|
|
Recreating
Roman Cavalry |
|
|
by
John Conyard |
||
|
Introduction
Over the past few years we have recreated Roman
cavalry from the 1st to the 6th centuries. But it is in
the 4th century that the “perfect cavalryman” first makes an
appearance. A trooper able to use the bow and contos, while controlling the
horse with his balance and legs. The article concentrates on my experience of
4th century riding. Saddles and Tack Peter Connolly used the
surviving evidence in the form of leather covers, their stitching, stretch and
wear marks, as well as metal horn plates, to produce a working Romano-Celtic
saddle. He produced a design based upon a solid wooden four-horned frame. The
size of the horns are in part dictated by the surviving copper alloy horn
plates, possibly acting as stiffeners. Some plates are of a surprising
thickness perhaps suggesting they are for protection. However these
protectors or stiffeners do not give an indication of the angle of horns.
This can be derived from sculptural evidence. Various surviving pieces of
harness fitting also give glues to the nature of harness and how the saddle
was attached to the horse.[1]
Various other attempts
have been made to reproduce four-horned saddles using alternatives to the solid
wooden frame, in part perhaps to justify simpler and cheaper reconstructions.
Flexible padded saddles as used by Junkelmann for 1st –2nd
century cavalry impressions, without a wooden frame can produce similar wear
and stretch marks as found on surviving saddle covers.[2]
The metal horn stiffener can be attached to the padded horns internally or
externally, or not used at all. The fact that individual names have been
found scratched or punched on to the stiffeners has been used as evidence
that they were used externally. Finds presented at the
Carlisle Millennium Project conference in 2004 were found during excavations
on the Castle Green between 1998 and 2001. Two saddle covers were illustrated
which both showed stretch marks where they had been pressed down over a
wooden frame. The covers were very worn and had both been patched many times.
Overall the stitch pattern used on each cover was the same as has been found
on other sites. But these covers retained trapezoidal flaps of leather, about
half as deep as they were long, with the widest edges lowest when on the
horse. They demonstrate that rather than just being sewn up under the saddle
as originally believed, leather covers could be secured over the horns and
wooden frame of the saddle. These saddle covers simply hung down the sides of
the horse, even having a substantial fringed curtain of leather hanging from
the lower edge. These seem to be covers from riding saddles rather than pack
saddles, protecting the rider’s legs against the girth and the edge of the
wooden frame. The girth strap, rather than being stitched into the saddle
cover as initially thought, was attached directly to the saddle frame giving
greater stability. A piece of wood was exhibited which exactly conformed to
the curved piece of the saddle frame that crossed the withers in the Connolly
reconstruction. Such a design does pose questions about how much padding was
used in the saddle, and how it was held in place. My aim was to evaluate the saddle, and learn some of the
skills of the late antique Roman cavalryman. Junkelmann and 1st-2nd
century re-enactment groups had already explored the early Roman period. The
late antique period had yet to be systematically re-created. Firstly this meant that I had to learn to ride. The
process I went through would in part mirror that of an infantryman, inducted
into the cavalry. I was used to the weapons and equipment, but not to horses.
