We both agree that the lowest classes probably didn't own horses, (they used oxen) so they're out of consideration.

Middle and better off peasants probably had and used horses. I say everyone in this class who owned a horse knew how to ride it, Jeff says no. He thinks that most of the time this class would have ridden in a cart behind the horse, (as it is the more efficient use of horsepower) so not everyone would know how to ride solo. I say not everyone would need to go everywhere in a group, so you'd have to know how to ride solo.

We agree that most town dwellers probably didn't ride on a regular basis, but I say the majority probably knew how to ride; Jeff says not neccessarily.

So what do you all think? Did the majority of people in the middle ages know how to ride, even if they didn't do it regularly?

A tangent to this is that in a reenactment setting, if there is a horse in the camp, EVERYONE in the camp, riders and non-riders alike, should know how to act around the horses, and have some basic knowledge of horse care. I say that horses are so integral to life in this case that it would be absurd for campdwellers to not know at least the basics.

Comments?

I think the key to this one is in definition. Basic animal husbandry vs.riding vs. horsemanship - the three are very different things.

Everyone - including city dwellers would be familiar with livestock - cattle markets were a lynchpin in a cities economics, and cattle/hore fairs drew a large audience. I would present Smithfield in London as an excellent example of this - boys from the city would race horses there (most of them not from economicaly advantaged positions), and would amuse themselves and spectators tilting at the quintain and each other with sticks. Every countryman would know which end of a horse poops (I think you are a bit low in your estimation of how widespread horses were used in peasant agriculture by the 15th c. Gwen), and all would have basic skills in basic care for an animal. Show me a farmers chi;ld who's never ridden a plough horse bareback (plodding and painful as that may be), and I will show you an oddity. This certainly doesn't make that person a horseman.

I think it highly probable that anyone of middle class would have a passing familiarity with riding.Riding was the most practicable method of land travel for any distance, and anyone involved in trade would have ridden to a destination (so long as it was not overseas) as a matter of course.

I haven't seen any illustrations of carts with seats in them to be driven like an 18th or 19th c. wagon. Invariably either a drover rides the lead horse of a team (being hitched in line instead of tandem), or they walk alongside with a whip. I have seen illustrations of campfollowers riding atop the moveable goods and bundles in a cart. I also seem to remember in Mallory Lancelot being shamed by riding in a cart, as it was a conveyance for women or a condemned criminal, and therefore shameful. Most pilgrims of the middle class rode on their pilgimage - note Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales", and the advice given by pilgim's guides. Just because someone sits on a horses' back and can steer it doesn't make them a horseman - anymore than a drivers liscence and a passing familiarity with cars makes one a competant driver - a look on any highway in the U.S. will confirm the truth of that. At the moment I confess I am more or a rider than the last classification - but I strive toward the higher goal.

A Horseman (or Woman). I define this as someone who is skilled at the art of riding, skilled in their knowledge of horses and their traits, skilled in their care, and who practises horse-mastership. I will readily concead that the vast majority of the population of the 15th c. did not fall into this catagory. This is the particular skill that sets the Knight, Nobleman, or Gentleman apart from the rest of humanity. It defines 'Chevallrie' - one cannot possibly be a chevallier without a cheval, and the origin of the term translates into "What the Horsemen did."

Because you're part of the RedCo., you have the option of getting to know horses better. You're always welcome to learn some basics, maybe even learn to ride a bit. Bella is big but she's certainly easy to manage.

As we've discussed elsewhere on this forum, *everyone* in the camp needs to know how to act around the horses and basic handling. Something could happen and you might be the only one around to deal with it.

I don't know what others think about the subject, but Bob and I are currently having our horses trained in a Western style as it is probably closest to medieval of the modern styles, at least in saddle type and seat. I do realize however, that there are no modern saddles similar in tree structure to the medieval saddle. (See saddle thread).

