english saddles

[GAR]

Re: english saddles

On the plus side, Dan, you could likely sell it on ebay for much more than you paid as $60 seems like a real bargain.
Ken commented on how little English saddles have changed over the last few centuries. What amazes me is that after a 4000 plus year riding relationship with the horse, that a saddle can even be improved upon.

[IowaYank]

Re: english saddles

yup, pretty sure your right Yurko! I went looking on Ebay and found saddles very much like mine listed as a Japanese saddle. Well, so much for my new civilian/CS cavalry saddle!!! :-) Oh well!! Thanks!

[YMikels]

Re: english saddles

Dan,

I really hate to disappoint you...being a horsey pard and all.

But I'd say you're the proud owner of a Japanese Cavalry saddle circa 1935-1945. I have two in my collection, one being completely unissued and the other in damn fine condition complete with the canvas saddle bags. Yours is missing a few attachment points including a nice little brass trimmed spoon at the cantle. Those two iron "L" shaped attachment points at the back, that's where you pass the grommets through for the canvas bags. Call me tomorrow if you want to know more clues as to provenance as I'm sure there are some faint characters, which I'm sure you cannot read, under the side skirt. It's certainly not German if that puts you any more at ease as I have one of those as well.

I now know how bad you were wanting to put that China theater impression together. About the only place they used Cavalry in any significance. But Dan, you're entirely too tall and your eyes too round.....

Highest regards,

[IowaYank]

Re: english saddles

Hello all, I have a saddle that I recently purchased that fits along the lines of this discussion, so I figured I would revive an old thread. I was recently at a trapping convention and ran across this English saddle at one of the tailgaters booth. It immediately caught my eye. I have very little education on English saddles, but it looked like something that is semi period for what we do. Can anyone help identify if this saddle truly is CW period,,,,,or for that matter what period it would be?? The billet straps are obviously replacements, but everything else seems to be original to the saddle. All of the hardware appears to be of iron. I can not tell if the padding under the saddle is stuffed with horse hair or not.

Oh, and for $60 bucks, I figured I couldn't go wrong picking it up!! I don't think the guy knew what he had (although to be honest I am not sure what I have yet either! )

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: english saddles

Hallo!

Yes, the conversation gets interesting when one thinks that a cavalryman was a civilian before the necessities of cavalry life, and returned to one after.
Or better yet, we sometimes assume or presume that all mid 19th century folk were born and bred to horses. Which may be true for the countryside, but perhaps not so much to lads raised in the growing cities of that era who did not have horses.

"I call this the Mel Gibson school of riding. Have you ever seen that guy ride in Braveheart or any other film of his that requires a horse?? That's the riding I've seen by A LOT of reenactors. Its that false sense of security by driving deep in the seat, legs forward, while pushing their "heels down" with their toes at 45 degree outward angles. There's nothing balanced about that and the stirrup leather and stirrup is relied upon to steady themselves vs. merely be a place for the foot to rest. Vulgar is exactly the term I'd use as well!"

I am reminded of Hugh Jackman in "Australia." When being cast for the part of the drover, he said he lied when asked if he could ride. And then hoped that no one saw him fall off while he was at riding classes.

IMHO, and perhaps defying a century or two of form and function...

I really do not see, other than in tradition and the "formality" of style and form, the issue of the toes (foot) up, or out when everything else is "proper" in terms of where the saddle is sat, the head, the chest, and back, the hips, the inner thighs, and the knees.
Meaning, I was taught to place the heels down with the toes out and be sure to pay attention to the heel not riding the ribs of the horse. I hate as unnecessary.
But as one of my "English" instructors taught, when in the saddle forget that there is anything below your knees.

Ah, for the wonders of what a film of original CW era horse instruction/training was like for civillians as well as military...

