11th C horses.

[lugh]

Well, I'm reading Thomas Asbridges, "The First Crusade".

In the eleventh century, warhorses were, by modern standars, quite small, perhaps on average twelve hands in height, what would today be classified as little more than a pony.

This smacks a little of all those theories that medieval knights rarely topped 4-5', based on all those pretty three-quarter sized exhibition suits of armour.
I mean twelve hands! I'd crush the damn thing if I sat on that and I'm not all that tall. And if that's a warhorse from the first crusade, it's probably a Dardenne since they're the largest horses in the region which most of the Crusaders came from.
Considering most Knights also had a smaller horse that they actually travelled on, that means the second horse was what, 9-10 hands?

Any ideas?

[CBR]

Well Ann Hyland has a different opinion and talks of 14-15 hands based on horseshoes and bones found as well as iconographic evidence. (The Medieval Warhorse)


CBR

[lugh]

I'm going to see if I can find it in a library. Found another book, The Medieval Warhorse: Origin, Development and Redevelopment: Davis, R.H.C.

Apparently it goes into more veterinary detail than Hylands and is particularly detailed on the Normans around 1050 and the Corolingians around Charlemagnes time, the Norman bit being what I'm interested in.

Seems the topic is too specialist for the internet, most of the stuff I've found is too vague.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction CBR

[conon394]

lugh

I agree that it does not seem to add up. Based on surviving skeletons the Classical Greeks (circs 4th century BC) had horses that averaged 13 hands high, and those were considered unsuitable for serving as the mount for a fully armored Persian (etc.) cataphract. So after 1500 years of breeding heavily armored cavalry were riding horses only marginally larger than classical Greek horses that were considered largely unsuitable for the roll?

[Kraxis]

It could have been bulkier, that would explain why it could carry a heavy load and why the bones and shoes might appear larger?

In any case I'm not on who is in favour of the small horse theory. I mean the Vikings had a strong little horse (the current Icelandic horse, hasn't changed since then), but it was considered a runt by the Carolingians and so on. And it was hardly any bigger (or smaller) than those horses mentioned. So one would ask, which horses did the Normans then change to since their own horses were not good enough (back when they were Vikings)?
The Viking horse was strong and hardy, and could even run in five different steps, compared to the three of the normal horses. Why would they exchange that for a beast that was not as hardy, only possibly as strong and was less versatile? Makes no sense at all... The European horses must have been bigger than the Viking/Icelandic horses.

[CBR]

It could have been bulkier, that would explain why it could carry a heavy load and why the bones and shoes might appear larger?

Well Im no equine expert so I have to trust Ann Hyland in her judgement. AFAIK you can measure human height by the thigh bone pretty accurately, so I guess the same goes for horses if you have a good idea of what breed it is. And same for hoove size.

She considers a typical crusader warhorse to be around 15-15.2 hands and weighing 1200-1300 pounds. Turkmene horses of around same height but 800-900 pounds and Arabians of under 15 hands and 700-800 pounds.


CBR

[Kraxis]

Sounds reasonable...

[King Henry V]

I remember from Terry Jones' The Crusades, they showed a typical medieval charger, which was quite short, had thick legs and a broad back.

[Steppe Merc]

Steppe people rode on true ponies, though the heavier armor carriers were bred with other animals. So that itself isn't that nuts...

[The Wizard]

Well, according to certain sources I've read, the Parthian horse was famously strong and large. Seeing as they were made to carry a heavier load than a destrier was supposed to (Parthian and Sassanid cataphracts also having horse armor), but only charged at an ambling pace, I would find it strange if the destrier (required to charge at a gallop) was smaller than this horse.

Besides that, here in the Netherlands, we still have a horse which seems to have descended from the destrier kind. The Friesian horse is a huge horse, so...

[lugh]

I was thinking the Ardenne heavy horse, I read that travel book, where the author rode all the way from the castle of Godfrey of Bouillion to Jerusalaem. That's what got me interested in the whole period. It's a good book if anyone ever sees it, Tim Severin I think wrote it.
So I've always had an image of these brutes, minimum 17 hands and then am told 12 hands?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardennes_%28horse%29
The articel mentions arabian blood coming into European lines with the invasion of Iberia. Presumably the horses the Vikings cum Normans found in France and the Low countries were already far superior to their mountain-horses.

[Kraxis]

We have a similar horse in Denmark called the Jute. I don't know if it is similar to the Brabant or the Ardenne (14 to 16 hands is not that big really) in size, but I can tell you it is absolutely massive. It was use in similar fashion as those two breeds, but it becmae famous for its work at Carlsberg Brewery as Brewer Horses, dragging the beer carts around town. The brewery to this day still has its own breed, stables and all that as a to the work the horse gave.

The Jute is generally chestnut or brown with white 'shoes', and it is believed to have derived from the great warhorses (as their use for war declined it was found that the agriculture was a great place to put them).

The Icelandic Horse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_horse

[Redleg]

I would image that most if not all the horses used for War during this time period to carry knights and warriors in heavy armor were more in line with the breeds of horses that are considered Draft Horses. Large Feed and thick bones to hold a strong muscle frame capable of taking loads of wieght.

A 12-13 hand horse back when people were near or less then 5 foot tall would be a big horse. A 14 hand horse would be a Huge beast to get on the back of...

Selective Breeding and better supplies of food have increased the sizes of horses - just like men.

[The Wizard]

The Jute is generally chestnut or brown with white 'shoes', and it is believed to have derived from the great warhorses (as their use for war declined it was found that the agriculture was a great place to put them).

The Icelandic Horse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_horse

I don't know... such a big horse, a 'body-builder amongst horses' so to say -- meaning bulky, wide-backed, not agile -- wouldn't really seem to me a war horse. The Friesian, on the other hand, is more nimble and faster, made as it is for galloping secu jumping, not exerting slowly released power on a heavy object. Compare it to the difference between tennis-trained arm muscles and fitness-trained arm muscles: the tennis-trained once are less obviously 'strong', but about twenty times as efficient in the size-strength ratio than the fitness-trained muscles.