Philippe, I don't completely agree with your "tall horse" estimates. I've studied Dürer, Fiore, Meyer looking at mounted combat and of all of them, the Flemish paintings showing Burgundians still present the tallest horses. Fiore is actually smallest in comparison.

I personally feel that approx 15.2 or 15.3 hands (157-160cm) was more the norm. I personally love to ride a 16.2 to 17.0 hand german warmblood but it doesn't match the pictures.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Friedrich:
For the less math inclined:
150cm = 14.3 hands
172-174cm = 16.3 to 17.0 hands
165 cm = 16.1 hands

Philippe, I don't completely agree with your "tall horse" estimates. I've studied Dürer, Fiore, Meyer looking at mounted combat and of all of them, the Flemish paintings showing Burgundians still present the tallest horses. Fiore is actually smallest in comparison.

I personally feel that approx 15.2 or 15.3 hands (157-160cm) was more the norm. I personally love to ride a 16.2 to 17.0 hand german warmblood but it doesn't match the pictures.

But that's my two pennies.
FvH

---

hello Friedrich;

your values are as good as mine (if not better)
I used mainly the jonh Hawkwood painting and the battle of san romano (the first of the two early paintings to get to that, assuming the blokes were 5.9 5.10

that being said the horse in st george and the dragon from the same Uccelo seems to be of smaller proportions....
anyway 160 or 165 is not too much of a difference given the method of calculation;
what about 162 or 163 ?

as far as modern horse are concerned, i think we need to look as they looked (ie keep the proportions) in the picture so if you are taller than 5.10, and riding italian styled, you probably need a bigger horse than 162 cm
beside, It is hard enough to find a horse that joust so if he/she is a bit small or a bit tall well... (adn i always like trakenher anyways so i can understand your dilema)

ps for the same less math inclined.
There is 4 inches in a hand hence
172-174cm = 16.3 to 17.0 hands as in 16 hands 3 inches which is 16.9 hands as in 16 and 90% of a hand).

quote:

---

Originally posted by philippe willaume:
as far as modern horse are concerned, i think we need to look as they looked

---

Agreed. We also need to consider that:

A) Our feed now is of much higher nutrition in the couple of hundred years. They eat better and get bigger. Just like people!

B) In the 17th and particularly the 18th century, so many horses (which influenced the current/modern horse) were selectively bred and re-bred to produce a taller, pulling horse for carriages. Even the Fresian... So our height comparison is understandably based on what we are used to seeing...

quote:

---

ps for the same less math inclined.
There is 4 inches in a hand hence
172-174cm = 16.3 to 17.0 hands as in 16 hands 3 inches which is 16.9 hands as in 16 and 90% of a hand).
don't you like imperials !!!!

---

Yup, I should have probably mentioned that little 4"=1hand conversion thing...
Thinking about it, I think I remember human people's height that way too...

We are basically looking at horses for a different purpose today than the medieval cavalryman would have considered. Most horses today (and correct me if I am wrong here) are looked at for jousting or show first, while in the middle ages logistical requirements figured big. By this I mean horses were selected for use on campaign (unless they were purchased specifically for tournaments or parades); then the difficulties of hard-feeding a large horse to keep it in condition, and the problems of maintaining soundness across hard country for long distances, would work against the largest horses.

Hence we see huge 17+ hand draft horses or crosses used in jousting displays today; had they even existed in the middle ages (and I have not seen a shred of evidence that they did, and plenty that they did not) they would ONLY have been used in tournaments as they would probably die or break down on a long campaign.

Another problem with the heaviest horses, as with the biggest people, is that they don't corner well. There is a bit of a fixation today on speed and impact (and I am as guilty as anyone here) but the lance charge was only the opening phase of any battle, if it happened at all, then it would be close combat where a nimble horse was vital to survival, let along success.

I am 6'3" tall (190cm) and weigh 220# (100kg) dry, my heavy jousting armour (which I am looking at replacing) brings me up to 308# (140kg), far heavier than most horses in the middle ages would have had to carry before plate barding became common(er).