However Roman recruits had the option of very severe bits and less humane
methods of horse control. In practice it took me a year of intensive practice
to become a convincing Roman cavalryman. The lack of stirrups probably
simplified the learning process. To gain experience I rode a variety of
horses, and several different period saddles. Spurs were not needed on all
horses, and this suggests that not all Roman cavalrymen would wear them. The purpose of the saddle is to lift the weight of the
rider from the horse’s spine. Both the solid framed and padded styles of
four-horned saddle can meet this basic requirement. However I initially
believed the solid wooden frame of a four-horned saddle was inflexible, and
potentially painful for a horse’s back. Each saddletree would only be able to
be used on one shape of horse. Even a saddle made to fit a specific horse would
cease to fit if the horse lost condition on campaign. This would result in
pressure sores, calloused and thickened skin. But experience has altered my view. A solid Roman saddle
with a wooden frame can be made to fit most horses, with the addition of good
padding in the form of a saddlecloth or furs. The same was true of the solid
wooden framed military saddles of the 19th century, when
cavalrymen were taught how to fold their saddle cloths to fit their horse and
saddle, especially on campaign. My saddle horns lack the copper alloy horn stiffeners,
and at different times I have broken both the rear horns. However the design
of the saddle could allow the leather cover to be lifted off, or the
stitching to be cut open, and the horn replaced in less than four hours. The
copper alloy stiffeners certainly seem important to re-enforce the horns and
make them stronger. The rear horns are particularly important in bracing the
rider against powerful thrusts, and when riding uphill. This may explain why
the rear copper-alloy stiffeners can stretch completely across the rear of
the saddle, giving optimum re-enforcement. It is a light 4.8kg design easily
carried and stored. The second saddle I used was a little larger, at 5.2 kg.
Connolly’s initial reconstruction was 6.8kg. The variance partly being due to
size, the copper alloy stiffeners or lack of them, and the amount of stuffing
in the saddle. Padded versions of these saddles made without a wooden
frame often have a metal bar towards the front of the saddle for stability.
Reconstructions are generally very heavy at 11-12kg, and larger than examples
based on a wooden frame. The weight of the rider forces the seat of the
saddle downward and the horns lock around the rider’s legs. While this gives
a very secure seat, the rider will find it difficult to get out of the saddle
if the horse falls. Some movement in the saddle is to be preferred. The
wooden frame seems by far the better of the two designs. The Carlisle finds
certainly seem to prove its validity. It is a good design, but it is time
consuming to produce and the horns are intrinsic weaknesses. Initially the
saddle feels as if the rear horns do not offer sufficient support. Indeed,
the angle that the saddle sits on the horse is very important. If the rear of
the saddle is not high enough, the rider’s full weight is constantly
hammering on the two rear horns. However riders soon get used to using the
four horns to grip with using their legs. In a short time the rider becomes
confident enough to lean well out of the saddle, instinctively riding with
bent legs and downward pointing toes familiar from Roman monuments. The girth and other tack can vary between
reconstructions. A split girth holds the saddle in place more securely. The
saddles do not fit as securely as modern saddles, and breast and breaching
straps help hold the saddle in place. Reconstructions of tack from the 1st
and 2nd centuries are generally highly decorated with silver
fittings based on archaeological finds.[3]
Few such fittings date from the 4th or 5th centuries.
However throughout the Roman period there is large scale use of amulets on
horse tack made from the bases of shed antlers. The denticulated edge is no
more than the natural coronet of the burr, channelled and perforated by the
presence of blood vessels in the velvet during growth. One or more holes
drilled in the disc allow for suspension from the harness. The most common
design is the phallus, perhaps to ward off the evil eye. Indeed the use of
antler may suggest that it had some special talismanic significance.[4]
Triplet straps hanging from the front and rear of the saddle are very useful
for securing equipment, and may have helped secure the leather cover to the
wooden frame.
Right. A wooden framed four-horned saddle. Note
the triplet straps. The front of each saddle is towards the top of
the picture. The horse is directed by weight distribution, leg
pressure, verbal commands and primarily the bit in the horse’s mouth held by
the reins and bridle. Every horse needs different degrees of direction.
Romans used either the snaffle bit of Celtic origin, or the potentially very
severe curb bit. Modern bits are closest to the snaffle design. The rider has
to learn to neck rein, using one hand to control the horse by exerting
pressure on the horses neck with the reins.
In the 4th century the steppe saddle was introduced in
to the west by the Huns and their allies. Characterised by surviving
decoration to the front and rear cantles, in time it would develop into the
medieval saddle and the modern Portuguese and Spanish saddles. It is a simple
and strong design, no more than four pieces of wood joined and shaped to
transfer the weight of the rider to the horse’s sides. The steppe saddle does
not need integral padding and can be left as just bare wood, weighing 6.4kg.
