 5'8". Men could and did reach or pass 6' (a classic example was Edward IV), and people like Sire Genhouliac, master of the French Artillery during the Pavia campaign (1525) hit a whopping 7'. Ulrich II who's harness resides in the Churburg armoury was a 6 1/2 footer. Womens heighth ran from about 5'3" - 5'7" from my understanding. I cite these examples just to put out there that we are not that much taller than our Medieval counterparts. The industrial Revolution from the late 18th - early 20th centuries led to more of the population working in cities in unhealthy conditions, being poorly paid and largely malnourished, which led to a drop off in height that stayed with us as a trend until mid 20th century. Post-war, heights have "boomed" due to an abundant (and often over-abundant) diet. A case can be made that taller horses were known. The Burgundian army of 1465, during the war of Public Weal were mounted on unusually large horses, according to the eyewitness Phillipe de Commynes. Also, Pietro Monte, in reccommending a warhorse in his "Collectiana" (published 1509 Milan, but written pre 1496) pointed out that "one should pick a warhorse of middling size, but if a horse should err to shorter, or to taller, then the taller horse was to be preffered". I think the dead middleing size was 15.2hh. I also think that a horse much more than 16hh is unlikely (but not impossible, someone like Ulrich or Edward might have needed a taller mount) - having a horse that is 16.3hh, I can tell you it is currently impossible for me to mount him in harness without a step. I am working on it, but it will never be easy. Once I am on him though, I don't think he "looks" too big. I really don't think he "looks" too big without me on him, it is just a function of my inseam measure vs. his height. A pureblood draft 17hh or more would, IMHO look too big, and also not resemble the coursers and destriers in late Medieval sources. I have seen some pictures where the riders foot does not extend past the belly. In my opinion, what has always made for a good cavalry mount is a brave horse - one with heart, and quiet courage, and a willingness to do for the rider. An unmanageable mount would ruin a cavalry formation, and I think the 1923 US artillery manual I have with the section on picking mounts suitable for service would read familiarly to any remount service in any age. Type may change as the job changes, but temperment needed is a constant. Yes, a smaller horse could carry a fully armoured knight, if it is the man and his harness itself he is carrying I think some smaller ones would be weeded out when you add to that the war saddle, and the harness for the horse. By 1450, a warhorse of quality would be expected to carry the additional weight. Of course, the warhorse wasn't riden about casually, and would only be mounted by the man-at-arms upon readying for action. A courser may have done double service, but destriers were too expensive. An interesting topic as always. -------------------- Bob R.
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
Seigneur de Leon
Member
Member # 65
|
posted 01-13-2002 12:48 AM
quote: Medieval people were not typically short - not as is commonly thought of. In the late Middle ages, diet was usually adequate, and forensic studies of Medieval cadavars have given an average height for a male of between 5'6", and 5'10" - I am average for a Medieval male - 5'8".
And I am exactly average for a modern US male at 5'10", a 2" difference actually being a lot. Now if I weighed 160 lbs. still... -------------------- VERITAS IN INTIMO VIRES IN LACERTU SIMPLICITAS IN EXPRESSO
Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chef de chambre
Admin & Advocatus Diaboli
Member # 4
|
posted 01-13-2002 10:51 AM
Hi Otto,There is no doubt they were breeding horses in Perche in France in the 15th century. That said, the modern Percheron does not closely resemble a Medieval destrier. Too big, and although more refined than many drafts, too course. No way were Medieval warhorses 17hh or 18hh, surviving evidence in the form of horse armour argues against that. All these draught horses were bred "up" in the 18th century, either to draw heavy cart loads, or to pull trees out of forrests. For a warhorse to be successful, they must be nimble - most pureblood drafts are not. Cassandra's son-in-laws Percheron/Belgian draft cross is pretty exceptional - most draft/draft crosses are not nimble. Percherons are fairly nimble for a draft, but a round barrel and short withers leads to knight hitting ground trying to mount as saddle twists round under the belly. My "little buddy" Normandie is a foundation quarterhorse/Percheron cross. I have a lot of faith in draft crosses, precisely because most of them are so even tempered. Some riders mistake that for stupidity (and God knows you can get a dull horse), but the ones we have owned or dealt with have on the contrary, been very intelegent critters, quick to learn, and eager to please. Anyhow, if a pureblood draft is all you have, I wouldn't say nay to your playing with us. If you were to present it to the public as an accurate represenmtation of a late Medieval destrier, I'd have to pipe up. There are always exceptions to the rule, as Cassandras example seems to be both the right height, have the courage, and be nimble enough for the task. Again, I say look for "type" to fill the job description, rather than getting hung up on breed, and you will not go far wrong. You might find a purebred with all the required traits and disposition, you might find a cross, you might find a quarterhorse or morgan cross to fill the role, you might use a Lustiano. What matters is how tall they are (you have to be able to mount them), the hoprse needs to be willing, and most importantly in a modern reenactment horse, they need an even temperment. Nobody needs an unmanagable mount at a reenactment with the public about. -------------------- Bob R.
