---
The Horse in the Middle Ages

by Ann Hyland

The horse is a strong and pervasive image in much medieval iconography and literature. A paradox often exists between the working horse, used for traction in the fields,
carrying people or goods, and the warhorse or horse used for sport and leisure. Ann Hyland discusses all these different types of horse, owned and used by all levels of society, as well as the infrastructure that supported them: the smiths, farriers, grooms, trainers and breeders, traders and dealers. Although the principle focus is on England, reference is made to areas abroad, especially the east. A comprehensive study and an interesting read accompanied by many illustrations. 180p, b/w pls and illus (Sutton 1999)

ISBN 0750910674. Hardback available. Price US $35.95
---

She talks even less about equipment, which I believe is nearly as important as the horse. For me the whole issue is interconnected...

Your armour effects your tack, which effects how you ride, how you cue the horse, how you move the rest of your body (in armour), how the horse responds to you, how you train the horse to understand you, etc. etc. etc.

As many other authors do, Ms. Hyland tries to cover way too much ground at once and falls short in covering any subject in enough detail to satisfy the type of people who would really be interested in the subject.

I haven't seen any author yet handle the subject of the Medieval horse and its rider effectively. I'd like to see someone pick a small period of time and deal with it in detail, instead of just glossing over the entire Middle Ages as if horses and mounted combatants were the same from the fall of Rome until the English Civil War.

Unfortunately, the subject of the armoured, mounted combatant is terribly understudied. Only now are a very few people interested enough to do some really valuable research. Practical experimentation is key to this field also. You can't write knowledgably about being a Knight or MAA unless you've fought from the back of a horse, wearing the correct equipment as well.

I can't recommend Hyland's first two books, if you really want nuts and bolts info. Davis is better by far as is the "War and Chivalry" book whose author I can't remember. There are also some usefull passages in Barber and Barker's "Tournaments", that apply to warfare.

I'd sure like to know what Hyland's background and qualifications are......

I think I may have copied 6-10 pages from her first book, mostly for the pics of Hank V's saddle. I perused the anxiously awaited second one in the Met's bookshop, thinking it would be the answer to my prayers, but didn't even consider buying it.

I have no idea what this new one will be like, but I won't buy it until I can look at it carefully beforehand.

------------------
Cheers,

Jeffrey

I will be the guinea pig for this one.

Her qualifications? She is a horse breeder of, you guessed it, Arabians (explains the eastern fixation). Other than an interest in the Arabian and how it influenced other breeds...I don't know.

One thing I'd like to ask you guys ... and it sort of fits into the title ... almost every book on equitation I have seen refers to the rise in the 'Classical' style in the c16th. Based on my passed experience of 'general history' I was mulling over whether c15th riders were using these techniques ... one possible source of aid would be whether books such as Xenephon were being produced ... we accept several of the military books as evidence for this knowledge being adopted but I've never seen anyone do the research for horses.

Any thoughts ???

So far the nearest book of "dressage" to our time period of the 15th C. is Federigo Grisone of Neapels "Ordini di Cavalcare" (1522). I have not read it only a blurb that stated that it was "brutal".

I find myself wondering if we could actually lay hands on the complete translated version of the Burgundian Oridances, if there would be a mention of horse training or trainers of the time.

We had horse thread on the Armour Archive (AA) in which we were talking about various things and Hauptmann talked about horses, saddles, and riding. It is at the bottom of page one. The URL follows:

http://www.armourarchive.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000049.html

In regard to whether the 15th C folks were using these techniques, I would tend to think that they were employing some of the methods. Three Spanish school moves that I can think of which would have been useful on the battlefield and who knows may have developed before the 16th "classical" concept, are:

The pirouette: could be used to wheel away from or towards the enemy.

The courbette: which towers a horse high into the air, could easily disperse foot soldiers.

The capriole: a giant leap into the air; could be employed as an effective means of dispersing a group of foot soldiers who might have a horseman surrounded.

