Talk:Horses in the Middle Ages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Horses in the Middle Ages has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 22, 2007 Good article nominee Listed November 13, 2007 Good article reassessment Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Military history WikiProject     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600–c. 1600) WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated GA-Class) Middle Ages Portal Horses in the Middle Ages is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Middle Ages To do: WikiProject Equine (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn. GA This page has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Archives

1: 4/3/07-12/5/07.

Contents 1 GA Sweeps (Pass) 2 Categories 3 Quick look before thinking about FAC 4 Things to do for FAC 5 Possible sources 6 Another possible adventure in new section creation 7 To-do list 8 Images 9 Soon to be home

[edit] GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. There are a few minor problems I would suggest working on, such as the uncited fact under "Medieval horses in battle" (end of the first paragraph) and the fact that the Level Three Headers under "Types of medieval horses" are a bit too short for their own headings (even though they are just summaries of other articles, but I feel that they could be expanded) and some other small manual of style concerns (the lead could be a bit more encompassing, for example), but overall they are minor enough that I see no reason to delist. Cheers, CP 23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

We would appreciate clarification of what you meant by "small MOS concerns" besides the question about the lead. We always aim to improve articles! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 06:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Any reason this article is in Category:Types of horses? Ealdgyth | Talk 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto the reasons I stated in horses in warfare, plus I suppose it can also go in a history category, but this article describes all the medieval "types" that weren't really "breeds" as we understand them today. Montanabw^(talk) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick look before thinking about FAC

We need to drop the Pyramid Society website. If only because they have so many wild ideas that just aren't in touch with reality. The refs need updating, mainly formatting issues that shouldn't be hard to fix. Probably some expansion of most of the sections is in order, particularly the Transportation and Work horses sections. I need to run down a paper I heard at a conference once, on how William the Conqueror transported his horses to England during the Norman Conquest. Definitely should think about putting in that section from the Bayeux tapestry of the horses on the ships [1]. It's really not that far from FA, not having read the prose closely though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 4 April 2008

The Bayeux tapestry/William stuff was split out to Horse transports in the Middle Ages. There's more in Hyland on William's ships and so forth. Most of the books ref'd are mine, so I can access more info fairly easily. I can certainly provide more about transportation and work horses, given time. Also horse tack. (Why do I have this stuff??) Gwinva (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And I was just thinking as I read the list of refs that dang, we share a lot of books in common. I have probably half of the books on the list, maybe a few more. And I have some others that have tidbits and stuff that we can work in. And I can get a ref for that pedigree claim out of something on my shelves, I know. Oh, while I'm thinking of it, what are the geographical boundaries of this article? Do we want stuff from the middle east and asia? (ponders Mongol ponies). Also time frame? (We have an article on horse transports in the middle ages? Gee, we really do get specialized.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Middle Ages suggests 5th C-16th C; the strict definition of the period is quite euro-centric, but it wouldn't hurt to expand the boundaries and become more comprehensive. As for sharing books: yeah, there seem to be a core group of books which everyone has: they all reference each other, too, if you scan their bibliographies! Gwinva (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My two bits: The pyramid society cite was mine and is only for the proposition that the earliest written horse pedigrees in Europe date to around 1300. I suggest it stay for now, at least until a better source for the same data can be found. (And when you find it, can you also update the same ref in Arabian horse?) I agree that the Pyramid crowd is a bit flakey (Horse politics, Gwinva - LOL), but this bit of info rings pretty consistent with reality to me. As for Mongols and such, take a look at Horses in warfare, where we try miserably to go worldwide. There is also India, China, etc...I think we may be better off to just somehow be open that the Middle Ages here means the same thing Middle Ages does elsewhere in wiki, i.e. Europe. I can also provide page refs for the Deb Bennett stuff, but you will have to nag me about that later. Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Things to do for FAC

I've re-read the article for first time for months, and had the following thoughts:

• Lead paragraph talks about how historians study, and does not really summarise the article.
• Subject order seems strange: better to talk about breeding and what the horses were like before discussing specifics like use in battles and transport (the battle section shouldn't be separated from the main section about war horses).
• The section on horses in battle and tournaments could do with expansion and merging with the later section on warhorses, so we get a comprehensive analysis of how horses were used, what types, how horses impacted on battle tactics (and vice versa), figures on use of horses, reference to transporting the horses: how that affected battle strategy (linking to Horse transports in the Middle Ages. Following Montanabw's encouragement a while back I wrote Knight#The decline of the medieval knight (the only decently sourced bit on that page, by the way; don't trust anything else there); some of this could be summarised for here (I never got round to that). See how this fits in with Horses in warfare.
• Transportation is pretty light, also; not much more than a brief summary. I've got some sources on "Medieval travellers" so I'll have a read of those. Would also work better allied with the discussion about work horses and riding horses (both of which could be expanded).
• Breeding seems fairly strong (that was where this article sprang from in the first place: the discussion Montanabw and I had about size and breeding) but I'm sure more research will yield some more information worth adding, plus it's always worth improving prose.
• The "Types of medieval horses" is awkward; first, many of these have been outlined or discussed earlier; secondly, each sub-section is very short. I'm not sure what to do; they could be expanded (although their own linked articles are all quite short) or they could be compacted into one section, possibly under their type palfrey and jennet under riding, courser, destrier etc under war. I think we had them listed separately so readers could immediately define each term, but Wikipedia is not a glossary. Some thought required here. By the way, my first foray into the medieval horse world was because I was trying to discover what a rouncey was, and whether they were used on chevauchees (and I remember getting into a long debate with someone on the rouncey talk page). I have since found some a very good source to prove I was right to conclude they were. I'll have to hunt that out again.
• Why the women and horses section? I think it was merely to put information that had no other logical place. Does it need to remain? Much of the information would go under transport, or war, and the rest in a new section about the people who worked with horses: there must be plenty of information about marshals, farriers, saddle makers and so forth. I also remember toying with the idea of writing about horse tack, but that seemed a bit big (and I am such a novice). But I do have info on spurs and reins and horseshoes. And Montanabw planned an article on riding techniques; did that happen? Is anything relevant here?

So, first thoughts. Enough to keep us going. Anyone keen? Gwinva (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. We can start, I'm sort of game, as the mediation that has been sucking my will to live for the last month may be nearing the finish line. The question may be to first organize what's there in the best way possible, then add/subtract/merge info. I like the women and horses bit, myself, because there is so much nonsense about how women didn't ride, or, worse yet, only rode Pillion or something; one of those mythbuster things that, like the "warhorses were as big as Shires" thing, does need to be addressed. Room to change how its done in the article of course. The different types of horses may be worth consolidating by use and making into more of a series of bulleted paragraphs, though the subheadings are nice for having them in the TOC. What's entirely getting short shrift in the article is the section on the use of horses for farming and related work. Maybe we should tip off Richard New Forest (the resident draught horse and horse farming guru) and see if he wants to chime in. Maybe too, go read horse collar to see if something more on that technological innovation (which was significant) could be incorporated into this article -- is there anything out there on medieval agriculture in general? Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is what we need to cover, so putting into possible sections:

• Breeding – size, breeds, general look at types, how differ from modern horses
• Warfare

• Basic warfare use – how used, tactics, knights, decline of knights
• tournaments
• types – general discussion of coursers destriers and so forth. Bring up those sections??
• size – this discussion is quite important

• transport – general overview of the type of transport forms, roads and so forth; litters, sumpter horses

• riding – although this covers hunting and hawking too, so make its own full section? palfreys and jennets would fit here
• cart and wagon horses – and related transport work horses; discussion about wagons and carriages

• agriculture – enough for its own section?
• trades, tack, technology – need catchy title, but all the stuff about associated professions, and so forth. or would collars be better under agriculture? And how about knights stirrups and use in shock troops under warfare?

Still not sure what to do with the "types"; on reflection, they can't easily be split up into use, since rounceys and hobbies were used for both riding and war. And I know what you mean about the women-section being myth-busting. We were striding into the unknown when we first wrote this; can we hope people are better educated now?! I remember looking for something on medieval agriculture; unless someone's made it recently, there's nothing (or it's somewhere really obscure). If Richard NewForest knows historical draught stuff, that'd be good: makes sense to tap into expertise. Any other WP-equine experts? Talking of expertise, I'm hoping one of you comes up with a better structure; I'm not yet convinced by mine. Gwinva (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I found some articles on medieval agriculture and farming that might be helpful, I just need to get them organized. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem is that we CAN'T do a "Breeds" section, because none of these were "breeds" as we understand them today. They were all types, and to the extent that any were true-breeding populations, there weren't the written registries that we have today (the Carthusian monks of Spain started tracking Andalusians around 1300 and the Bedouin kept oral pedigrees of their horses, but the Jockey Club didn't come along until the Middle Ages were ended. We may have to keep the types as types, but perhaps look to improving the articles they link to...??? Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I tipped off Richard to come over here and take a look! Montanabw^(talk) 22:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reorganised the page along lines suggested above; move around if you don't like it (but I did other edits so don't undo!). See what you think. Haven't done anything with the types of horses. Begun agriculture; expect Ealdgyth to astound us with info from her sources below! Gwinva (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Will have to look it over later, too much there for me to do now, but doesn't look like you destroyed anything. Usually, with these reorg projects, I just look for what, if anything, was tossed out and if I think it critical to keep, I try to plop it back into an appropriate spot for further refinement or discussion. I generally feel any reorganization is probably good reorganization! Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sources

Found the following:

• Bokonyi, Sandor (June 1971). "The Development and History of Domestic Animals in Hungary: The Neolithic Through the Middle Ages". American Anthropologist, New Series 73 (3): 640-674. 
• Crabtree, Pam J. (Summer 1989). "Sheep, Horses, Swine, and Kine: A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Anglo-Saxon Settlement of England". Journal of Field Archaeology 16 (2): 205-213. 
• Crabtree, Pam J. (June 1996). "Production and Consumption in an Early Complex Society: Animal Use in Middle Saxon East Anglia". World Archaeology 28 (1): 58-75. 
• Du Boulay, F. R. H. (1965). "Who were Farming the English Demesnes at the End of the Middle Ages". Economic History Review, Second Series 17 (3): 443-455. 
• Dyer, Christopher (August 1989). "The Consumer and the Market in the Later Middle Ages". Economic History Review, Second Series 42 (3): 305-327. 
• Kerridge, Eric (August 1951). "Ridge and Furrow and Agrarian History". Economic History Review 4 (1): 14-36. 
• Lopez, R. S. (April 1956). "The Evolution of Land Transport in the Middle Ages". Past and Present (9): 17-29. 
• Lindner, Rudi Paul (August 1981). "Nomadism, Horses and Huns". Past and Present (92): 3-19. 
• Langdon, John (May 1984). "Horse Hauling: A Revolution in Vehicle Transport in the Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century England?". Past and Present (103): 37-66. 
• Power, John P.; Campbell, Bruce M. S. (1992). "Cluster Analysis and the Classification of Medieval Demesne-Farming Systems". Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 17 (2): 227-245. 
• Stone, David (November 2001). "Medieval Farm Management and Technological Mentalities: Hinderclay before the Black Death". Economic History Review 54 (4): 612-638. 

Haven't had a chance to read most of these yet, but going to start on them tonight. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another possible adventure in new section creation

By the late middle ages - or at least the Renaissance - there had evolved two distinct riding styles, at least in Spain, where most of the innovations in horsemanship were occurring anyway: the la brida and la jineta seats. To oversimplify, la brida riders had long stirrups, a deep seat, lots of control (think knights), while la jineta riders, borrowing from the invasions of the Moors, rode shorter stirrups, lighter saddle and seat, lots of agility (think jockeys or show jumping riders of today). A true horseman was said to have been able to ride both seats. What I do not know is the extent to which this is a Middle Ages thing versus more of a Renaissance thing. Bennett discusses it in the context of the Conquistadors and their arrival in the New World (see excerpt here) and not sure if this can be traced clear back to the 800s or not. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to have an equestrianism section, showing the development of the riding style, and how it led to that later distinction and a discussion of the knights' straight legged style that we see in the drawings. If I was the average, interested reader wanting an FA standard article about horses in the Middle Ages, I would want to know more than size, type and use: I'd want to know how they were ridden. We comment on how old films get the horse types wrong; I'm sure they get the riding style wrong. Also, information on saddles and stirrups are all very well, but we need to see how that impacts on the riding. Also logistics: how a knight on a horse controlled it: reins, spurs, knees and so forth. I'll leave that to you people who actually understand this stuff! Gwinva (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

One BIG problem: We know a lot more about equipment than riding until one gets to about the 16th century, when the Renaissance sorts began to write new treatises on the subject. We can infer much from tack and art, but the modern interpretations are all over the place. You recall the tough time sorting out the size issue; riding and training is worse! LOL! What may work here is to start a wee sandbox here on the talk page with any summaries that Oakshott and others may have in their works, and we equestrians can figure out the details??? Montanabw^(talk) 00:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, see also: Stirrup#Adjustment_and_uses_of_stirrups for some details on the two seats, though not described as such (but discussing the general principles) Horse_collar#History, there are some contradictions with this article, may want to reconcile the two. Feel free to swipe as needed. Montanabw^(talk) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How about User:Gwinva/HitMA? The general sandboxing can take place there, and leave this page for general discussion. Added some stuff there that I've found. Gwinva (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okey Dokey. Montanabw^(talk) 03:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

To keep track of what needs doing: add in your thoughts and indicate when done: tick done, strike if not required.

Header

• Rewrite with better summary of content
• Reference to exact time period and geography: 5th-16th C; suggest Europe focus (which is what we have; big job to expand)

agree

Breeding

• source for written pedigrees to replace pyramid site

not critical, Ok to keep with cite, but in a perfect world we can find a better one.

• add in explanation of "hackney"

Horses in warfare

• bit more on cavalry and battle tactics
• use of horses beyond knights: scouting, draught
• brief indication of "what happened next": decline of knight; changing technology

yes, but also we cross-ref to horses in warfare

Transportation

• expandsion of riding horses
• expansion of general transport info
• expansion of harness and pack horses

Agriculture

Equipment and so forth

• Equestrianism section here? Training horses. No, not enough training treatises from the period, though maybe per my email comments quote that source you have that says there were no real treatises in the period - maybe if I can source to the time period I can add brief paragraph on the two main styles and Spanish influence
• How about associated trades? saddlery and farrier/blacksmith? Can't hurt if not overdone.
• stirrup and change to riding styles use in shock combat shock combat per se didn't really change the style, other reasons for la brida style, including solid saddle tree and overall need for greater security in the saddle

Women

• Keep section or split out?

(Keep, but maybe could expand into social classes or other aspects of who did or did not ride -- I am guessing serfs and peasants didn't really ride much at all, and if they did, they probably used mules or donkeys...)

Other

IMHO, the stirrup is significant, but possibly just a brief discussion and then a link to the stirrup article, where there is more in-depth coverage. Also, the source on the horse collar I think is just plain wrong on a couple points (the horse collar article has sources dating it to 5th century China), other than possibly the technology somehow came via the middle east...

[edit] Images

• Images Are we happy? Here are some others I've found on my travels. I've got a couple of illustrations showing horse team (with breast and rigid collars) and tacked up horse, which I will upload once I figure out the tagging. Some good ones below to demonstrate riding styles, if you want to have a look, Montanabw. Could do with a picture to fit in with "trades" eg. farrier, but my quick look at commons turned up nothing medieval. found a few now The battle picture on the page is a bit gloomy; there must be a better one around somewhere. Gwinva (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Will check in detail tomorrow when I have high-speed access. The battle picture? Do you mean the one in the article? (If so, there are three panels of that painting, in three different locations, one was "restored," but faded, the other two were left alone and have better color). Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, some general observations. Everyone riding is riding la brida, none are examples of la jineta. Want to shorten all of their stirrups a hole or two! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• - I like this image on a number of levels, tack, riders, horses, though may be repetitious of what's already there
• - Interesting image with useful illustrations, but I think there are better ones for the same, unless you had a particular purpose in mind?
• -- I LOVE this one! Horse collars obviously did not eliminate all road hazards, eh? (The farming one we have already may be better though, and I like the image of the horse litter also.
• --very early sidesaddle, woman sitting completely sideways with her feet resting on a platform, horse has handler at its head. Maybe could go into sidesaddle, other ideas? placing on page instead of Joan of Arc: Joan is decoration, this illustrates point made in text

