Civilian Saddles

[Linneus Ahearn]

Anyone got any resources or photos for common civilian saddles that fellows may have ridden to war on? I'm looking for a documented pattern of the era for a flat saddle probably with square sweat leathers and english rigged. There is very little information available and I have seen none represented on the field.

Thanks for any help!

[Dingus]

Anyone got any resources or photos for common civilian saddles that fellows may have ridden to war on?

Here's a link with a photo of a civilian saddle (referred to as a "high back"). Looks like a deep dressage saddle to me.

http://www.rulen.com/partisan/equip.htm

[Cary Davisson]

Hello,
Ken Knopp would be a good person to ask! Another book is Southern Historical Saddles, but which is out of print. This list many diff. types of saddles, civilian & military. Beware, I think some of the saddles listed in the book might be post war or even catalog saddles of the 1890's.
Cary A. Davisson

[Linneus Ahearn]

My thanks to both responders!

I was hoping to scare up some photos others may have in their files that none of us have seen. Southern Historical Saddles has some saddle information that lacks good documentation and other information that leaves me sceptical so I try to avoid using that book for research. I contacted Ken Knopp first thing, we will be talking after the busy holiday season.

Any more pictures or descriptions out there???

[CJSchumacher]

Hey Lin,

I was just looking through the Militaryhorse.org website and noticed something. Now while this pre-dates the war by some time...there is a manual published in the City of Washington in 1834 by Francis Preston Blair, a reprint of an earlier 1826 edition.

While the manual describes the french hussar pattern to be desirable...it also has a plate of a flat saddle "commonly in use in the United States."

You'll note the pattern is english and probably the same style in use by many CS cavalrymen (eastern, esp. VA) riding off to war in 1861. This pattern basically exists to this day and would be what is called a close-contact saddle.

Hope this helps.

Chris

http://www.militaryhorse.org/articles/holmes/images/1834manual.gif
http://www.militaryhorse.org/articles/holmes/images/1834man_text.gif

[Linneus Ahearn]

Chris,

I am wondering what kind of documentation would be needed to get production of something like this going for the authentic community, I know I want one and there is need for such a thing for the cavalry impression. Before I start construction with a saddler I'd love to see, or be directed to, an original to examine the details. You know how these projects can get sometimes ;)

I have also seen the deeper seated, square-skirted, square-cantle types too. These are similar to the mis-documented dragoon saddle of the 1830's.

Much thanks for your contribution to the thread!

[10nycav]

I'd like to know more about the documentation/provenance of that "civilian saddle" you posted the link for. It seems to me to have significant military influence. The shape of the pommel is classic Grimseley. The construction appears to be more like that of a military saddle of the 1850s-60s than a civilian saddle. It could be a civilian copy of a military saddle.

Drawings of common civilian saddles in use in the eastern US, circa 1860 show something similar to a modern English saddles, but the skirts drop straight down rather than jutting forward. The example I have seen does not have square skirts, they are rounded and rather long suggesting that the stirrup leathers were ridden long and the rider's leg was almost (but not quite) straight through the knee, not flexed at the knee as in a modern jumping saddle. Some had knee rolls but most did not. (Knee rolls were used by older gentlemen and more timid riders for added security.) A photo I saw of an older saddle of this type, but unfortunately not dated, had a seat that sloped slightly down from pommel to cantle, sitting the rider further back on the horse than any modern flat saddle would do. This was unlike modern dressage saddle with its deep, level seat. The cantle was low and squared off similar to a modern close contact saddle such as the Prix des Nations, but the similarity is somewhat of an illusion because the older saddle puts one in an entirely different balance relative to the horse than the modern close-contact. One would have to jump the older saddle in the classical style, with stirrup leathers long, leaning back and putting the legs forward upon alighting, which is extremely difficult to do without hurting the horse. (The old Muybridge jumping photos which were taken prior to the development of the forward seat, clearly illustrate the problem.)

Of course horned saddles were popular in civilian use too but I am not as familiar with those and will leave them for others to discuss.

Ken Morris

Here's a link with a photo of a civilian saddle (referred to as a "high back"). Looks like a deep dressage saddle to me.

http://www.rulen.com/partisan/equip.htm

[GBaylor]

In reference to having a period civilian saddle made, my good friend Lukas Berg made me a period English saddle based on Stubb's hunting prints of the 18th Century. Mostly looks like and old Crosby .

John Sweeney

[CJSchumacher]

In reference to having a period civilian saddle made, my good friend Lukas Berg made me a period English saddle based on Stubb's hunting prints of the 18th Century. Mostly looks like and old Crosby .

John Sweeney

An old Crosby...that's what I've got! See you on Friday, Sweeney.

Ken,

It makes sense that the older saddles had longer, straighters skirts as these accomodated the classic military "safety seat". This type of skirt is still evident on modern drassage saddles where a slightly longer stirrup is still ridden in competition vs. jumping. In fact, if you look at plates from Poinsett's or earlier manuals, the classic position of the trooper when mounted looks very similar to the position of today's top Grand Prix level dressage riders.