It sits on several layers of wool or fur to protect the horse. It does not need
breast or breaching straps, but they may be of use over long distances.
Coming from a four-horned saddle, the Roman rider is initially concerned
about sliding out of the “side door”. They try and hook their legs under the
front cantle to secure themselves in the seat. But the saddle is not designed
for this and the position soon becomes very uncomfortable. Instead the rider
must use a straight leg and a very deep seat.
The straight leg helps hold the rider in the saddle when cornering.
But it is a design that naturally benefits from the invention of the stirrup.
The issue of just how
Romans mounted their horses is unresolved. Contemporary books mention
mounting from either side of the horse, as well as mounting at the gallop. In
armour it is just possible to mount stationary with the assistance of a
spear. Fences and infantry are all good mounting blocks. A strong loop of
rope over the front horns can make a useful “step” for mounting, but there is
no evidence of such a proto-type stirrup. The Horse
Much has been written on the size of the Roman horse.
Ann Hyland has considered the various ancient breeds potentially available to
the Roman cavalry, although she shows a bias towards the Arab.[5]
To generalise there is a consensus that Roman horses in the west were around
13 to14 hands, with some as tall as 15 hands.[6]
Roman monuments certainly show us a small stocky animal. Recent work on bone
evidence suggests that actual military horses were what we would call ponies,
robust specimens of 13.2 hands, with small regional differences.[7]
Certainly it is safe to assume that strong animals were needed to carry
armoured riders over considerable distances. Speed would have been a
secondary consideration. Junkelmann used Camargue horses and more recently a
Welsh cob, of 13 to 14 hands for his reconstructions. Native British breeds
similar to the Fell or Dartmoor pony, would be best adapted to the British
climate. Size is crucial in determining speed of manoeuvre, and the
effectiveness of Roman cavalry.
The typical Roman
horse of around 14 hands, unshod, strong, with a broad back, at the canter. A
strung recurve bow is carried in a case. The rider is holding a contos in
both hands, using weight distribution and legs to control the horse. The rider needs to trust his mount implicitly. Not only
does the rider lack stirrups, for some manoeuvres he will not be using any
reins. The control comes from weight distribution, verbal commands and leg
pressure. After riding several horses including polo ponies and
thoroughbreds, I settled on an Irish Cob of 14 hands to act the part of a
Roman military horse. This breed has a reliable temperament, can easily carry
a man in armour, and has strong hooves. Indeed, the horse chosen was unshod,
and there are no finds of horseshoes from Roman forts. It took time for the
horse to learn how to respond to neck reining. The horse also has to become
used to the Roman saddle, as well as the rider’s armour and equipment. Riders
have to find a way of carrying their shield, bow, arrows, lance and sometimes
javelins, either hanging from the saddle or themselves. As the late 6th
century Strategikon states, riders
must be able to hang their lance from their shoulder while drawing the bow
and placing an arrow on the string. They must then be able to replace the bow
and ready the lance. Put simply riders must learn to look like Roman
soldiers, comfortable with their kit and weaponry. The Roman-style cob showed a typical speed of 10kph at
the walk, 15-20kph for the trot, 40kph for the canter, and 56kph at the
gallop. Trotting without stirrups is uncomfortable for any length of time,
and accuracy with missile weapons is difficult. Generally manoeuvres were
carried out at the canter. Such a speed makes the rider and horse a difficult
target, while allowing them time to accurately use their weapons. Cavalry Weapons, the bow and the
contos.
In the late antique period two cavalry weapons stand
out. The perfect horseman must master both the contos and the bow.
