Results 1 to 30 of 40

Thread: 11th C horses.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Re: 11th C horses.

    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?
    'One day when I fly with my hands -
    up down the sky,
    like a bird'

  2. #2
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default Re: 11th C horses.

    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.
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  3. #3
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: 11th C horses.

    Quote Originally Posted by 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?
    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

  4. #4
    Magister Vitae Senior Member Kraxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Frederiksberg, Denmark
    Posts
    7,129

    Default Re: 11th C horses.

    Sounds reasonable...
    You may not care about war, but war cares about you!


  5. #5
    Bringing down the vulgaroisie Member King Henry V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Don of Lon.
    Posts
    2,845

    Default Re: 11th C horses.

    I remember from Terry Jones' The Crusades, they showed a typical medieval charger, which was quite short, had thick legs and a broad back.
    www.thechap.net
    "We were not born into this world to be happy, but to do our duty." Bismarck
    "You can't be a successful Dictator and design women's underclothing. One or the other. Not both." The Right Hon. Bertram Wilberforce Wooster
    "Man, being reasonable, must get drunk; the best of life is but intoxication" - Lord Byron
    "Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." - C. S. Lewis

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO