When it comes to presenting a medieval military group and/or encampment, one of the hardest (and therefore most often overlooked) additions is that of horses, even though they certainly would have been quite common in any medieval setting. This is due to several factors, among them the paucity of owned horses, the distances owned horses must be trailered to events, and the unfortunate lack of most of us SPACE to keep these horses.

I would argue, however that the MOST difficult obstacle to overcome in any medieval impression which should be mounted is not the horse itself but period-appropriate tack. Even then, when groups or individuals address themselves to this issue, it is usually in the area of saddles utilized by men-at-arms. I, however, am hoping to put together a mounted crossbowman impression, though (as we all do) in small steps rather than giant leaps.

To this end, I put forth a question, or rather a proposition: For closed-to-the-public events, such as the upcoming Michaelmas, how would folks feel about allowing non-intrusive modern tack, such as an english or plantation saddle, in the interim of someone getting more proper equipment? Would it be worth this compromise to have more mounted impressions at an event (on the premise that old english saddles are relatively easy to get), though the saddles would be admittedly wrong? Or is the consensus that only proper equipment should be allowed so as to not spoil the aura, even if this means few or no mounted impressions at an event?

I'll put this out there and see what folks have to say before I put my $.02 in... don't want to contaminate the results!

I don't want to quash the idea as I really do want horses at our events. But there are more issues to consider for the safety of all and for our critters. And this could be a great time (as well as at the event) to discuss this.

ANYONE: Please chime in if you have done overnight events with your equine companions. Or if your group already has rules/protocols.

Trailering aside... And at 7-8 hours for us, this, I think, is at the extreme limit for a 2H bumper pull ride. And we wouldn't be able to give them a day off the next day to recover... It's ironic. We'll do it to ourselves but not to our horses...

Medical needs. There should be a known vet to call locally. All horses attending need to be current with the usual coggins and other tests. Even if you are from in state.

Answering your specific question... Tack wise, I think it really ought to at least look pseudo medieval taking that first step towards trying to keep a consistant image. I personally would cringe at seeing a western or english saddle. And I own one! In the spirit of the ARMET discussion, I think there has to be a minimum standard. Semi-modern bridles don't bother me provided you don't use fancy flash bridles or modern material laced reins. As to the saddle, a modified McClellan or similar should be used. Even if you throw a cover of it. (And I'm ignoring for the moment fit and protection for horses kidneys...)

There is a bigger issue to be considered which is why SCA has so many problems running events where horses can be included.

Insurance! SCA pays an extra $50 (or was it $75 an event). What liability insurance does the site offer or require? And do they require us to have insurance? When you mention horse and event, rates skyrocket or often you are denied coverage. This is something we all need to look at to see what we can do to be able to rent some of these sites for events.

On site horse control. Personally, I don't have any problems with horses in camp provided you pick up after your own horse and your mooching mount stays away from the kitchen! Questions I would put forth would be how the horses are contained. By rope/picket line? And is your horse trained to be quiet while tied? Should a secondary rope line be established? (To try keep them out of the camp or to give them something more to knock over and get tangled in?) Also, someone would realistically have to stay up on night watch so they don't accidently wander off.

They manage to have horses at events all the time in other eras of reenactment in the US. It would border on pathetic if we can't manage to do the same for this era.

My suggestion is to follow the well established protocols regarding ACW, ECW, and RW reenactment regarding this, rather than to either figure it up from the ground up ourselves, or, worse yet, to saddle our notions to what is notorious for being the most ineffective group for incorporating horses into reenactments, with some of the stupidest guidelines.

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

The previous Fire Stryker post was actually Bob. I forgot to log off the home computer.

We can discuss event rules, insurance, etc... when we get together. I just think it's easier and more productive.

Glen's question was, would anyone be offended by modern tack? Originally, I might have said yes, but that was evil Jenn. Reality and feasibility, for the moment say...no, I would not have a problem with it. It would be one of those items that would eventually be a "kit" upgrade for your horse.

Saddles are expensive in most cases and should fit your horse, then you, comfortably without excess pads. If one is going to spend money on an item, it should be as proper as you can get it taking into account all the other purposes/activities you and your equine buddy engage in. So if you already have your english or plantation saddle, I would not go out and spend money on a "looks like" saddle on the chance that it will not fit or that you will end up replacing it in short order.

