# Types of Mediaeval horse



## Brian G Turner (Jan 3, 2014)

After starting a thread about "detail", I just started to re-read my prologue.

And, oh dear, within a couple of paragraphs I describe a knight "mounting a horse". 

This is a high-born POV - they will know different types of horse available. Colour might give an idea of breeding, status, or personality traits.

What a lost opportunity for a little detail!

So a quick search online for different types of horses recognised in the Mediaeval period:
Medieval Horse Breeds
Horses in the Middle Ages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My knight is now written as "mounting a chestnut courser".

Not a huge change, not overly detailed, but better than a plain, generic "horse" from a character POV who should know better.


----------



## Gary Compton (Jan 3, 2014)

I like the fact that your character would know this and you didn't. So good job in learning that.

I think it will all boil down to how it reads, but you certainly have a vision of how it should be and an attention to detail which is to be admired.

Some will like - some won't but welcome to the subjective world of telling a story.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jan 4, 2014)

I learnt a smidgen about this from the Knight Unofficial Manual. From memory, there are:
rounceys (rubbish horses)
coursers (fast and ok in a fight)
destriers (massive warhorses)

Ah, I forgot palfreys, and had never heard of a hobby (although that does explain where the phrase comes from, I'd guess).

I do think that's a good sort of detail to try and get right. Horses were both utilitarian and status symbols for knights, and the biggest ones were very expensive (both to buy and feed). 

It's worth mentioning that an average horse was worth less than an average cow, however, so not all horses are equal. That's counter-intuitive, or seems it to me, but the way to remember is that there were horsemeat scandals in the Middle Ages, just like today, but never a scandal about a knight riding a cow into battle


----------



## Mirannan (Jan 4, 2014)

I think it's also worth mentioning that apart from the breeding (which was expensive - it takes many generations to breed a heavy warhorse, for example) there was a very significant time investment in warhorses. A palfrey might well be physically little different from a courser, but the latter would have been trained (including exposure to simulated battle conditions) taking quite a few months of the time of someone who was highly skilled.

The shire horses that are still around in small numbers in Britain, some of them pulling brewery dray wagons, are very similar by all accounts to the horses used by heavy cavalry up to maybe the 1550s - but without proper training, riding one of them into battle would be suicide. Training of horse as well as rider.


----------



## Ivanya (Jan 10, 2014)

Of course, there's a great deal of difference to be seen in horses from different climates too. Horses you'd get used for war under a harsh, equatorial sun would be much different to those in northern climes in the same time period. Much will depend on your fantasy environment!


----------



## JoanDrake (Jan 15, 2014)

One thing I've never known until recently is that the style of horse motion called the canter was apparently not invented until the late 12th, early 13th century and comes from the shaggy little mongol ponies. It revolutionized medieval transport, since it was far more comfortable to ride, faster, and yet easier, so both horse and rider could keep it up for longer periods.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 15, 2014)

As you sure you don't mean the "amble", Joan? A canter requires a rider to use their body and leg muscles and the horse can only continue it a short distance. An amble, however, requires little effort on the part of horse and rider and can be maintained for very long periods.


----------



## monsterchic (Feb 5, 2014)

These have been invaluable in reading the Game of Thrones books.  Wouldn't have had any idea what kind of horses they were riding otherwise.


----------



## Kylara (Feb 5, 2014)

I said:


> A canter requires a rider to use their body and leg muscles and the horse can only continue it a short distance.




Very quickly - a canter can be kept up for quite a while - a decent chilled out canter anyway - if the horse is fit. Also if the rider is using their body in a canter there are three problems: 1) you make the horse unbalanced; 2) you tire as a rider; 3) the combination of tired rider and unbalanced horse leads to being unable to sustain any decent pace.

When riding a canter the upper body should be totally still - not rocking back and forth with the pace. You shouldn't grip with your knees (causes you to unbalance and fall off) and your entire leg should be still and relaxed. The occasional squeeze with your calf/heel should keep the momentum up if you feel the horse slowing. You can also use your seat, but that is complicated to explain to non riders 

Sorry  

P.S. a gallop can only be sustained for about 1.5 - 2 miles on a fit horse and then it will be absolutely knackered.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 5, 2014)

I meant when dealing with long distances - ie, travelling for a day. A canter still requires all that bobbing up and down so your bum doesn't get bumped in the saddle. I've never ridden a palfrey or ambling mule, but by all reports you only need to sit there, and that it's far less tiring that sat on a horse at walk.

I was just sloppy with my language, that's all - a canter, for the first time, feels like you're using your body.


----------



## Kylara (Feb 5, 2014)

Bobbing up and down? Have you been riding a tigger? Canter is one seriously comfy pace - your bum isn't supposed to leave the saddle so no bum bumping there


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 5, 2014)

My bad - it's a very long time since I went riding. I may be getting mixed up with the trot. 

The point I was originally trying to get across is that am amble is supposed to be far less tiring for horse and rider over very long distances, by comparison. However, I plan to get back into the saddle sometime this year, so hopefully I'll come across as less confused.


----------



## Kylara (Feb 5, 2014)

Haha probably. You can actually rise to a canter as well (just to make it more confusing) a good ground covering trot is what you want, interspersed with walk, you'll get a long way like that (with appropriate rests etc) so ambling along is the way to go, see the scenery, attack the scenery, end up with scenery all over you and horse...  you'd be surprised how much twigs like you out in the wilderness  

That's the spirit Brian! You go jump on a horse, we won't see you for dust then!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 5, 2014)

I did riding for research purposes a few years back. After a few weeks I developed a hernia I needed an op for. Do not want to repeat that.


----------



## Mouse (Feb 5, 2014)

This isn't related to medieval horses but... I used to ride (long time ago now!) and I could never ride a canter properly unless I was riding bareback. Is there something about saddles that affects the way you ride?


----------



## Kylara (Feb 5, 2014)

Too tense, riding is a very relaxed sport, once you relax everything comes easily.

You were probably gripping with your knees, something that is very easily done with a saddle. When you ride bareback, it is incredibly difficult to grip with your knees and 1) not slip up and off and 2) not notice what you are doing. Bareback also brings you closer to the horse so you can feel all of the muscles working and you automatically go with the movement. People always get told when they are learning to ride to grip the front of the saddle with a hand and hold themselves in the saddle (something I never teach people to do) which makes everything worse, your whole body tenses up and it becomes soooo much harder to sit properly.

You also tend to not rock your shoulder with the canter when you are bareback which means that your position is much better and much more secure. You have no stirrups so your leg is long and relaxed and sitting in the right position. With a saddle, people's legs swing when they tense up or they grip with their knees and their lower leg rides forwards/backwards and off you come - also that sort of tensing is uncomfortable for the horse and contracting the thigh is part of a way to collect a horse which makes everything bouncier and thus harder to sit to.

Basically, this is a very long winded way of saying that saddles allow for more bad habits that bareback, and bareback is often easier to feel the movement from. There are other reasons as well, but it gets quite technical, and unless you fancy me giving you a typed out riding lesson (which I don't mind doing) it is hard to explain quickly  (if you watch this vid you can see how the legs are loose, how the shoulders don't rock and how the rider moves with the horse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jBjg717TJc)

P.S. What type of saddle did you ride in? (GP, SJ, Dressage, XC style?)


----------



## Mouse (Feb 5, 2014)

Thanks for that, Kylara. It was almost 20 years ago that I did riding! I have no idea what saddle it was.


----------