:)

Curt
Civillian Intermediate Rider Mess

[CJSchumacher]

Re: english saddles

A quote from , ' The Handbook of Horsemanship: Containing Plain Practical Rules For Riding, Driving And The Management Of Horses' Capt M***** 1842:

"....But if, on the contrary, the knees are opened outwards, the under-part of the thighs on the saddle, the heels drawn up, and turned in, and the toes outwards, such positions are insecure, dangerous, ugly, and vulgar............although he makes use of both [bridle and stirrups] he is not to hang on the one, nor cling by the others. The bridle is only used for guidance - the stirrups to rest the feet upon....."

I call this the Mel Gibson school of riding. Have you ever seen that guy ride in Braveheart or any other film of his that requires a horse?? That's the riding I've seen by A LOT of reenactors. Its that false sense of security by driving deep in the seat, legs forward, while pushing their "heels down" with their toes at 45 degree outward angles. There's nothing balanced about that and the stirrup leather and stirrup is relied upon to steady themselves vs. merely be a place for the foot to rest. Vulgar is exactly the term I'd use as well!

Anyway, the entire discussion about the English seat has been great and I feel that the closer contact one has with the horse, the better their seat will be. Dressage teaches this perfectly.

[English Doc]

Re: english saddles

Hallo!

I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing.

[COLOR="Blue"]And as it (appearently has) evolved, the head is up, the look forward at where one is going, the shoulders squared, the chest forward, the back erect, the small of the back pulled, the hips lowered, the knees rolled in, the inner thigh contacting the horse, the legs extended on a line below the shoulders and hips (long) in the stirrups, the ball of the foot centred on the stirrup, the heels down, and the toes up AND the feet rotated outward (rather than straight).

while there is obviously the formal military mounted instruction, what vast or not so vast differences were there between an upper class person learning to ride for fox hunting versus the farmer's son learning to ride the plow horse to go into town.

Curt

A quote from , ' The Handbook of Horsemanship: Containing Plain Practical Rules For Riding, Driving And The Management Of Horses' Capt M***** 1842:

"....to which may be added the riding-master's usual laconic directions of,
" body back-elbows down-toes up-and heels out". But if, on the contrary, the knees are opened outwards, the under-part of the thighs on the saddle, the heels drawn up, and turned in, and the toes outwards, such positions are insecure, dangerous, ugly, and vulgar............although he makes use of both [bridle and stirrups] he is not to hang on the one, nor cling by the others. The bridle is only used for guidance - the stirrups to rest the feet upon....."

Again, gentlemanly references. As Mr Schmidt has alluded to, most of the common 'riding' population would be self taught. I (yes, I am VERY common!) have NEVER had but one lesson (to rectify a 'spinning' issue I had), but I still have a full trophy cabinet for reining, cutting and penning. The same would go for the majority back in the day I reckon...(but minus the trophies!)

[Outrider]

Re: english saddles

"Herein lies the problem. Reenactors look at even this...riding...as some form of a re-creation of events from some "imaginary" time ago. Horses are dangerous to those who don't know what they're doing. Horsemanship is timeless and believe me, as one who saw many "cavalrymen" over the years...there's very little of it in reenacting."

Amen Chris. I couldnt agree more. One doesnt have to go far in reenacting to see a decided lack of real horsemanship. Ive had to bite my tongue, and close my eyes on many occasions. I believe this may go back to a false image so many seem to have that to be unable to ride is somehow un-American and so as long as they can "stick a horse" they consider themselves good riders. I am not at all talking about "natural" riders. I have known many over the years who ride very well indeed and have never taken a lesson or who started riding later in life but a good seat, light hands, comes naturally and so dont think much about those sorts of things much but its the ones who are just ignorant and their horses clearly pay the price that get my blood up.

General Carter has something to say about ignorant riders in his day too and obviously had a good many to deal with:

" ...the presence in the ranks of untrained riders is bad in peace and criminal in war, but every army has them. In order to neutralize the effect of their ignorance, good, well fitted saddles and bits are prime necessities. It is the pain and excitement caused in young , nervous horses, by powerful bits in the hands of thoughtless or poor riders, which make them degenerate into plungers and bolters. Curb, spavin, broken knees, and other injuries may frequently be traced to the same cause. Horses thus injured are condemned and sold for a mere trifle, and the indifferent rider is placed on another animal, not infrequently to repeat the same experience through ignorance."