Okey dokey, you betcha, pardner. (That's Montana-speak for "OK")

• -- too much content for wiki illustration, too busy, though much in it is of interest -- the other images are broken out from this one,are they not?
• - curb bit, bit chains, horse looks destrier type to me, heavy body, very baroque
• - This one amuses me on many levels (the cat on the horse thing in particular! Good example of curb bit, la brida seat, horse with proper proportions, Benozzo Gozzoli knew horses and rendered them well. Good artist to find more of his stuff maybe...
• -- this one is nice, lots of variety, bridles, breastcollars, spurs, nice horse, nice MULE too! (Note the cleric is on the mule, probably a more steady and mild-mannered animal for an elderly fellow, also more humble for a cleric) etc.
• - lovely high-stepping Spanish Jennet type horse, a bit more muscle than a ladies' palfrey - appears to be a stallion (cresty thick neck and apparent anatomical correct features "down there"), horse is very light and attentive to the rider, obviously the fellow is showing off a wee bit!
• - I like this one, double bridle (I think), left hand reining, weapons, armour, clear image. If we need it
• - Baroque horses, big muscular butts, don't look like they are riding into battle (no weapons, no armour, riders and horses so misproportioned that it's impossible to really tell how tall those horses actually were (leg length of riders looks like a shetland pony, almost, but obviously they are horses--though no horse can have a butt that big AND flanks that tucked up! These critters are like Barbie Dolls! LOL! Why do we need the Bayeux Tapestry, again...?
• - interesting in that all the horses are in direct pressure bits, also interesting to show barding and all sorts of weapon use, but probably too small detail for the article.
• --cool -- horse armour, curb bit, short but draft-build animal (note big feet) (if accurate design), much to like, but the horse probably useless for actual battle with barding so long
• - A more cool image if we can find a place to use it. Compare rider size to this (tall woman on Trakhner, horse probably about 16 hands, just guessing)
• - interesting image of a guy getting spurs put on, how about tossing it into spur? (Thanks in advance!)
• - I presume this is a blacksmith? Not horsey enough for here. Well, it's a spurier, making spurs and stirrups - but the saddler is better
• -- classic jointed mouthpiece curb or pelham (snaffle ring is pretty small to attach a rein, but it could be done. Does this look familiar?
• - Ah! Saddle maker, or horse-collar maker, or something ("Sattler" = "Saddler"? ) Looks to be mostly horsey equipment, might work, better than the "Sporer" image, anyway.

More: See also Commons Grands Chroniques de France category

• check riding styles! Ah, the patriarch in la jineta, the rest la brida! But WHY oh WHY did all these people seem to think it was OK to ride with their heels UP? Horrible! (And you see it over and over again. I would be curious to know why -- when modern people put their heels up, it's considered bad equitation as it shortens the rider's leg and makes it difficult to use the calf muscles properly. But I digress)
• -- Oh fascinating! The archer, is in a la jineta seat (he needs the flexibility to turn and shoot), and look at the knee rolls of his saddle -- very similar to a modern dressage saddle, particularly the styles that have just come out in the last few years. Two other riders, the guy with the curved sword and the one standing up in his stirrups, also have jineta seats, up off their horses. The other riders, in armour, riding la brida, braced legs, long stirrups. Interesting. Also the la brida riders appear to be the winners? Anyway, this would be a dandy one to use in a section on riding styles.
• by Donatello, 1445 -- Those spurs! On a modern horse, using those suckers would result in a rider taking a fast face plant! However, the horse is real interesting. Well-sculpted and correctly proportioned, for one thing! (Sculptors tend to be better than painters in that respect) Compare to images in wiki of a modern Andalusian horse or Friesian horse. Heavier than most modern versions, especially in the neck, yet not really like a Percheron or a Clydesdale, either. Also compare to the somewhat lighter modern Lipizzan. Note comparison to that 17 hand riding draft horse I sent you, or just compare the rider on the Andalusian in the wiki article... Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soon to be home

Assuming the creeks don't flood here in Arkansas, should be home tonight. Yes, I have some show halter shots. (Better get that out or Montana won't let me edit until I do (grins)). Hopefully will have time this week to work on this... sorry for dropping the ball! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Six Days on the Road and she's gonna make it home tonight! LOL