Registered: May 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
Seigneur de Leon
Member
Member # 65
|
posted 01-13-2002 06:48 PM
Chef said: quote: you might use a Lustiano.
This is MY idea of the perfect destrier, although there was no way we could afford one. We just bought a registered Frisian colt, but since he is only 1 year old, we of course haven't ridden him, so I can't comment yet on his gaits. The ones we rode were smooth, and about the right size at 15 - 16 hands. Barak has the most beautiful trot, I've never been interested in carriages before, but seeing his trot I believe one is in our future plans. Our last horse, Merlin, was a percheron/morgan cross - a beautiful horse, but he was a tad clumsy as well as being skittish, and was way too tall. Victor's reg. percheron mare is a lousy warhorse, fat and clumsy with no get-up-and-go at all. I personally wouldn't use a full blooded draft. The Renn. Faires I've seen where the jousters ride them has convinced me that sitting their rolling gait would be more trouble than the actual combat itself. Tom & his wife, who post here as Combatants Keep, have Arabians and he wears a full gothic late 15th C. harness. He has no problem at all with his horses bearing the weight, and they are far, far, far more agile than Vic's percheron or our old perch/morgan cross. -------------------- VERITAS IN INTIMO VIRES IN LACERTU SIMPLICITAS IN EXPRESSO
Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
CassandraDL
New Member
Member # 263
|
posted 01-14-2002 12:49 AM
quote: Originally posted by chef de chambre: Hi Otto,Again, I say look for "type" to fill the job description, rather than getting hung up on breed, and you will not go far wrong. What matters is how tall they are (you have to be able to mount them), the hoprse needs to be willing, and most importantly in a modern reenactment horse, they need an even temperment. Nobody needs an unmanagable mount at a reenactment with the public about.
********************************** Very good point; checking out breeds is a good way to start, but be sure to buy the horse, not the breed, especially if a breed happens to be the current fashion. You certainly want to avoid the "puppy mill syndrome!" The same breed can be different from Europe to America, or have variations in the same country. Brenna's point was great about looking at Remount bloodlines in Morgans as you are more likely to find an original type then what is currently fashionable in the showring. Our Anglos perform incredible physical feats and also work great with crowds, noise and confusion. I think it is no accident that the Anglo-Arabian registry was maintained by the American Remount Society up until the mid 1950's. These types of bloodlines would be a good starting point for a destrier search, as the criteria of the Remount org was based on practical applications of what was needed in a warhorse, and that has not changed much over the centuries until recent times. Soundness, thriftiness and common sense are paramount. Just a thought on the Percheron thread: I have noticed that the modern Perchs (especially in this country where the concept of "bigger is better" seems popular) often seem to be huge and waaay too hot tempered. When I studied horse breeds as a child (50's-60's) it was always emphasized that Perchs were one of the smaller draft breeds, and that they were the draft breed that contained the most Arab blood, which showed in their often attractive heads (Maggie's head is gorgeous, very Araby looking). This was always the "common wisdom" in regards to this breed. If you study asil Arab types, you can really see this kind of look in the Kuhaylan strain. They tend to be a chunkier type than say, the Saqlawi or Abbayan, but still with hard, clean legs and heads that were wider between the eyes but still chisled, sort of like the reliefs on the Parthenon. North Africa has long been a source of this strain, which probably spread quite a bit north to Europe, possibly from the Crusades and the Moorish occupation of Spain. I'm thinking that the original Perchs were probably closer to the "source" than some of the other draft breeds. Most peoples probably bred what they had to what they could get, and tried to acquire outcross blood to improve their local stock. I agree with "chef" that probably our modern drafts do not translate exactly to what a medieval destrier was. However, if you look carefully for a more archaeic type (in the same manner as older, typier blood can be found in Morgans, Anglos and Bedouin source Arabs, or in a mare such as Maggie), than you have a chance to breed for a suitable type. Be warned though, that breeding, growing and training horses is time consuming and there are no guarentees of what you'll get. But at least you'll know how the horse was raised and if you get lucky it is fantastic. Buying a horse from someone else is much more difficult! And yes, I am aware that I'm rambling.  On another line of thought: My degree is in Latin, so most of my historical studies were in the classical period, and I'm new to the medieval history. I wonder if someone could clearly define what constitutes the characteristics of a palfey, courser, rouncy, etc? Did these characteristics change over the centuries? (it is a big hunk of history we're refering to!) Thanks!