As riding styles changed to accompany a more forward seat, so did the skirt patterns. As the stirrup leathers were generally shortened around the early 20th century, the knee naturally moves forward...creating a need to protect them with a forward-swept skirt.

Because you mentioned jumping I was hoping to show some illustrations. Here are two photos posted on another forum from the Runyon Collection of the American Memory site at the Library of Congress that are exemplary of these two styles. Granted, they are early 20th century, but still cav and still exemplary of methods in use during the 19th century through today.

The first is the older, classic style of jumping. (very hard on the horse)

http://runyon.lib.utexas.edu/r/RUN08000/RUN08000/RUN08099.JPG

The second, much more similar to the modern style...and not typical for this time frame. Look at how perfect that horse looks!!

http://runyon.lib.utexas.edu/r/RUN08000/RUN08100/RUN08125.JPG

Here's one for S&G's...a little Roman riding! This has got to be one of the oldest forms of competition for cavalrymen! I'd like to see someone try this!!

http://runyon.lib.utexas.edu/r/RUN08000/RUN08100/RUN08119.JPG

Again, I would post these pictures if they didn't pertain to cavalry and in fact, involve the very same methods for training and competing as in the mid-19th century.

Chris

[10nycav]

Chris,

Very cool photos although I would argue that the fellow leaning forward is still jumping in the classical style. In the takeoff phase of jumping in the classical style, as described in the Civil War era manuals, the rider does lean forward--the difference is that the leg is long, as this fellow's is. He should also "give a little the hands" as the horse leaves the ground, which this rider is not doing. (If he was doing a modern forward seat his hands would be further up the horse's neck but I would argue that his hands aren't right for either a modern or a classical seat.) At the height of the jump the rider would be sitting straight up on the horse. In the descent phase the rider leans back, and puts his legs forwards, as shown in the first photo. The horses in these pictures are jumping a lot better than the ones in the Muybridge series and the first horse especially look much calmer. The second is being held back too much. Jumping in the classical seat is much harder for the rider to perfect without jabbing the horse in the mouth--the rider's timing must be perfect. The only time you see a modern rider doing anything approaching a classical descent (leaning back with legs braced forwards) is on descending jumps in three day eventing--especially those step-downs into water--and by the time they alight the reins are usually flapping loose and the rider is frantically gathering them up as the horse charges on. Makes for some pretty exciting viewing.

As for the "Roman riding" a pair of horses over jumps--I saw a demonstration of this last christmas at the "Cheval Theater" show in Las Vegas. One of the two horses was a Canadian which of course I liked. At any rate is was really something to see.

In 100% agreement that the dressage seat is little changed from the military seat of the mid-1800s, long leg and all. Which is why if people ask for advice on trainers I recommend they go to someone with classical dressage experience. But no one teaches jumping in the classical style anymore, and knowledgeable people I have talked to (including Jim Rowe) have disouraged me from trying it because of the potential harm to the horse.

Ken Morris

[CJSchumacher]

Ken,

I fully agree on discouraging the classical style of jumping. And you are absolutely correct that the only time you really see this evident is from the three-day eventers. I myself have had this slightly happen when foxhunting and jumping a fence downhill, where you come over a couple of feet lower on the other side then when you took off. Of coarse, body position is nothing as severe as what you see in the first photo. The key in this situation is to not check the horse's head. You don't want to land on the horses shoulders when jumping downhill.

I would argue, though, that the second photo is textbook for the modern style. The hands shouldn't be further up, but instead closer or where they appear to be in this photo. Maybe this horse just bends really well and is really on the bit. Who knows??

Here is a photo, closer to takeoff of the classic seat. Note the rider is not out of the seat at all. In fact every other photo that shows this style of jumping is just like this. None of the cavalrymen are out of or barely out of their seat. He has also "given a little the hands".

http://runyon.lib.utexas.edu/r/RUN08000/RUN08100/RUN08133.JPG

I agree that people should school with dressage riders, as I work every week with a Grand Prix level rider here in New York who is training for the 2008 Olympic Games with the U.S. Eqestrian Team. Nothing can get you riding more like a classically trained equestrian and serious horseman than ground work, cavaletti, ground work, jumping and, oh yeah...ground work. :wink_smil

My friends Jim Rowe and Joyce Henry taught me that!

Chris

[GBaylor]

I agree with Ken in regard to the differing styles of jumping (Classical/ Modern) and Chris on the skirt/flap issue. I should have said that it is similar to the Crosby; whereas it has no knee rolls, etc. However, the flaps/skirts are longer and straighter (drops straight down from the pommel, not the cut of the leather flap itself)than the modern english or crosby, and the seat is very shallow.

John Sweeney

[10nycav]

That photo looks like a good example of the jumping description in the Civil War era manuals. Perfect on the hands given the style of jumping he is doing.

