Thanks in advance!

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.

--------------------

If you're not a big man, I'd suggest looking into this breed/cross. If you are a big guy this might not be the cross for you, as Haflingers top out at about 15 hands; however, you might get some extra height depending on the cross.

Did I mention how beautiful he is?

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

--------------------

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.

--------------------

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...

--------------------

--------------------

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.

--------------------

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.

--------------------

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.

---

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

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.

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!

--------------------

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

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.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seigneur de Leon:
Chef said: This is [b]MYWe just bought a registered Frisian colt.[/B]

---

I have to ask - How much was he and from what country are you from?

--------------------

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.