I think that some of this information might be found in first hand accounts of actual battles in which horses were involved in melee rather than purely in a charge. Accounts of horseman bogged down in ground troops may also give us some insight into how a warhorse may have been trained.

The point I was thinking was not looking for c15th (or c16th) books on dressage but whether Xenephon was translated and owned by the nobility ?

I'll try and have a look myself tonight ... but now I'm off to lunge Sandra's horse and hopefully ride mine.

P.S. Have you ever watched 'kill at Arms' competitions ... they seem to be becoming more popular with the mounted military and police here ... in essence it's two jumps, thrust at target with sword, turn shoot targets whilst going over a jump (one each side) then pick up lance and spear ring before turning and tent-pegging ... all at the gallop.
Not Medieval but impressive

I've not heard of it.

My personal belief is that the moves used by lipizzaners of today, etc. would not have been used in the 15th c or earlier. Those moves are not really possible by a destrier, due to flexibility, and they take a long time to train to a horse.

My feeling is that horses would undergo training only up to a point where they would have so much time invested in them that it would be too much of a risk to take them into battle and potentially lose them.

I think that up to about 1500-1525 the primary employment for a knight's horse on the field was for the "charge", which is relatively easy to train a horse for. Fancy stuff was probably used more once horses weren't required to carry armoured men.

Another thing to think about is the idea that a horse needs to be strong in the leg to withstand the uneven terrain and potential footing hazards on the battle field. If you're in armour on a horse strong enough to carry you, your horse must also have big enough feet and strong enough legs/bones so as not to break himself when he steps in a hole. You don't have the time to pick your way across the field when you charge. You must cross whatever terrain you are dealt to reach your enemy. If you're riding a delicate horse, he'll break a leg and be useless. So if your horse is heavy enough to not break, his flexibility is limited, which limits his ability to accomplish fancy moves.

Just my train of thought from practical experience.

I don't worry about Bella stepping into a rodent hole on a field, but Bill does. His horse is mostly thoroughbred and has small feet and thin legs. Bella's a tank, of course.

------------------
Cheers,

Jeff's got a point here. Bella lost her footing at a parade last year and went down onto her knees with Jeff on her in armour- it took about 20 breathless seconds for her to haul herself back to her feet. Using that as a reference point, I can't imagine Bella launching herself into the air with Jeff on her back in armour. Jeff isn't a big man and his armour isn't especially heavy, and it's very obvious that Bella takes a couple of minutes to get used to the different weight distribution when he's armoured.

I wonder if Toby Capwell would know anything about this, or have anything to add....maybe I need to ask him.

FYI-Just received Andrew Ayton's book "Knights and Warhorses: Military Service and The English Aristocracy Under Edward III". A little before our time, but what the hay?

Gladitz's book comes recommended by R.H.C. Davis (The Medieval Warhorse 1989). Specifically a book about horse breeding not about warhorses. Talks about land management, temperment, etc... and includes breeding records in which document, coloration and markings, owner and value are mentioned.

Covers east and west.

Two main problems with this book, firstly you need time to read it. Mr. Gladitz likes to use "native" names instead of geographic familiars for us 21st Century types, so you are constantly going back to the map for use as a GPS.

Secondly, the book only covers up to the 1290s. Still I think it is important to understand the hows and whys to get to where we are.

Has a few black and white photos and doesn't really address anything like tack.

---
No, I can't imagine Bella lauching herself into the air. No dissing of Bella intended. She is a tank. She is stockier than Phantom (who is quite the tank in her own right) and Normandie (can really leap if he wants to. I have seen him do it--granted unencumbered by armour or rider). Bob thinks he is more Courser than Destrier. Phantom is inbetween Bella's and Normandie's build.

They race full tilt through a paddock full of rather large stones (I have near heart failure everytime I see this) with no problems. They have medium sized hooves so I am not as worried about them stepping in a rodent hole and breaking a leg.