Bob and I are in the same position. We use Austrailian stock saddles(sans horn). The items we intend to change out in the short term are, the stirrup straps, stirrup irons, bridle, reins, and acquire or make decorative leather breast collars and cruppers. These are quicker to upgrade than a saddle.

If the saddle might be a little too obvious, use a cover. In contemporary paintings there are covers of cloth and leather. It is a temporary fix, but will avoid the outlay of serious cash until you find the ideal saddle or have one made to spec.

The saddle designs I am looking at for the future are "non-military" or not armoured like the knightly war saddles. It is probably going to be at least a year before I can get everything together to make one, I am working on that now.

Jenn

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

Jenn

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

I should clarify what I wrote earlier.

One of the principle things that limits equestrian activities and engagement at the Societys events is the *type* of insurance they use - if we look to the companies regular reenactment groups use, and the models of engagement they use, then we should be able to do just what they do at our events.

To the question directly - I would tolerate modern tack as a temporary measure so long as some effort was made to disguise it (a mochila would do wonders), and an eventual effort made to upgrade. Medieval events without horses are like WWII events without jeeps or tanks.

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

Freidrich, for the purposes of my argument I'm going to assume that anyone who brings a horse and knows how to ride that horse has all the travel, medical, picketing, etc. issues under control based on knowledge and experience. These are very legitimate concerns, however. I am not even considering SCA circumstances, but admittedly my experiences in the Civil War reeanctment/LH milieux. Insurance is usually easily obtainable, if even neccessary (depending on circumstances, public or no, etc.). Also if a horse has had the minimal of training to be on a picket line, there is practically zero problem with horsie control.

I agree with Chef, if at all possible you've just got to have horses at a medieval event. To this end, I've been thinking what could be a way to accomplish that without sacrificing too much in the way of authenticity. The mochilla (or equivalent) is the first thing that leaps to mind.* However, I have recently purchased an english saddle that has a distinctly different seat shape from most modern english saddles. This got me to thinking if, with a change of stirrups and perhaps a set of breast strap and crupper, with a forged bit and non-descript headstall I could perhaps "get away" with using such tack at a 15th century event, not forever, but for a year or so until I could focus on getting a more appropriate saddle made. I'll probably never have a war-saddle made as it seems most of the non-man-at-arms types tended to ride much flatter saddles (dare I say, english-saddle-like? ) than their armoured counterparts.

So, to answer my own question, I think that it's OK to use modern tack within reason and with a reasonable attempt to make it medieval. Further commentary is encouraged and welcome!

After 10 years of horses including showing and running a pro barn and large riding school, I've seen many instances of what should have never happened. I'm not trying to change the thread nor am I defending or comparing to the SCA. I'm just pointing out the way things are. And the SCA has been more active in this area. But they've almost ruled themselves out of playing... (My opinion anyway.)

My problem isn't with training, or anyone who has a clue. It's that we are faced with 4 problems.

1) Common sense doesn't rule.

2) Lawyers currently are the norm.

3) That the common and even uncommon person generally can't tell you one end of a horse from the other let alone the "awareness" range to be from each of them. And we only gave up that common form of transportation only a century ago.

4) Horses are the poster child of "expect the unexpected".

Again, I vehemently want to include horses at our events. There would be little that would amuse me more to be woken up in the morning by a hungry whinny in an encampment. But I want to do it so that everyone is safe. To you and me, this is such a moot point. But its not "us" that I'm thinking about. Its the people who come and watch or who have never been around a horse.

I just think we should set a common set of agreed standards or expectations to protect the experienced and the first timer. (I'm not even going to call them rules.)

As to a McClellen saddle, I'm referring to a modified one such as the way Drey had described in his article. (Basically how to add a medieval front plate to it.)

Insurance and events should be given it's OWN thread.

Thanks,

"What it boils down to is this. Those who want to do impresions that should have horses are going to have to accept the extra costs and hassles associated with it. If they aren't willing to then they can either become a foot soldier like most people or should find another hobby."

Why stop there, Peder? Surely it's also obvious that anyone at that sort of social level should also own, for example, a moated manor house or similar, and if they can't bring one of those along to an event, they obviously lack commitment and should go away and find another hobby!

Seriously, lighten up, dude!

I agree that people should try and pick an impression that they can do, within the funds and time they have available.

But equally, remember that for most people, this is a HOBBY. People do this for FUN. Not having horses isn't realistic. Neither is a fight reconstructtion where both participants walk away unassisted afterwards. Does this mean that if we aren't willing to die every time we demonstrate sword play, we aren't being realistic enough?