[Outrider]

Re: english saddles

This is a great thread.
Forgive yet another post-war source but I agree w/Chris that on this subject we should get a pass. Also, this has relevence since in the foward the good General plainly states that the techniques/methods within were a result of lessons learned in "the late war" This is my favorite book on Military riding. It is just fantastic in its detail,photograghs and the wide range of topics covered. It is available online here if anyone would like to check it out who doesnt already have a copy:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hfEMJEmc78YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+us+cavalry+horse&ei=Cac7S7ezMo-2M5ymsKsB&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

It is clear to me that no matter what school - english or western- one learns/rides, neither is really correct for cavalry of the period and yet both are correct for a civilian of the period.

General William H. Carter in The US Cavalry Horse(1895) clearly puts military riding in its own class and properly done it is really a mix of both disciplines. he breaks 'seat' into 3 forms; "long seat"(english), "tongs-across-a -wall" (can be either) "fork seat" ( western) and "military seat"
pg 142-144

"The purpose for which the rider mounts his horse determines to a great extent the kind of seat he will ride. The jockey, in the merest apology for a saddle, with his knees gripping the horses's withers and his feet shoved home in light steel stirrups, and whose sole duty is to ride to orders and land his mount first under the wire, presents few points of resemblance to the cow-boy, who, in a fifty pound saddle, and riding a fork seat, fearlessly ropes half wild cattle or confidently mounts a "bucking" horse.
Military riding cannot be properly classed with any other kind of riding, because its object is entirely different. Park and road riding present no resemblance to it, because in these the individual taste of the rider dictates all his appointments and the gaits of his horse. It is here that the trained and many gaited saddle horse finds his proper field of action. A light leather saddle is all that is required, whereas in military riding a heavy wooden frame, capable of having a hundred pound weight of pack attached, is an absolute necessity. a military saddle also has a high pommel and cantle, which detract much from its apperance, but are indespensable because of the pack.
Hunting involves rough riding across country, but the seat is not limited by any such necesseties as apply in the case of military riding. In following the hounds the rider has usaully a trained jumper, and his riding is practically over a straight away course involving no sudden turns or halts except inevent of accident. Even though the huntsman keeps well up with the hounds, and may at times find himself bunched with many others, it is vastly different from a rushing, thundering noise of a boot-to boot charge over unknown ground, perhaps in a cloud of dust or smoke, where a secure seat, entirely independent of the reins is an absolute necessity."

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: english saddles

Hallo!

I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing.

But I also think we are reliving the Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant but perhaps more sight-impaired than totally blind.

Meaning, we have a mix of "modern evolutions" in method, form, and tack that we are trying to trace its ancestor in the images and "manuals" of the Past.

For example, the material from Walsh, as a modern equitation student, I would disagree that in my modern discipline that the "back saddle" shifts the riders weight behind the middle center of the horse to allow for the front end of the gaited horse movement. (And facilitates the bending of the horse's spine as well as the gait in turning the arena corners.)
Plus, the legs (and knees used to urge the horse forward through the arena turns or faster gaits) while perhaps appearing to be "still" are part of the command and movement function supplementing or augmenting the single or double reins supplementing the voice.

And as it (appearently has) evolved, the head is up, the look forward at where one is going, the shoulders squared, the chest forward, the back erect, the small of the back pulled, the hips lowered, the knees rolled in, the inner thigh contacting the horse, the legs extended on a line below the shoulders and hips (long) in the stirrups, the ball of the foot centred on the stirrup, the heels down, and the toes up AND the feet rotated outward (rather than straight).

But that is limited to the style and the function. Meaning, the above is not well-suited to jumping ditches, walls, and fences (which Walsh speaks to in is opening lines).

Then again, we are confronted with the artist and how much of life is their in his art? Meaning, 19th century and 18th century images will show say the
heels down and the toes rotated outwards as well as straight.