I am relatively certain having observed Normandie in the pasture that he is very capable of pirouetting. Gets it from his momma. She is an old stock Quarter horse. Very swift in a spin and has some natural cutting horse moves.

Think of it this way, how hard is it to mount your 17-2 perch from the ground in full armour? Damned hard I bet. If you're a knight and get dismounted, it's pretty tough to lead your horse back to the mounting block when the footmen are coming after you.

I believe (and this is my opinion based on my experience, reading and looking at MANY pictures) that warhorses of the late middle ages were almost certainly NOT over 16hh. I'm 5'8" and have a hell of a time mounting Bella (15-2hh) from the ground in armour. When I was looking at horses, I also rode a 17hh clyd/perch cross, and I count my lucky stars I didn't buy him. I needed a picnic table to mount him. And I can't even imagine being dismounted in a tilt or battle fight.

Coming off Bella in armour three weeks ago still hurts my shoulder......

I think the Renfair types like "New Riders" have done us and the public an extreme disservice by saying that their full blood Belgians, Shires, Percherons and Clydesdales are "the same as Medieval warhorses". Come on, they use those huge monstrosities to get the chicks and to look impressive, not because they're right.

------------------
Cheers,

Jef,

I've heard this time and time again from Friesian owners, and I know several. I believe its misinformation based on self promotion of the breed.

I've ridden several different friesians and absolutely hate their gate. I find it infinitely too harsh to make a good warhorse. I'm too concentrated on staying on to be able to fight. The horses LOOK awesome, but they're terrible under saddle.

I understood the friesian to have been bred probably sometime the 18th century for pulling carraiges. They do this very well and look stunning in this. Their high stepping gate makes a VERY uncomfortable saddle horse. Also, the gait is natural to the breed, not a trained behavior.

Please tell us where you found that the friesian breed has remained unchanged. My belief is that no horse breed today, save Arabs and possibly Andalusians, is exactly the same as it might have been 4-700 years ago. Remember, as Davis says, a breed can be lost completely in 50 years (about 3 generations).

------------------
Cheers,

I tend to agree, as far as I'm aware the Friesian was, like just about every european type (and I choose the word carefully rather than breed), 'improved' with Arab blood in the c18th-c20th.

Even the small native ponies in England like the New Forest have Arab blood in them beause of interbreeding between the native horses and turned out riding horses!

I have a very similar arguement with the dogs ... I constantly here about the Wolfhound being a Medieval breed that's been unchanged etc etc .... sorry the breed died out about 150 years ago and was recreated using a mixture of various other breeds ... including my beloved Deerhounds ... but even they were bred to type not pedigree ... as the requirement of the type changed so did the breeding and hence the 'breed'.
I know of extremely important dog breeders who have introduced a 'bit of greyhound' to their stock to keep it to type (but essentially that ends the breed).

If you look at medieval descriptions of dogs and horses they talk in types not breeds. We just try to impose a breed name, and hence standard, on these.

A good modern example is the Welsh Cob Section D. It is a Breed of horse, but a Cob is a type.
Both have essentially the same characteristics but the Section D requires a pedigree.

We should, almost, completely ignore the breed histories wih their vested interests and look more clsoely at the actual evidence ... the illustrations, the descriptions, the tack, the saddles, the shoes etc. and actually work it out like we do with the rest of the historical and achaeological evidence ... and I think we'll probably find (as this list has already started to illustrate) that once again the established view is about as useful as a chocolate tea-pot

Bravo!

I think that's exactly what my brain needed. Your idea of "type" vs. "breed" is spot on and very well put.

What we're really discussing when looking at 'destriers' is a type, not a particular breed. I have heard from the more knowledgable Friesian owners about the Arab infusion into the bloodline, and the timing seems to make sense.