Haesel is a "mixed breed" with western riding background, 15.2 hands, weighing about 1320# (600kg). She carries me with no problems, though she is getting older (about 19 now) and at the last two-day tournament, carrying me and another slightly lighter rider (no, not at the same time!), she coped well, though she was getting visibly tired and ratty on the second day (can't say I blame her, I really felt a bit sorry for her).

In "The Armourer and his Craft" by Charles ffoulkes (1912) he gives a chart on page 119 of the different weights of contemporary cavalry kit, ranging from (including an imaginary 140 pound rider) 246 lbs. for a British Cavalry horse to carry, to 334 lbs. for a German Cuirassier's. (US Regulations of the 1880's stipulated that the total should be about 225 lbs for man and complete kit.) (Obviously the German Cuirassier is significantly heavier than the others, but they would be technically considered "Light" cavalry, while there is no question that the Cuirassier would be classified as "Heavy", and not expected to do any of the normal cavalry screening duties, thus saving the horses from undue fatigue. I will assume that they were probably issued larger horses as well, as was the custom for Heavy cavalry. I don't know which breed it would have been, but the German Light horse was fond of the Trekhaners. Perhaps the Hanoverian horses, a good solid, but not huge breed, was used? I'm open to suggestions and corrections here!)

In another part of the table ffoulks shows a weight of 333 lbs for the armour for man and horse, saddle, arms, clothes, etc. from the Musee d;Artillerie in Paris. (Another graph for armour from the Tower shows the man's armour at 64lb 13oz., the horse's armour at 69lb. 3oz.) So it shows that the basic load of the horse didn't really change much over time, only the specifics of the kit. What the horse had to carry certainly was about the same, at least to some degree.

Obviously an army can pick and choose it's cavalrymen for size, which isn't possible here and now with a hobby (I'm 6'4" and weigh 200 lbs, so I'm WAY over the top limit for cavalrymen in a real army!), so a horse has to be a bit bigger to account for that, but not as much as modern jousters would have it. Although it's fun riding a Percheron or a Shire, it's not necessary!

Too, one must keep in mind that with one horse to ride, and one to use as a weapon in battle, the war horse wouldn't need to be quite as sturdy as one might think, as it wasn't carrying the full 333lbs on it's back day in and day out while on campaign like a later cavalry horse was with it's lighter load. Thus the extra weight wouldn't be constant. It might well carry the saddle and barding, but be ridden by a lad with no armour or weapons upon him. Thus the Palfrey and Destrier may well be carrying the same weight when on campaign, if not in battle.

Back to breeds/types and modern use, however. The horses that were successful cavalry mounts in recent memory would probably make successful war horses in any time period. But also, I would postulate that the modern Quarter Horse with "Cow sense" would be a good candidate as well, since they are usually trained to think on their feet, neck rein with a light touch (using bits very much akin to their Medieval counterparts), and withstand some serious shock when a half-ton beast comes to a crashing halt against the lariat lashed to the horn of their saddle. I haven't done any roping myself, nor been hit by a lance (though I've hit some heavy objects with a lance), and I would suggest that the shock is rather similar in type, if not direction. Too, your average modern "Cowboy" isn't the 140lb teen-ager of the 19th Century, but more often than not a rather heavily built middle-aged man weighing in at well over 250lbs, and using a stout, 35-50-pound saddle. Any horse that can deal with that sort of punishment all day can easily deal with some armour and lance work, I think!

Obviously most horses can be made to do most things, but finding the right horse for the job can be a chore. As noted in other posts, there doesn't seem to have been so much a "breed" as a "type" of horse that was favored by the Man-at-Arms. Large and sturdy, so as able to carry a full load, but not bulky or unweildy would be the primary considerations. There are plenty of good breeds out there that fulfill the role, and looking at their present occupations is one way of testing before buying.

Food for thought, and I welcome your comments.

Gordon

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

I completely understand (from a practicality standpoint) where you are coming from, but I am not certain about your reasoning as I think you are generalizing too far.

From a practicality point of view, I do agree that a solid working horse like a foundation quaterhorse MIGHT (pending your useage) make a good medieval style/type horse. (And there have been many good discussions regarding other unique breeds which we will not get into again right now as they were non-european. And there are many "local" pony breeds too.)

Again, from a historical perspective, general riding horses were usually no taller than say 15.3 hands (63 inches). In fact taller or migher horses were rare and, were specifically mentioned in historical accounts of the Burgundian mighty (tall/large) horses that they rode.