There was one horse I rode for a year that you could sit on like that fellow in the photo and jump. He was a big Irish Draught/Irish TB cross and you could jump him easily in a McClellan saddle and stay put in the seat. Smooth as silk and I did jump him up to 4 feet oer a split-rail fence in a Mac. It was just like riding an extra big canter stride. Of course he was an old retired eventer and completely reliable. Not many horses I feel comfortable jumping without a helmet and he was one of 'em. Unfortunately I have never been able to duplicate that experience with another horse. My Morgan arches his back like a deer and he'd jump you right out of the saddle if you didn't get up out of the seat. So the question I always come to is, if you intend to jump in Mac do you just raise the stirrups and use a forward seat even though it's not period correct? What do you do, Chris?

Ken Morris

[CJSchumacher]

So the question I always come to is, if you intend to jump in Mac do you just raise the stirrups and use a forward seat even though it's not period correct? What do you do, Chris?

Ken Morris

Well, to be honest, I don't really jump in my Mac. If I had to, which I have in the past because terrain required it (ditches, etc.), I've taken it with a longer leg as if I were bareback and tried to stay as centered over the horse as possible. I haven't set out to specifically jump in a McClellan so haven't tried it with the shorter stirrups. That said, I have seen cavalrymen from the same (actually, just later) period as the photos I've shown in Macs with somewhat shortened stirrups. This was using the model '28 Mac when they put the rounded skirts back on.

I know what you mean about having to come up. I've been riding the most springy 17h. Holsteiner. He'll jump anything and is one of the best of the 50+ horses in my trainer's barn. We're actually training for some shows this summer out on Long Island. He's an amazing horse!

And to think...it all started with cavalry reenacting!

Chris

[Dingus]

I'd like to know more about the documentation/provenance of that "civilian saddle" you posted the link for.
.
.
Ken Morris
Perhaps I should have said "claimed" civilian saddle :o While researching Missouri partisans during the ACW on the internet, I came across this site not long before I saw this thread requesting information regarding civilian saddles. I have no direct connection with this organization myself (I haven't lived in Missouri for thirty years :( ). Missouri folks are kind to strangers until given a reason to act otherwise, so give'em a write! partisan@rulen.com

(My wife, the current rider in the family, left jumping for dressage when she gave up hope of ever winning the Grand National.)

[T.Kern]

First let me say sorry for the late entry into this post as I have just now started on this site , after a long absence, I am reading old posts.

I would disagree that a classical seat jumping, if done right, is harmful to the horse. I jump that style and yes, you do rise with the horse and back with the fall, but you should not pound the horses back. You roll your hips and polish the saddle and keep some of the weight in your legs on landing so there is no hard contact to the horses back. You remain verticle with the horse. Only the modern teachers, who are so used to the Caprilli style say this is harmful. They are not as familiar with anything else and often are very narrow minded in their approach to the subject because it is all they were taught. I know, in my business I have often had these discussions with many of them. Classical teachers such as, Baucher , L'Hotte, and Nolan would have probably differed with them as well. I would go on to say my experience should enlighten some. I will, at times, be on a horse for five hours foxhunting. This includes Jumping large heights, often at speed, and some runs can last +/- an hour. I ride a longer leg and deeper seat than most moderns and while the horse is very tired and sore from this marathon his back is no worse than any other horse who rider used the forward seat. I will also say that if you use only the forward seat, as in the hunter ring, you may not last long in the field. This is because in the real world (where everything is not flat and well groomed- and the horses go by at speed and in different directions.) riding too forward can loose you in a bad situation. Many a show rider has hit the ground because they didn't ride defensively enough, in other words you've got to sit back some in deep ground, sharp turns,and twisting trappy jumps. The horse often needs to engage his rear and with your weight out over his neck that can be difficult, not to mention your center of balance when in a sharp trappy turn and the horse turns out from under you. Now this is not too say that you can't sore a horse's back, as with any style, a poor rider who is not a light rider will sore the back. Just food for thought concerning the 20th century style and the 19th.
By the way, as military saddles go a Jenifer is very comfortable for jumping with it's close contact and low pommel. The mac is not quite as much because of the higher more pronounced pommel but it's ok. Remember the period manual says you should be able to rise six inches which is more than enough to get off the horses back. As for the texas saddle, one has to be careful of your position so as to not jam the horn in your stomach, though I have seen it done easily by others. I am going to make a mulie saddle (texas w/o the horn) as I believe it would be very comfortable.
Another By the way, foxhunting is the closest thing the American continent will ever see to real cavalry again, the simularities are vast. But that is a post for later.

[10nycav]

Hi Todd,

Thanks for chiming in on this. I talked with my instructor about this issue after this thread came out and he said that the primary benefit of the forward seat is that it is much easier to teach someone to jump; the classical seat is more difficult. With the forward seat you can get someone jumping a lot quicker, and get less skilled people to be able to jump without interfering with the horse. But he agrees with you that the classical seat if done properly, is not harmful to the horse. From his point of view the harm done is the riders banging the horse's back or mouth, not because of a "problem" with the classical seat per se. He has done a lot of fox hunting and cross country riding (graduated from Morvan Park when they still had their instructor certification program) and from his description of that seat he also rode "deeper" and with quite a bit longer leg, than the show jumpers do.

Ken Morris