------------------
Cheers,

Well it isn't Medieval but for Roman I'd recommend a friend of mines book

The Roman Cavalry Karen Dixon & Pat Southern

>instead of just glossing over the entire Middle Ages as if horses and mounted combatants were the same from the fall of Rome until the English Civil War.

This is rather annoying I admit !

>Unfortunately, the subject of the armoured, mounted combatant is terribly understudied. Only now are a very few people interested enough to do some really valuable research. Practical experimentation is key to this field also. You can't write knowledgably about being a Knight or MAA unless you've fought from the back of a horse, wearing the correct equipment as well.

Also you need the correct type of horse for the job.

>I'd sure like to know what Hyland's background and qualifications are......

Breeder, arabs I think & Endurance riding.

She tells me there is a new group starting here in the UK aimed at pooling resources & looking in more detail at Horses & history. Archaeologists, horse people etc etc getting together & sharing thoughts etc

Mel

Cavalry were valueble from very early on may Normans would dismount to fight and William did not unessacerity risk his cavalry at Hastings. There are similar cites as time moves on.

>I think that up to about 1500-1525 the primary employment for a knight's horse on the field was for the "charge", which is relatively easy to train a horse for. Fancy stuff was probably used more once horses weren't required to carry armoured men.

A charge is a very wastful use of a good resource especially if the horses were not well trained. Whilst High School stuff takes years to perfect even some basics from there vastly improve your chances. Dressage originated from war moves which probably did not need to look 100% accurate to do the job.

It would also be a constant roll even, we see horses in horseball (particularly in France) who are at a high level of dressage these are much better , but you don't get one horse train it then after it is too old go onto the next. You have several at different levels on the go all at the same time.

>Another thing to think about is the idea that a horse needs to be strong in the leg to withstand the uneven terrain and potential footing hazards on the battle field. If you're in armour on a horse strong enough to carry you, your horse must also have big enough feet and strong enough

Big does not equal safe riode, many TB are useless in taking care of themselves due to the survival instinct being bred out. Horses method of defence is fleeing, over millions of year their natural ability to avoid holes when fleeing at speed has been developed, the ones who didn't react quick enough to avoid the holes go ate & didn't go on to breed. It is only when man 'improves' a breed that that natural vigour is lose (ie TBs)

>So if your horse is heavy enough to not break, his flexibility is limited, which limits his ability to accomplish fancy moves.

WE have loads of British native types, who are not by any stretch heavy, but rarely miss a footing, Breeze my son's small warhorse, has 2 speeds asleep & 90 million miles an hour ! He has to date never stumbled. I'd also cite you US quater horses as not heavy but surefooted beasts

Mel

Quite an interesting point made on the gait of Fresians. I believe this is where they do go wrong. A large number of French and low country breeds were corrupted due to losses in the Napoleonic Wars causing infusions of exported English hunter stock etc. Brabants Boullonaise & Percheron all caught for a dash of Brit stock. The high stepping action in Fresians is the result of chucking in some carriage breed.

In looking at breeds v. types there's an excellent piece in the Museum of London catalogue on "Medieval Horse & it's Equiptment" (Her Majesty's Stationery Office). There recounted is of an observers comments on the Smithfield Horse Market day (outside London). It pontificates about the multitude of equine life available. Indeed horses are considered by type, i'e' their suited task. Poorly bred destriers would be sold as sumneriers: if you inspect the Howard Accounts two named animals are catagorised differently in an audit of the stock at the Holt site as opposed to when given as New Years gifts to Edward IV and Wife (hmmm). Clearly it's quite tricky to put exact labeling on type classifications.

One breed that does come over is the Jennet. This is clearly a spanish barb/arab background for ladies palfrey use in England, though it saw light cavalry use in the Spanish c.15th wars (hence the term "Jentours" for their light cav). This was deemed a particularly fine stamp of palfrey in England- a spanish import one.