A question I have for you is what TYPE or USE of horse are you defining? A draft type horse (sure footed, usually shorter, bred for pulling) is not an appropriate horse for riding for endurance/distance. Nor does it necessarily make a good jouster or charger. The horse has mass, is stable under saddle, but is slow to accelerate. But, I guess it depends in what you want.

The specific breeds you mention (Trahkahner and Hanovarian) are wonderful breeds (and expensive - trust me, I worked full time on a special importing farm specifically for german warmbloods for a year). The problem is that these breeds were cross bred much later with Arabian and infused with other breeds to create a riding/sport horse out of earlier work and carriage (16th and especially 17thC) horses.

While breeding horses was a survival way of life (military), early records of attempts at breed purity don't appear until later. (Again mid 16th and 17thC.)

I do agree that type is more important, and frankly, if you have a solid, reliable horse that meets the general height and use, you are adding value to the re-enactment and living history presentation anyway (provided you are doing historical activities).

From a breed perspective, and this so depends on where you "come from" in a living history pervue. For example, a noble riding horse from the lowlands might well have been a Fresian (and there has been some changes to this breed too over the years) or an early version of an Oldenburg (which was desired as a carriage/cart horse originally). Another breed is the Neopolitan.

From the south,

pending where you came from, you might have had a strong Arab influenced horse (similar to the Andalusian perhaps).

Or, from Germany, you had a variety including swiss alpine, Bavarian or Tyrol/Austria. Modern choices that I think are potentially similar (in type) might be an early Noriker, Württemberger (although it also has had Arab influece) or early Bavarian Warm Bloods also locally known as the Rottaler (except that this breed has been modified as well). Even the Haflinger had significant Arabian influece in it's history. The swiss also have their version of the Anglo-Norman (Einsiedler).

The problem is that there has been so much influence in "improving the breed", that breeds, in conjuction with different needs and desires of each time period, have changed so many times that they are not easily comparible to what really existed. At best, pictures and paintings give the best clues for type.

The other issue to mention is feed. Improvements in care and feed have also had a major impact. Grain in general (except oats perhaps) has significantly changed the use of the horse. Like medicine, this changes height, weight, endurance, etc.

I suppose my thesis is rather the same as yours, in that one needs to go for a "type" of horse, rather than a specific breed, common to the area you intend to portray. Indeed, even within modern breeds one finds many "types" (I have a QH that looks like a heavy-boned TB, while a friend's QH is often mistaken for a Morgan, and the horses are related to boot) which can be confusingly diverse, so it would be no easly job.

Part of what I was trying to convey however is that there are many modern "breeds" doing the work that was reserved instead for "types" in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. I think it an excellent point that one must look for type when buying, rather than a specific breed, but that when a bloodline is bred to a certain line of work which parallels some of the earlier demands on the horses, such as the QH in it's stock work vs. close combat, then it may well prove to be a prime candidate for your use. Of course, it would ONLY be a starting point, and who knows, the best horse for the job may well be something way outside of the "breed" you are generally looking at, but fits the "type" perfectly.

Of course, when you get down to it, you pretty much find a horse that you are comfortable with, looks right, and has the heart and spirit to do the job you want to do with enthusiasm, and then go for it!

My old War Horse is a QH/Hanoverian mix who is about 15.3hh, and has the spirit to do anything I ask of him. He's a wonderful old trooper, but sadly is pushing 30 so we don't do as much together as I would like! But who knew? He's not the specific mix I would have ever thought of, but he sure has "the look"!

And although I have not managed at all to clarify the situation, I shall leave you with this essay from Michel de Montaigne which, though from 1580, neatly sums up much of the period thoughts on the subject:
http://www.idbsu.edu/courses/hy309/docs/montaigne/montaigne.05.html

Cheers, and happy riding!

Gordon

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

What do you think of this combination?