Each person or group has to chose what level of realism they find acceptable. If yours is that everybody who should have a horse has one, fine.

But I suspect that you'll find yourself in a group with exactly one member. If you're happy with that, great. Good luck to you.

Pointing out that we should have horses is fair enough. It's true, and I've done it myself, frequently. Telling people that if they aren't willing to conform to your standards of accuracy, they should get out of the hobby....sorry, I understand your frustrations, but I think you're being unreasonable on that point.

I think there is a large difference between requireing at least a representation of what an impression would have had on campaign, with what they would have had in reality in total. I.E, someone portraying a Lord ought have a first rate kit appropriate to their station, and a pavilion, and other nice-gee-gaws - otherwise, it isn't very realistic to say 'I'm portraying lord hardbottom', all he while sitting in a bad imitation of middle class dress, with mediocre to bad equipment.

It is hard to get away from someone of the second estate needing a horse of some sort on campaign - without one, it is much like a bunch of 'tankers' at a WWII event, walking around carrying the TC on a stool, and saying 'clankety-clank', and occassionaly stopping and going 'boom'.

Is it limiting to the number of people portraying the second estate? Sure is. It also keeps the numbers proportionaly realistic.

What we do is not require the horse for portrays as 'mounted archer', when the person fought on foot. At the very least, a 'knight' could have a saddle sitting in camp, indicating his horse was off with the baggage.

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

You miss my point, I think.

I wasn't objecting to the idea that Peder (and you, and I) think that a horse is needed for a proper impression of a man-at-arms.

I was objecting to the suggestion that, essentially, anyone who didn't meet this standard should just get out of the whole hobby altogether.

That seems a rather divisive point of view, and unnecessarily so; groups can set their own bar, and we have no more right to tell them what theirs should be than they have to tell us what ours should be.

We can try to persuede them to adopt our - presumably better - standards, but I don't think the "These are the minimums you should meet, if you don't, go find another hobby" approach Peder was adopting is the way to do it.

I agree with you there. It would be a small hobby otherwise. While I'm not for a tent so big I need to wear clown shoes and makeup to walk inside, I don't want it so small I'm the only one fitting in it (metaphoricaly).

Bob

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

1. How glaring the anachronism,
2. How prevalent the item is going to be in the impression,
3. How readily could the item be replaced with something correct.

Applying this litmus test to tack (a subject I know little of):

1. Are both the correct saddle & the substitute roughly the same size, shape, configuration (probably not too bad, unless it's covered with dragons, celtic knotwork or some other distinctive anachronistic feature)

2. The saddle is a fairly prevalent piece of gear for a mounted impression, however, I'd expect the issue could be mittigated if the anachronistic saddle be usually mostly covered by the rider's butt when on the horse or by a blanket when off the horse. (Probably not too bad)

3. Proper Saddles seem to be difficult to obtain. The only period medieval saddles I've seen executed well are Jeff H.'s and Jesse's, and Scott Brodnax's.

Conclusion: Yeah, it's probably OK, but were I going someone who's impression absolutely required a horse, I'd have getting a saddle ranked fairly high on the list of to-dos.

Regarding who's impression DOES require a horse. Well... almost all of the combatants in the 15th C. groups SHOULD have horses (and waggons). Fortunately, English 15th C. combat is almost solely by pedestrians and we can rationalize in camp that the horses we all rode in on are "just over that hill." Just as we often rationalize that the nobility and the rest of the battle (i.e. army) are elsewhere. As Bob mentioned, having a saddle (or 10) around camp certainly adds quite a bit to credibility. Plus it looks SO COOL!

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

So, in a nutshell. It wouldn't bother me nor take away from my experience at an even if a bloke has a covered modern saddle. If it gets to that point with me, I'm taking it a little to serious and it goes from a hobby to obsession. What's the fun in that?

Remember, complete authenticity is not the destination, but the jouney there.

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

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

If those are your standards, excellent.

My problem was that I found the "adopt my standards or get out of the hobby" attitude a little confrontational.

However, each of us is entitled to his own approach.

Let's leave it there, and not get into a wrangle over it.

PS - the manor house comment was meant to be over the top, I was trying to parody what you'd said by taking it to what I thought was an obviously ridiculous extreme. I'm vaguely scared by the fact that a number of people seem to have thought I was serious....

Good point about dead bodies.