Registered: Jan 2002 | IP: Logged
|
|
NEIL G
Member
Member # 187
|
posted 01-14-2002 12:09 PM
Hi;As a VERY rough guide (a caveat I insert before somebody takes a buzzsaw to my post - I'm going to massively simplify a complex reality), A) Destriers are bred purely as warhorses, and were the primary warhorse up to (very approx) 1350, after which coursers became more common as war horses, while Destriers became increasingly specialised as horses for the joust. B) Coursers are (as far as we can tell), lighter, faster and more manoeverable than Destriers, at the expense of some strength. By the end of the C15th, they are your normal war horse. C) Rouncies are either general purpose horses, or the lowest end of the warhorse/cavalry horse market - there is some disagreement here, probably because the use of the term changed through time D) Palfreys are high-quality riding horses, also used for hunting but not for war except as a second horse to allow you to keep your primary warhorse fresh - you rode the palfrey til battle was iminent then swopped to the destrier). E) Hackneys are basic riding horses, of a quality lower than a palfrey. G)Jennets initially seem to be quite similar to palfreys, and seem to be regarded as particularly suitable´for ladies, but by 1500 are regarded as excellent light cavalry horses. H) Affers and Stotts are agricultural/wagon horses, of small size and low value. Please note that there are several types I haven't mentioned ("Powys horses", hobbies etc), and it was common for a horse to be described by its origin (Neapolitan or spanish), or by its pace (an ambler or whatever) either in addition to or instead of the "types" above. Good books to look at - Knights and Warhorses (Ayrton) - Warhorse from Byzantium to the crusades/12500 -1600 (Both Hyland) - The Medieval warhorse (Davies) Ayrton's book covers only a very limited period (basically the reign of Edward III), and all the others have very serious weaknesses indeed, to the point of being plain wrong in some cases, but there isn't much else I can recommend until you've got a basic grounding. Hope that helps Neil
Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
hauptmann
unregistered
|
posted 01-14-2002 02:14 PM
Neil,On the whole, a good digestion of the info. Good to see it all together in one place. You're talking about England, right? I'd imagine that some of the terms and types translate to the continent, but knowing the differences in practices (especially relating to cavalry tactics), it seems that what applies in England doesn't NECESSARILY apply to the Continent. Please clarify and/or specify, if possible. [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: hauptmann ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Brenna
Member
Member # 96
|
posted 01-14-2002 03:48 PM
quote: When I studied horse breeds as a child (50's-60's) it was always emphasized that Perchs were one of the smaller draft breeds, and that they were the draft breed that contained the most Arab blood, which showed in their often attractive heads (Maggie's head is gorgeous, very Araby looking). This was always the "common wisdom" in regards to this breed. If you study asil Arab types, you can really see this kind of look in the Kuhaylan strain. They tend to be a chunkier type than say, the Saqlawi or Abbayan, but still with hard, clean legs and heads that were wider between the eyes but still chisled, sort of like the reliefs on the Parthenon. North Africa has long been a source of this strain, which probably spread quite a bit north to Europe, possibly from the Crusades and the Moorish occupation of Spain. I'm thinking that the original Perchs were probably closer to the "source" than some of the other draft breeds.
Another modern draft breed that still carries some of it's original type are the Boulonnaise horses. The smaller strain (which was almost a draft pony) which was bred separately through the 19th century seems to have disappared but even the so called "larger" type comes in right aroun 15 to 15.2 hands, has the smaller, more refined head and appropriately sturdy body type. Unfortunately there are less than 3000 of these horses in existance today but they might supply an excellent mount if you are willing to spend the money to import one  quote: I have always heard that the bigger a horse gets (over the 16 hand range) the less, proportionately, it can carry.