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

I've ridden at least 6 Friesians-- geldings, mares and a stallion of varying sizes and body types and only one of them would I have considered suitable as a warhorse and he was really too big to fit the Medieval "type" at over 16hh. Generally, I find Friesian's trot impossibly rough and their canter much too large, when compared to other types or breeds. I rode an Andalusian stallion in armour several years ago, at about the same time I was riding the Friesians and found his gaits very nice, plus he was fearless, though a little too agressive around other horses. Though that was probably a lack of socialization. In direct comparison I much preferred the Andalusian and think they're much closer to a destrier "type" depending of course on what region and period we're considering. His conformation didn't quite match what I've seen in visual sources, but his ride was very workable.

Overall, horses with short strided canters, like the Spanish breeds, where the weight of the horse is well back on the haunches, seems to work best for martial pursuits. The short stride makes it much easier to keep your body in the proper position and allow your lance to stay on target. In '03, at the Armouries tournament, I rode a TB/Irish draught cross stallion with a big canter (he was 16+hh) mostly on the forehand, and he was quite difficult to get settled on prior to impact. This year, I rode a spanish cross mare, who was at least a hand shorter and had a nice short stride. She got up to speed quicker, settled earlier and overall went at least 25% faster. A much better ride.

Since I lost Bella, I've been looking for a shorter horse, about 14-2 to 15-3 HH, with a short stride canter who's weight's back. Couple that with trying to find a horse that looks like it stepped out of a Rene' manuscript, and I'm having a difficult time. The search continues.

the Trankenher was breed made by the Teutonie Knigths but now its been with TB to size up the breed make bigger lighthorse 16+ hands good for a hunter jumpers.

The Holstein breed is from 13c. this horse was used a warhorse & in touney in the U.S. it's high $$$$$$$$$$ Horse for up scale fox hunter type.

But one of the old breeds of pure of stock is the Andalusian save from war by monks & controlled breeding thay some old breeder books El Cid horse was a Andalusian
the Friesian come from this stock.

Lipizzaner is a later breeds but come from old blood line of period hores with some smart breeding.

note Shire are 19c the Perchcron 18c Clydesdale is late 17c they are draft hores used to pull big & havey thing Field guns
its just not a mounted war horse & not a period horse.

I say Cross breed warm blood who that looks the role with old blood lines is ok

quote:

---

I've ridden at least 6 Friesians-- geldings, mares and a stallion of varying sizes and body types and only one of them would I have considered suitable as a warhorse and he was really too big to fit the Medieval "type" at over 16hh. Generally, I find Friesian's trot impossibly rough and their canter much too large, when compared to other types or breeds.

---

Baroque or sport horse?

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

Hello Hokala, welcome. I'm a classical dressage person too, but due to financial concerns, find my self in the competition environment.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angelique:
Wow, you found Friesians to have a rough trot and a hard to sit canter? I can't say that I have had that experience, but their gaits are somewhat different.

---

I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly. I do not have trouble sitting either their trot or canter.

What I said was that (of the Friesians I have ridden) I find their gaits unsuited to mounted combat and jousting, given what I feel is necessary for the activities.

I realize that not all Friesians' gaits are the same, just like not all quarter horses are the same, but that perhaps the ones I've ridden were built or had been trained in such a way to produce their particular gaits. I can only speak from my experience. Of course it's 'possible' to do the activities with Friesians, I just don't believe they're the "best" or most historically accurate horse for the job, especially considering what they've been bred for over the last 200 years -- lots of action to look marvelous when -driving-.

I do believe that cross breeds with Friesians can perhaps produce amazing results. For instance, the horse my friend Dom Sewell (Destrier UK) jousts on at the Armouries is a Friesian cross Cob, and he has the most amazing floaty canter and a pretty smooth trot too. He's perfectly suited physically for jousting and enjoys it too. Then again, three weeks ago I rode a cross breed that I believe was part Friesian (though the seller told me she was cross Belgian) and she had a very nice smooth canter, but didn't have the mind for doing things with armour, etc.

There are always exceptions. I just feel that for me personally, Friesians would be nearly the last horses I would consider for jousting or mounted combat because of what I've experienced of their gaits. I'd much rather have a horse with a short strided canter.

quote:

---

There are always exceptions. I just feel that for me personally, Friesians would be nearly the last horses I would consider for jousting or mounted combat because of what I've experienced of their gaits. I'd much rather have a horse with a short strided canter.