And last but not least, IMHO there is also the issue, question, or quandry as to what exactly does/did riding instruction mean? As with fencing, how did a lower class individual learn and what- versus say a nobleman or upper class student seeking out such-and-such fencing master's school in Italy or Spain.
Meaning, while there is obviously the formal military mounted instruction, what vast or not so vast differences were there between an upper class person learning to ride for fox hunting versus the farmer's son learning to ride the plow horse to go into town.

Curt

[CJSchumacher]

Re: english saddles

You're partially right...I would argue their stirrups aren't really much longer than most ride today in the hunt field. If you put your hand on your horses rump, half turn, and are leaning back as they are in the painting as often people do at a check or stop, you're naturally going to extend your leg as it appears in the painting. I believe they've "caught" a nice moment here. ;)

The seat is what's most important and stirrup length shouldn't disrupt an otherwise stable, comfortable, and most importantly, balanced seat. Believe me, it does come down to what works for each individual.

I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing.

[Hank Trent]

Re: english saddles

Herein lies the problem. Reenactors look at even this...riding...as some form of a re-creation of events from some "imaginary" time ago. Horses are dangerous to those who don't know what they're doing. Horsemanship is timeless and believe me, as one who saw many "cavalrymen" over the years...there's very little of it in reenacting.

Take a look at this 18th century painting that Mr. Trent linked to earlier. What about this riding style isn't applicable today?? The way they're sitting astride looks timeless to me and they look no different than people sitting at a check or waiting for the hunt to move off than people hunting today.

Except when they do. ;)

http://www.pbase.com/renedehaart/image/57224076

Look at the man on the right in the image above. Perfect forward seat. That's how I was taught to sit and ride in the 1980s, shorter stirrups, shoulders above hips above feet. It would be possible to find dozens of pictures of men in that posture in the 1860s, and also dozens of pictures of men in the 2000s that look like the hunting painting, because they're both practical ways of riding horses. But they're typical of different eras and different contexts.

I'm not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing. :)

On the one hand, I agree that anything that works, works. One can't "pretend" to ride a horse. I can't say that I was all that good at it when I was doing it regularly at home and at events, but I never got myself hurt or my horse hurt and we could generally get ourselves where and when we needed to be over whatever terrain or distance was presented.

On the other hand, there are fashions, for lack of a better term, that come and go in different eras and different contexts. It's human nature to want to look cool, to want to find a better way, to do something the way you're told just because you're told, and so forth. And there are a variety of ways to do things that trade off different positive and negatives, so I don't think there's ever one single right way to do anything (though I've found that riding instructors can be quite dogmatic about their own personal preferences). And there are genuine discoveries/inventions that do objectively improve things, such as the forward seat for jumping and for flat racing. No jockey would ride today like a jockey in the 1860s. My riding instructor said I was only allowed to practice this when none of her other students could see, lest they think she was teaching it to me.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[English Doc]

Re: english saddles

Ok, this is a really informative thread, and I attach a period (English) reference to the 'seat'.

I make no apologies for its length - it really needs to be read in the whole. Of interest (and importance) though, is the final paragraphs. Whilst this description of the classic seat is for, in my opinion, 'gentlemen', there is no way that these rules could or would have been adopted by the majority of riders - (they couldn't afford the time, let alone the cost!)

Anyway...