The key to a horse's ability to carry weight is his/her bone density. Those drawing the conclusion that height has nothing to do with a horse's weight carrying ability are right on track. Brenna PS Hello Cassandra! It's so nice to actually meet someone who knows about the American Remount Society! -------------------- Where in this world can man find nobility without pride, friendship without envy, beauty without vanity? Here, where grace is laced with muscle, and strength by gentleness confined. He serves without servility; he has fought without enmity. There is nothing so powerful, nothing less violent; there is nothing so quick, nothing so patient. England's past has been borne on his back. All our history is his industry: we are his heirs, he is our inheritance. Ladies and gentlemen: The Horse! - Robert Duncan's "Tribute to the Horse"
Registered: Dec 2000 | IP: Logged
|
|
Callum Forbes
Member
Member # 230
|
posted 01-14-2002 05:04 PM
From the point of view of being able to do mounted combat activities selecting a horse on it's spirit and temperament is more important than its actual breeding. As people have pointed out earlier it is very difficult to find a breed of horse that has remained unchanged over time as the breed may have been modified in later centuries to suit the requirements of the time.So we select our horses more on what we perceive a 14th century medieval warhorse would have looked like and we limit our selection process to relatively powerfully built horses in the 15 to 16 hand range. We then look at the horse's spirit and temperament, e.g. we want horses with a strong spirit as they will be riding against other horses in the joust and in melee combat as well as against infantry. We also want a horse with a stable temperament, e.g. that it doesn't panic when something unexpected happens. -------------------- URL=http://www.jousting.co.nz Facebook [URL=http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1290562306]
Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
NEIL G
Member
Member # 187
|
posted 01-15-2002 04:41 AM
Hi Hauptman;I am indeed talking about England - I'm afraid because it was trying to answer a general question, I reverted to "Default setting"! In fact, however, most of the comments apply pretty much across europe. Cavalry may have been used differently, but French and Italian writers are as happy to talk about a horse as a Dextrarius or a Roncin as their english counterparts, and what they mean by these labels appears to be pretty consistent, probably because a lot of the names derive from the same latin roots. I don't really know what the Germans are labelling horses as - there simply isn't the literature available in English to study, as far as I'm aware. Neil
Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
MTteacher
New Member
Member # 503
|
posted 09-10-2003 05:53 PM
High,I am new to this forum but have followed it for some time as you give great information concerning horses in the Medieval period. I like to see that you think that bigger is not better and I totally agree that you should be looking for horses with the right temperment. I have been breaking horses ranch work and pleasure riding for about five years and when people ask me what kind of horse I think they should look at for these activities I tell them the same thing that I am reading in this forum. I seldom judge a horse by his appearance and rarely look at the shape of heads and colors when picking them out as some of the best horses I have ever rode would be considered ugly by some standards, ie. high withers and a big roman nose. I won't bore you all with all the things that I agree with on this site as that is most of it, so on with my point. Though I rarely recommend breeds, I do kind of have a thing for ponies and the pony crosses like Shetlands, Welshes, and Icelandics. I have found ponies are very smart and have great temperments if given the same attention and training as their larger cousins. Also they can carry more weight per pound than a a lot of horses. Granted, we are talking war horses here so they are small, but bread to a horse you can end up with a cross that stands 14 or 15 hands high with a great temperment. I have a Welsh cross out at my place and he is about 14 hands. He responds well and is nearly bomb proof. I bring this up because many pony breeds can be traced quite aways back, especially the Icelandics. Maybe it was just the way that the Bayeaux Tapestry was sewn, but those horses sure appear small compared to the rider. One last thing, I am sorry to hear that you guys have to pay so much for horses. It kind of keeps enjoying them only open to the rich. I feel blessed knowing that I can pick up registered paints, Quarter horses, and draft for about a tenth of the price you guys pay. Anyway, keep on sending the responses. I think you guys are well informed and offer great insights into horses and the Medieval Period.
Registered: Sep 2003 | IP: Logged
|
|
philippe willaume
New Member
Member # 570
|
posted 03-11-2004 12:06 PM
From the few document I have been able to read and the picture I have seen, here is my In the 15 cent it seems that you had two big type of warhorse. To simplify lets call them German and Italian. (It is not true per se but that avoids periphrases.) For the matter of the discussion let’s assume the horses have the right mental disposition War horse in Europe seems to have been relatively small, French English illustration if the beginning of the century seems to give a horse about 150 cm at the shoulder relatively slender. It is difficult to evaluate because the riding position is as you would if you had no stirrups (and my foot will go way over the belly of my mare when I rode her without saddle I am 5.11 and she is 172-4 at the shoulder) That seems to be horse painted by Durer for example. So those types of horse Hispanic horses, quarter horse, small side of the French trotting horse or light hunter as long as they have a short back should do the trick. Morgan for example would do fine or Frisian. However Italian starting with the illustration from fiore and latter with Ucello seems to be a bigger and taller animal. Using Ucello painting horse seems to be about 165 cm however the position of the rider is more, as we know it know so that probably has an influence on the perception That being said French sources, commented on the size of the Lombard horse. Comparing durer and ucello horse you can see that one is much bigger than the other. That type of horse would correspond to the light traction branch of the percheron. What used to be call postier at the time of my grand father basically traction horsed dedicated to the post cart traction (traction horse selected for their speed). So a horse A tall bolonais or a heavy hunter may do the trick. Ps my main problem wit harmour is not really getting up it is getting off …J
Registered: Mar 2004 | IP: Logged
|
|
|