---

Interesting point, so a short strided horse is better for jousting? Something like that never occurred to me Short strided horses are easier to sit, though they don't have a huge amount of hind end thrust. However, since I believe the "shock" of moving mass is more of a requirment than "thrust" for jousting, I can see where a heavy body and a short stride would work well for a mount. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't joust.

Give me the long strided, totally engaged closely coupled horse of course, but then I'm a classical dressage person stuck in a competitive dressage world.

For those studying the classical riding masters, a closely coupled body with a naturally engaged hind end is the perfect horse. Some of modern riders have a problem with the Baroque horse, especially in the engagement and suppling areas, but they don't realize that their modern leg is actually often in the wrong position -- the classical masters rode with a leg more like the modern western position.

Oh my, I think I hijacked things, my apologies.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seigneur de Leon:
Friesians definitely are nice. We have a gelding, first premier, 4 years old but Patty has pretty much claimed it. We got a 1900 doctors buggy and she is training him to harness now. I have a beautiful Tennesse Walker, which would pass for a 12th - 13th C. warhorse (I hope) but I think he would be more appropriate as an "ambler".
I am looking for a Percheron mare (all black) about 16 hands, to breed with a black Andalusian for a "Spanish-Norman" warhorse, however, I found a [b]black Lusitano! less than 30 miles from here standing-at-stud that I was thinking of using instead. I don't know if that would qualify for the registery, but the horse is so beautiful I may try it anyway as registration is really only important if I were to sell an animal.

What do you think of this combination?[/B]

---

Jef, why don't you just get an Spanish horse?

If Il Moro was good enough for Charles the Bold, then I think a purebred Lusitano, Andalusian, or Iberian should do the trick.

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

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

I can't say that I blame you on the stallion position, not because they are all hot blooded nit wits because they are not, but many barns will not board them and if the barn owner/help doesn't have stallion experience, it is not a good thing.

Breeding is always something of a crap shoot but remember the basic rule: "Breed the best to the best and hope for the best." If you search out the most conformationally perfect mare you can afford, and she has a good temperament/mind, just cross your fingers. Old time horsemen will often say that the mare is 70% of the foal. Genetically, that's not really true, but since the mare is who a foal takes behavior and attitude cues from, there is something in that. Breed a cribbing mare and you'll have a cribbing foal long before you can wean one, because they watch and learn from mom.

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

Both have finer bone and are "shorter in stature" than their draft sires (Perch and a Shire). Though with Phantom you can tell she has draft in her, miss feather feet.

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

This is of course never an absolute, more in the nature of "normal."

I am not, BTW, Seigneur a large fan of the so called "Spanish-Norman" horses. I have been lucky enough to handle one or two that were the "ideal" the breed is shooting for but unfortunately, I have run into a good measure of them in rescue situations due to their "manageability" problems. Many have the size of the Percheron (which BTW, is a very "hot" draft breed because of the "improvement" done to them by crossing in Arabians) and the intelligence but NOT the common sense or people orientation of the Iberian horse. This sometimes make for a hot and cunning horse that is far beyond the horse management skills of many horse owners. Again, this does not always happen, and if you find an ideal Percheron mare, you may dodge the bullet and get a really fine animal.

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

Gordon

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by chef de chambre:
Hi Jeffrey,

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.

Hope this helps.

---

I recently purchased an Appaloosa (for mounted combat) based on the above guidelines. He does not fit the stereotypical "look" of a warhorse, but he gets the job done. One of the main reasons I went with him was because he is so curious and willing to learn, which made his training very easy. He's 15h and has no problems with my weight in armour, however, most people comment that he looks too small.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon:
Friedrich:
Part of what I was trying to convey however is that there are many modern "breeds" doing the work that was reserved instead for "types" in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. I think it an excellent point that one must look for type when buying, rather than a specific breed, but that when a bloodline is bred to a certain line of work which parallels some of the earlier demands on the horses, such as the QH in it's stock work vs. close combat, then it may well prove to be a prime candidate for your use. Of course, it would ONLY be a starting point, and who knows, the best horse for the job may well be something way outside of the "breed" you are generally looking at, but fits the "type" perfectly.
Gordon

---

I looked at QH for this very reason. They seemed to fit the "profile" very well, based on what they are commonly used for today.