The contos, in this
case a 4m long slender lance. A ferule is attached to the butt. The rider is
just starting a run and the weapon has yet to drop to a horizontal position. The contos is
a 3-4m long lance, designed to outreach cavalry opponents. It can also pick
out infantrymen from static formations, keeping the rider beyond reach of
spears and swords. The horseman holds the weapon with both hands, giving
great power to the thrust, controlling the horse with his legs. The contos can be used either in a low
guard across the horses neck, or in a high position to strike downwards. But horse archery is the hardest skill to learn. It is
possible that many second line units never used bows, or perhaps used them
stationary. The right-handed rider should be able to loose the arrow forwards
to the right or left of the horse’s head. This means he must pull his right
shoulder backwards and stretch forward with his left arm. However draw length
may be limited, especially in locked scale, in turn limiting the power of the
shot. Shooting to the rear, the famous Parthian shot, in many ways seems
easier. The left arm is extended over the horse’s rear and while the right
holds the string to the ear. The draw length is maximised, but care must be
taken to ensure that the left shoulder does not lie too far within the bow.
If it does the string may hit the left shoulder, robbing the shot of its
power. Loosing the arrow to the left when doing the cantabrian circle is a basic skill.
Horse
archery at the canter against a static folkon formation at close range. The
rider’s body is held within a subarmalis and a cuirass of locked scale. The
horse is balanced with all four hooves off the ground. Note the bucket of
plumbata carried from the front right of the saddle. The rider starts with the arrow held under tension on
the bow with the left hand. He rides unusually with the reins in the right hand. The rider approaches the
target at approximately 40kph and puts the horse into a right turn. When the
horse is balanced he drops the reins, relaxes, looses the arrow, finds the
reins, and turns to the right to come back to the starting point. Riders
recreating Mongolian horse archery with stirrups, shoot to the right side of
the bow, using an eastern release, and are able to shoot and reload on the
move. They carry spare arrows in their left hand resting against the stave of
the bow. After the release they can use their right hand to pull down a new
arrow on to the string, to the right side of the stave. The way eastern arrows
are fletched means there is no right or wrong way to place the arrow on the
string. Riders stand in their stirrups to minimise the rise and fall as the
horse travels over the ground. Roman-style riders find it difficult to shoot
and knock a new arrow to their string while on the move, without stirrups,
shooting in a western style, using western fletchings. But I suspect it is a
matter of practice. Conclusion
Convincingly
reconstructing the working uniform and equipment of a Roman soldier is a
difficult task. It cannot be simply fancy dress, but be a practical answer to
living and working in the outdoors. Reconstructing the tack of the Roman
horse is a greater challenge. While being authentic in style it must also fit
the horse without discomfort, and stand up to continual wear and tear. Making
the equipment of a Roman soldier work on the back of a horse is the
culmination of both tasks. It takes time to bring everything together and
make it work. Finally, learning the skills of the Roman cavalryman takes the
challenge to another level. But the rewards are worth it. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bishop M.C. and Coulston J.C.N. (1993) Roman Military Equipment (2nd
edition Oxbow 2006). Connolly P. (1987) “The Roman Saddle” Third Roman Military Equipment Seminar, BAR
International Studies 336 (1987). Dixon K.R. and Southern P. (1992) The Roman Cavalry (B.T. Batsford 1992) Hyland A. (1993) Training
the Roman Cavalry from Arrian’s Ars Tactica. (Alan Sutton 1993). Hyland A. (1990) Equus,
The Horse in the Roman World (Batsford 1990). James S. (2004) Excavations at Dura-Europos 1928-1937
Final report VII The Arms and Armour and Other Military Equipment
(British Museum Press 2004). Johnstone C.L.2004 “A Biometric Study of Equids in the Roman
World” (Ph.D. thesis, Uni. of York 2004). Junkelmann M. (1990,
1991, 1992) “Die Reiter Roms” Volumes I, II and III. (Philipp Von
Zabern.1990, 1991, 1992). MacGregor A. (1985) Bone Antler Ivory and Horn (Croom Helm
Ltd. 1985). Maurice Strategikon
(Translated by George T. Dennis 1984). Procopius “History of
the Wars”. Loeb Classical Library. Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science.
(transl.N.P. Milner 1993). |
||
|
(Problems encoutered!) |
||
|
HOME |
||