I have owned (and competed in dressage) an imported Ster Friesian mare named Neenshjke (Nikki). I also was a groom for Bold Contender during the 1996 Olympic Trials. I had the pleasure of riding her on a number of occassions. I have also ridden many types of horses over the years and the Friesian is by far one of the smoothest, most comfortable animals I have ever mounted. Their walk is free swinging and forward, their trot is loaded with suspension and spring, their canter was powerful and more comfortable than a rocking chair. Now perhaps this is because I have only ridden top flight incredibly well bred examples of this breed but I just can't agree with you on the comfort level. Friesians are amazing dressage horses and a thrill to ride. I never had a moment's problem staying in the saddle--Nikki and Bold Contender were almost as smooth as a gaited horse to me.

I would also suggest that you read Bouma's history of the Friesian breed. It is available in it's entirety on the Friesian Horse Association of North America (FHANA) site. Bouma cites a portrait showing one of Prince's of Orange mounted on a horse that is a perfect example of a Friesian dating from the 16th or 17th century. (Sorry, I don't have the history in front of me, I'll go to the site and post the link shortly.)

Also, as a side note, there is a good bit of information for the importation of Friesian stallions into New Amsterdam in the 17th century. There is currently some blood typing work going on in the Morgan breed because it is now believed that Friesians formed the genetic base. There is a marked resemblance in body type and movement when you look at a Friesian and an old line Lippit-bred Morgan. The stocky round barreled body, the prominent crest, the springing and powerful gaits, the ability to ride and pull with ease. (Modern show Morgans bear little resemblance to the original--they have turned them into pale Roman nosed copies of Saddlebreds , Lippit-breds are about the only true type Morgans left.)

Whoops, sorry I got confused on my European monarchs. :0 --if they're not English, I have to go look it up. Here's the corrected info:

Louis II of Hungary used Friesian stallion in battle against the Turks in 1526.

Etches by Stradanus in 1568 show the Friesian stallion owned by the Hapsburg Don Juan of Austria. (These sketches are very true to the modern type)

Andalusians were introduced into Friesian blood during the 16th and 17th centuries, thereby technically making the Friesian a warmblood. (Some people cite this as "Arabian" blood. However, Andalusians were born from mixing the native Iberian horses with the North African Barb. There is a breed distinction between Barbs and Arabians though both are alike in hot blood and body type.)

Friesian horses were cited in the works of the riding masters Blundeville (1568), Pluvinel (1629) and the Duke of Newcastle (1659).

Check out the site
Brenna

Don't know if they are of interest to anyone, but in addition to the books mentioned, there are a couple more;

"The medieval horse and its equipment", a collection published by the museum of london. More about horse equipment than horses, but lots of illustrations of finds.

"Did the Anglo-saxons have warhorses", RHC Davies, very brief article published in anthology about A/S warfare.

"How to conduct a cavalry charge - horses in the rule of the templars" - can't remember author without digging it out, another brief article.

"Medieval Muslim horsemanship" - brief booklet, basically manuscript illus from a C12/13th arab equestrian manual. Limited text in english - basically just extended plate captions.

If anybody wants details, I have all of the above plus the other books mentioned (Hyland, Ayton etc), and can provide ISBNs, publishers etc, or even copy (brief!) bits for people.

Anyone know of any others?

I think I came across a muslim cavalry manual in a book search and posted it in a different thread in this forum.

http://www.wolfeargent.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000022

You mentioned one that I haven't seen and would be interested in How to conduct a cavalry charge - horses in the rule of the templars (my area of interest is the 15th c. but I am a firm believer in that you must go farther back to see the evolution).

I just received a copy of Joseph Biel's Portuguese translation of "Livro da ensinanca de bem cavalgar toda sela" by Dom Duarte. There is a translation project underway to get this document into English, should prove valuable to anyone interested in 15th c horsemanship from the perspective of someone who was intimately familiar with how the nobles were trained. (One of my pet projects)

Cheers,
Jenn

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