Talk:Palfrey

Accuracy of article

This article contains a total fabrication. Palfreys were not the most expensive of horses, they were the least expensive. Consider: If they were so expensive, then why are they listed in contemporary sources as being the common steed of poor priests and nuns, as well as commoners?

No, sorry. I don't care if you point at Oakeshotte as a source, if that's what he said, then he was wrong, because he is in total disagreement with contemporary sources, such as Chaucer. - Xaa 19:26, 11 May 2007

Wikipedia requires that claims be cited and verifiable. If you don't agree with content, then find a reliable and verifiable source and cite it. Then both viewpoints can be presented. However, I think you are confusing the Palfrey with the Rouncey. Rounceys were cheaper horses with rougher gaits. Montanabw 00:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Xaa, I'm ready to listen to your arguements. Having a passing interest in this topic, I adapted and expanded the article based on consensus within Medieval history books I own. I have referenced Ewart Oakeshott, but his definition is backed up by reputable historians including Michael Prestwich, Ann Hyland, Christopher Gravett etc. One great difficulty arises within any study of the Middle Ages due to the imprecise language often used, and I concede it would be better to state palfrey usually referred to the most expensive riding horse. 'Hackney' or 'hakenei' (etc) seems to be more commonly used for an ordinary horse (including contemporary sources quoted by John Clark of the Museum of London). Also Rouncey (or roncin) as Montana suggested above. As for Chaucer, I shall have to reread mine: the references that come to mind refer to the Wife of Bath etc mounted on an 'ambler'. BTW, it would be good if you could help us improve this article, rather than just knocking it. Gwinva 13:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I look in the dictionary on my shelf, it defines palfrey as a common horse often ridden by women. I look at the dictionaries online ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=palfrey ) and they say the same. I look at the books I have on horses here in the house, they define the medieval palfrey as being a cheap horse retained for it's smooth gait, it's gait also making it a favorite of women and the elderly, two classes who certainly couldn't afford it if it was high-priced. But, as far as me attempting to re-write the article, no, that's not going to happen. I can see that it would just boil down to you and me waving our sources at each other, and nothing would ever be resolved. My source says one thing, yours say another. That's it - there is no solution without quite a bit of yelling, and I'm getting too old to fight over a free encyclopedia. *laugh* Xaa

See discussion at Talk:Rouncey Gwinva 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What makes a Palfrey a palfrey

The laws of physics may settle this debate.

Long story short, Palfreys were horses capable of an ambling gait. This was a desirable trait when people had to travel long distances on horseback over poor roads. Today in the US, we call such horses "gaited." Everyone would have wanted their everyday riding horse to do so if possible, and though some cheap, ill-bred horses might have been able to amble (a noble's stallion probably got loose or was stolen from time to time...), the better-gaited horses would of course claimed a better price and were selectively bred as such.

I agree with the above definition of a palfrey, I have said this myself many times on other forums. What I disagree with is the notion that a palfrey, a term used to cover a general category of size and gait, was (as the article states) worth more than a warhorse. This is incorrect, and in complete disagreement with historical sources, which generally price a palfrey at the low end as two to three times the value of a rouncy, and no more valuable at the top end than the low-end warhorse. I also disagree with the statement regarding stallions getting loose. While I agree that this certainly happened from time to time (it's impossible to imagine it not happening), the idea that it in any way influenced the development of the palfrey is entirely conjecture, and original research (and thus prohibited on Wikipedia, as original research is not allowed here). There is no citation of any loose stallion in history ever influencing the development of palfreys. Xaa 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The trot is springy and bouncy, and posting to the trot the way we do today (the only way to ride a trotting horse without feeling like you are killing yourself) was not invented until carriages became prevalent and trotting horses more the norm. Plus, when you are covering a lot of miles and are laden with packs, trotting bounces everything else around, even if you do post. An ambling gait is pretty much the best way to get a horse with a load down the road in a relative hurry --trotting is too rough, and galloping tires out the horse after a short period of time.

I agree with everything in this paragraph (except the bit about feeling like you're killing yourself - it's not that bad, see below comment). Xaa 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Even Knights would have ridden light, smooth-gaited horses like a Palfrey to battle and led their war horse (the Destrier, courser, or charger)...their war horses would have trotted--fast horses agile at a gallop generally can't amble, and gaited horses usually are a bit long in the back and are slightly sickle-hocked, hence they do not have sufficiently powerful hindquarters to rear, spin or charge. Riding a Destrier (with a bouncy, springy gait typical of a short-backed horse with powerful hindquarters) all the time would have a) worn out the knight so he was too tired to fight, and b) worn out the Destrier so it was too tired to fight. (Such horses are powerful over short distances, but a little short on long-distance endurance).

I disagree completely with this entire paragraph.

1) There are no historical examples anywhere of a knight riding a palfrey to battle. There are many historical examples of a knight riding a palfrey to and fro on their daily (non-war) business, and there are historical examples of knights riding palfreys to and from pilgrimages. There are no historical examples of a knight riding a palfrey to battle.