I learned to ride English, double reined and definitely prefer it over Western as you are "closer" to the horse, but we decided that Western would be more appropriate for our needs. We may cross train our horses later to work on grace through dressage excercises.

Our horses are being trained to neck rein, since it is vital that Bob be able to use one hand for the reins and the other for his weapons. They are also learning verbal and leg cues.

I guess the thing to do might be to talk with an instructor who may have taught or competed in the various styles. Tell them what you are thinking of doing and see what they say in regard to a riding style that meets the criteria.

Jenn

English riding is based on a balanced seat where the the legs are in a balance inline with your back through the back of your head. (The stirrups are more centered and underneath you on the saddle tree.) This provides a better balance for the horse particularly when jumping. Plus the saddle is cut to allow enough clearance for the horse's shoulders. (A horse's center of balance is approximately at the back of the shoulders below the withers (base of the neck). In addition, the english style uses two balanced hands that provide positive contact with a horses mouth usually through a jointed bit which provides some pressure in the mouth but more focussed on the corners of the mouth. A commonly poor english riding technique is to have tension on one rein (in circling) and to have slack or lack of positive contact on the outside rein. The horse will fail to respond or perform erratically. As a result, you cannot easily ride one handed although I've had horses that adaquately adapted.

A western style of riding is much more akin to a medieval style in that it is a "working" style of riding. (IE. utility use - ranching, etc.) The balance of a western saddle puts you almost slanted behind the horse and the stirrups are physically hung and angled further in front of you. This provides better support/security for the rider as well as comfort. The rider's weight is also often better distributed over the horse's back.

This style is more appropriate when practicing mounted skills (lance, sword & shield, etc.). In addition, the control through the bit is quite different. Usually you would use a solid bit which will cause pressure on the tongue and roof of the mouth of the horse. You also have the addition of better neck reining where the horse is trained to respond to pressure against the neck. This technique can be done with an english trained horse but it admittedly isn't as effective since it has been trained with some sort of jointed snaffle or pelham bit.

There are certainly exceptions and exceptional horses. My 2pfennigs are that the western style is more applicable for a medieval representation and easier for a novice to learn. However, I too learned and evented using the english style (2 phase and dressage) and find the western style less responsive although sometimes more comfortable for hacking. (The quality and personal fit of a saddle is vital for both you and your horse.)

Interesting sidenote: Endurance saddles english saddles with western tendancies are gaining in popularity for distance riding and edurance competitions.

You're going to have to learn whatever your horse has been trained to do. HOWEVER, for RedCo. applications you'll want to learn western because you need to be able to ride one-handed. As you're finding out, English is 2 handed, you know from experience that western is one-handed. I've seen western riders who can drop the reins entirely and direct the horse through leg / seat / verbal commands and use their hands to throw a lariat, etc. I saw a Morgan trained to do dressage the same way. That show was the most amazing thing I've ever seen in my life- the rider just sat in the saddle (western) with his arms crossed and the horse did all this incredible stuff just through seat and leg cues. Flying lead changes, side passing, directional changes, you name it, the horse did it.

Jeff and I are pretty much of a mnd that this last scenario would be most useful for jousting, horse combat and games since you'd have both hands free to use. In my limited experience, horses trained to respond to the latter scenario *think* more than other horses which seem only to respond. These horses seem to understand what their part is and they pro-actively hold up their end. If you've ever seen a great cow horse in action, you know what I mean. That horse knows exactly what to do and how to go about doing it with almost no help from the rider. It's like a dog trained for utility or herding- they look to the human for clues, but the animal knows its job.

Ideally, this type of "thinking" horse would make a great war horse. They would know the difference between jousting, combat and rings and know how best to accomplish what is required in different circumstances.

So, the short answer for you is if you want to jump or do dressage, learn English. If you want to be a mounted archer or do medieval horse stuff, learn Western. If all you have available is English, get saddle time to improve your riding and horse-communication skills. You can always get some saddle time on Bella at events.