THE SEAT

The position of the rider in the saddle, called ‘the seat’, admits of several variations according to the purpose to which he is devoted, but it is mainly influenced by the length of the stirrups. In the military style these are so long that the weight of the body is conveyed to the saddle by the inside of the thighs, or ‘fork’ alone, and the breech and feet distribute the weight between them. Colonel Greenwood, who is the only military writer on horsemanship that can be taken as a guide for the road, tells us – “There is one direction which I think applies to all seats. Turn the thigh from the hip, so as to bring the hollow to the saddle; this places the foot straight to the front, with the heel out and the toe in. Trotting without stirrups, on the thigh only, with the heel down and the toe up, shoulders back, a snaffle rein in each hand like a rough rider, is the best possible position for sitting”. Now the latter part of this is quite true, but the former is not quite consistent with my own experience, for if the short stirrups of the Eastern Horseman are adopted, the hollow of the thigh cannot be brought to the saddle, yet this style he admits is “admirable in its way”. Dismissing then the military seat for which Colonel Greenwood’s directions may suffice, I may assert that, in the ordinary English style, there are four points necessary to be considered; namely, (1) the position of the weight, which will be mainly influenced by (2) the position of the knees well forward on the flap, (3) the proper length of the stirrup-leathers, and (4) the carriage of the body. If the weight is not laid upon the middle of the saddle, which is the axis of the “see-saw” motion made in the gallop, it has to be raised at every stride, and thus additional labour is thrown on the horse. With long stirrups in the military style this is of necessity done; but, with short stirrups, the knees are often placed on the flaps behind the leathers, and then the breech remains close to the cantle and sometimes almost overlapping it. To get the length of leather adapted to most men, though there are occasionally exceptions, the rider should sit well on his fork, and then the stirrups should be taken up or let down till they just touch the ankle bone. For road riding this enables the hollow of the thigh to touch the saddle, because the ball of the foot being on the stirrup, the heel is down an inch and a half below it; whilst, in the hunting field, as the stirrup is worn “home”, the knee is carried higher and more forward on the saddle, and the weight is distributed between it, the breech, and the foot. With regard to the carriage of the body, all the directions in the world will not make it easy, and without the supervision of a master, or a friend, to point out defects, no one can be sure that he is sitting in a good , much less an elegant style. It is not possible even to know that the shoulders are square, or that the body is not carried on one side, defects which I have known persisted in for years without the slightest consciousness of them on the part of the rider, who would gladly have rectified them if he had known of their existence. One rule may, however, be given, namely, that no effort should be made to move in any direction, and that, on the contrary, every endeavour should be directed to keep the body and legs as still as the action of the horse will allow, bearing in mind that the opposite extreme of stillness is almost equally as bad.
(PP 289-290)

(THE HORSE, In the Stable and the Field: His Varieties, Management in Health and Disease, Anatomy, Physiology, Etc. etc. – By J H Walsh F.R.C.S.)

One other thing - as noted in the text, (long stirrups being a military 'thing') Do you thing that maybe period painting showed men sitting to horse this way as a sign of military prowess? A real magnet in those days.....

[Mark Choate]

Re: english saddles

This has really been a wonderful discussion and Chris, you are very correct in saying that you don't see some "cavalrymen" riding in this manner. The reason is the same that you don't always see it in many forms of recreational riding. It does not matter if you are riding period or modern or if you foxhunt, compete in dressage (as does my wife), grand prix jumping, barrel racing, calf-roping, team penning, etc. the absolute foundational fundamental that oft times is discarded is simply "balance". Everything that helps you develop your seat and control the horse begins with balance. The different types of saddles that Hank and others have discussed are aids to achieving this balance.
The absence of that (again, in any riding) is why you see folks pitching forward or backwards or appearing to wrestle with their mount.

Thanks to all for the imput on this as even my wife has enjoyed it!

Mark

[CJSchumacher]

Re: english saddles

But if that was the goal of how a gentleman should ride, is there any style of riding today where one could just go to a riding instructor and say "teach me _______ style" and come out looking like a well-trained gentleman from the 1860s? Ironically enough, I don't think there is, but I dunno.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Herein lies the problem. Reenactors look at even this...riding...as some form of a re-creation of events from some "imaginary" time ago. Horses are dangerous to those who don't know what they're doing. Horsemanship is timeless and believe me, as one who saw many "cavalrymen" over the years...there's very little of it in reenacting.

Take a look at this 18th century painting that Mr. Trent linked to earlier. What about this riding style isn't applicable today?? The way they're sitting astride looks timeless to me and they look no different than people sitting at a check or waiting for the hunt to move off than people hunting today.



I'm not picking on Mr. Trent here, in fact, he helps explain the problem between reenactors pretending and horsemen doing.

And regarding the flocking question, I've never seen any 19th century stuffed panels or pads that weren't hair as well.