2) Gaited horses are not necessarily long in the back. The Icelandic horse is a gaited horse, and is rather short in the back. Whether or not a horse is gaited is not relevant to the length of it's spine or the length of it's legs, but how it trots.

3) Riding horses with bouncey gaits is not as tiring as you make it out to be. If it was, then no cavalry force in history would have used anything other than gaited breeds, as the non-gaited breeds would have left them too tired to fight. The statement is simply false, it is not that tiring to ride a normal breed. It is, however, far more comfortable to ride a gaited breed.

4) As the only surviving examples of destriers are (according to those who breed them) shires and percherons, and as those who ride shires and percherons have consistently reported that they are very comfortable to ride, this again denies the idea that destriers would be uncomfortable to ride. Modern experience with shires and percherons also belies the notion that they have no long-distance endurance. They do. What they lack is *speed* compared to smaller breeds. Xaa 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind too that the rouncey, as described by the more neutral sources not trying to insult any one type of horse, basically sounds a lot like a modern Thoroughbred--a leggy, lanky, galloping horse that was pretty good at galloping over distance, but that trotted instead of ambled. Montanabw 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is that this is not how the word was used in the middle ages. Chaucer uses the term to mean "nag." So do other contemporary writers. The Shipman of "The Canturbury Tales" is not a wealthy man riding a top-end steed, prancing and proud. He's barely above being poor, wearing clothes that are worn and faded by the sun, and riding a nag. You can argue it all you want, edit the article anyway you wish, and I certainly am not going to interfere, because all that would do is lead to an edit-war. I change the article, you change it back, we bicker, lots of animosity is exchanged, and nothing is accomplished other than raising our mutual blood pressure. I'm getting too old to tilt at windmills anymore, even when I feel I'm looking at a windmill that needs to be thwacked. ;-) So, I'll leave you to write the articles as you will. But, no matter how you argue it, it's not going to change how the word was used by the people of the day, and the article is still going to be wrong. Xaa 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying to make sense of all this

Ok, perhaps this debate sprung from an article that was poorly worded; the ambiguity of medieval terms should be referred to in the text. There are, however, things we are certain of: (Gwinva 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Sorry to break in, here, but I have to say something: Medieval terms were VERY ambiguous, particularly when it comes to anything relating to warfare. This is because the people who were writing down their wars weren't the people who were actually fighting them. Often times they were scribes or monks who not only knew absolutely nothing about the subject, but had their own political or moral agenda to inject into the record. And then, there are the records that are what we, today, would consider "Docu-Dramas" - entertaining stories only loosely based on reality. The Song of Roland is a good example of this: We KNOW the Battle of Rocenvaux happened, and we KNOW that Roland and his major companions were actual historical figures. However, during the course of this epic, we're told of Roland and his pals riding about the battlefield, spearing the enemy one-two-three, even having as many as six corpses on the ends of their lances at once, without answering the question of how one man holds up six knight-ka-bobs with just one arm. ;-) So, yes, medieval terms were highly ambiguous, because the people writing things down very often had no first-hand knowledge of what they were talking about. Xaa 13:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Very true. Of course, there's ambiguity (eg "rouncey"), dramatic license (Roland et al) and good old propaganda nonsense, such as 16000 French knights dead at Crecy, Richard III was an evil hunchback, and William Wallace's history bore some resemblance to Braveheart! Gwinva 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• 'palfrey' referred to a riding horse with an ambling gait. There probably were some pretty poor specimens around, since there are cheap, broken-down horses within most breeds. But since they were so comfortable to ride, it is no surprise that a nobleman or king paid a lot of money for a particularly nice one, and as the article states were sometimes as expensive as a warhorse (can't argue with contemporary sources i.e. court accounts). The fact that, at various times, a ceiling (ie maximum price) was put on them at times demonstrates this (you place a ceiling to stop high prices; you don't bother fixing them significantly above what anyone is paying). Gwinva 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with a statement like "palfreys varied widely in quality, with a typical example being affordable by nearly anyone, but rare, well-bred examples sold to kings fetching a price comparable to a low-grade warhorse." That fits the historical record. Xaa 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that would work, when I (or you, or someone else) gets round to improving the page. Except who's 'nearly everyone'? 'nearly everyone didn't own horses... they begged, borrowed, stole or hired. 'Nearly everyone' stayed within their locality and walked (apart from the odd pilgrimage on foot). How about 'Nearly everyone who could afford a horse could afford one' ??!!!Gwinva 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to "who?" would constitute Original Research, but here we go: Pretty much anyone who was not directly tied to the land and was moderately well off. Merchants, townsmen, etc. We know that large medieval and rennaisance cities had large stables, and in the rennaisance, they even were renting horses (it is assumed that the same was happening in the middle ages, but there is no proof of it that I have seen). We know that there were travelling merchants, and we know they rode horses. We can *conjecture* a set of class and wealth requirements, but that conjecture is, by definition, Original Research, so we can't use it. =/ Xaa 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Because they were comfortable, and often looked good, knights did ride palfreys to battle (ie on campaign). Read any decent military historian (but try David Nicolle,, Medieval Warfare Source Book: Warfare in Western Christendom p 124). They included them in their war entourage (see details of campaigns in Hyland's books). Gwinva 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the impression our friend is trying to give us. He's trying to tell us that destriers were uncomfortable to ride, so knights rode palfreys and led destriers, only riding the destriers when they had to. That simply doesn't match the historical record, nor does it match the experience of riding, today. Non-gaited horses are simply not that uncomfortable to ride. If they were, then how did people manage to ride them? How were the Crusades fought? How did the mongols manage to stomp Europe? How was the West Won? Why are people able to ride non-gaited horses today? Put simply, a non-gaited horse is just not that uncomfortable to ride, you don't feel like you're killing yourself riding one. The whole notion that they might be that way strikes me as coming from someone who simply has never ridden a horse. To me, it sounds much like someone who has never driven a car trying to say "Oh, the control surfaces on an automobile are simply too complicated and uncomfortable for ordinary people to master! Why, there's two pedals, sometimes three, with no rhyme or reason as to what the third pedal might be for! And then there's the steering mechanism - how on earth could a normal person manage to sit themselves comfortably and guide the vehicle with a steering wheel that is set at ninety degrees to the rotation of the wheels themselves?" Silly, I know, but that's what it sounds like to me when someone tries to tell me that riding an ordinary horse makes you feel like you're "killing yourself" and can't be done all day. Xaa 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you've misunderstood Montana. I've spent hours discussing it with him, and it's quite laughable to suggest he's never ridden a horse, or has no clue about the Mongols, crusades and the 'wild west'. Gwinva 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand him at all, he repeats it and emphasizes it in his post below. Unfortunately, this doesn't jibe with reality as I have experienced it, so I simply cannot believe anything he says. It's literally like him trying to convince me the sky is green, despite the evidence of my eyes. Only in this case, he's trying to convince me that horses are painful to ride, despite the evidence of my ass. ;-) Yes, when you first start riding, your butt gets sore. That passes, in time, if you continue riding and make it a part of your daily routine. Eventually, you can ride all day, and it's really not tiring at all. Travelling long distances, you use the ordinary walk-trot-canter-gallop-canter-trot-walk system, and you can cover a phenomenal distance in relative comfort, astride your horse. Riding is, in my experience, the most exhilarating and fun thing one can do short of sex. It simply is not the agonizing discomfort he makes it out to be.Xaa 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Because palfreys were comfortable, they were also popular with but not exclusive to ladies. Some ladies preferred (or were in an area that provided) jennets. Gwinva 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