How can you joust and not know anything about riding? Surely you're playing dumb here. I can't believe that the folks who own your act would simply stick you on the horse, thrust the reins in your hand, point you in the right direction and give the horse a slap on the rump. I can't believe they don't teach you how to ride at all, but that's what I imply from your response.

I'm coming a little late to this discussion but I am going to throw in my two cents.

As someone who has ridden since they were 6, fox hunted, jumped, evented and done dressage, I have to say that EVERY style of riding, when practiced to the higher levels has a great deal of "invisible" cues that a bystander might never see.

My current horse has fox hunted and done dressage. I also use him at SCA equestrian events. He neck reins just fine--because he and I both know what an indirect rein and leg pressure mean. I can drop my reins and ride him around through various obstacles and gaits. No, he won't have quite the same frame that he does when I use two hands but we get the job done. And NO-ONE is judging equitation in these types of events so somebody with flying chicken arms, swinging legs, etc won't get "marked down" by a judge. The results are the only thing that matters, not the style.

Glen, you are probably using your legs and weight without even realizing it while you ride. If you lean in, lean out on a turn, sit back and up to stop, your mount feels the changes in weight distribution whether you realize you're using it or not. And if you're staying one with lost stirrups, etc. you have developed a good independent seat without being aware of it. (Unless of course you're using your reins to keep you in the saddle, but don't confirm that--this riding instructor just doesn't want to know. )

Modern riding concepts of Western and English are a pretty limiting discussion too actually. What cues a cutting horse won't necessarily cue the healing horse in team roping, etc. Even the types of saddles within the disciplines vary. A roper uses a different kind of saddle than a reiner, a hunter rider uses a different kind of saddle than a dressage rider. And of course, none of this takes into account Non-European riding styles. While Oriental styles would not come into play in most of our re-enactment groups, what about the Crusades? The Arab people rode in a distinctly different style than the European knight.

In Spain, during the Reconquista, it was recognized that there were two distinct ways for a fighting man to ride. With shorter stirrups and centered more over the horse's back or with longer stirrups and braced back against the cantle. There were even specific terms for it, pardon my spelling, a la brida and a la jineta. One style of riding came to the New World with the Conquistadores and developed into "Western" riding, the other style stayed in Europe and developed into the modern styles of hunting, jumping, eventing and dressage.

Oh well, I'll quite rambling. Yes, I do think just about every one in the medieval period would have a passing familiarity with horses.

Welcome to FireStryker ! Wow, that would require a great degree of training on the part of horse & rider, but since we are talking about an equestrian society whos aristocracy amongst other things judged each other on the quality of equestrian skill, I find it believable.

The only potential problem is in a cavalry melee voice control alone might well prove difficult, as the noise from a cavalry action in Italy was described by a participant "...as if all the contents of all the armouries in Paris and Bruges were dropped off a roof together..."

That the skill existed in the better practitioners of the art I do not doubt in the slightest. Really humbling when I consider my small skills beside.

------------------
Bob R.

This last Saturday, Bill and I were riding at the cameraman (for the Redwall thing) to get a beauty shot for our Redco demo tape. Bella hadn't had another horseman cantering behind her before and it spooked her a bit. She didn't want to stop no matter how loud I yelled "hoooooo....." and I wasn't wearing a bevor with my sallet. I really had to pull on the reins to get her to stop and I really don't like to have to do that. Of course Bella isn't as practiced as she should be since I haven't had much time to ride her lately, but I still don't think voice commands are terribly useful when you're riding in armour at a trot or canter. Just too much noise to distract the horse. At a walk, it's ok though.

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

Jeffrey Hedgecock http://www.historicenterprises.com

However, verbal command is a HUGE SIN in dressage and grounds for disqualification if you're "heard" in the ring.

It's also considered bad form when riding in a group situation as it may cue another horse into a gait change that the other rider is not ready for.