True. It's recorded numerous times that knights rode palfreys when travelling about on non-war business, such as when going on pilgramage or examining their lands. Xaa 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, a nice shiny model for ceremonial display and the odd campaign.! Gwinva 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• The cheaper riding horses were usually referred to as hackneys. These usually trotted. They were used as hire horses (see John Clark's detailed analysis of London horsemen in The Medieval Horse and its Equipment), whose quality varied greatly, and used as riding horses on campaign by people of all types but especially the entourage of a nobleman: ie. knights, squires, vassals. (See Hyland, Oakeshott, Prestwich etc etc). Gwinva 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Hackney breed and the term 'hackney' (originating from OE/ME) is a whole 'nother can of worms you likely don't want to get into. =P Xaa 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hackney (horse) and the medieval hackney are, as you mention, quite different. Worth (someone) getting into, as 'hackney' comes up a lot in accounts of transports, campaigns etc. Plus the good old for-hire hackneys which the 'nearly everyone' who can't afford a horse had to use. Gwinva 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• rounceys seem to be the catch-all term for the type of horse that is suited to a variety of uses. Like any economics, the best examples cost the most, and Chaucer's poor Shipman was probably mounted on a very poor specimen indeed. But it cannot be argued that all rounceys were therefore nags, given the prices quoted at Talk:Rouncey. I understand what you say about economics; the prices of horses fluctuated markedly throughout the Middle Ages. However, the prices of other commodities or wages did not vary greatly, due to an economic theory that tried to restrict spending and inflation, hence the great upset when the 14th C plague reduced the workforce, sent wages up and caused a bit of financial disarray. I never meant to imply that a knight's war pay was the sum total of his money, he owned land, after all (at least £20 worth!). But a carpenter, of course didn't. And he earnt pence. Some rounceys cost a lot. But even the cheapest in the indented accounts quoted was £2: beyond the reach of anyone lower than a man-at-arms. Perhaps when these people had warred and ridden a horse to near-death they were sold off for a pittance (as a modern broken-down racehorse). Speculation on my part, perhaps. But we can't deny that some rounceys were expensive thus the term cannot be restricted to nags. As to them being so much less than destriers: of course. That shows how expensive a destrier was: highly prized and very rare (and, incidentally, how expensive the finest palfreys were, which, as said, could compare in price to a good warhorse). Gwinva 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. I don't *agree*, but I do understand. ;-) From my perspective, the prices for horses that you listed are what a king paid, so it doesn't surprise me that a commoner can't afford a horse of a quality to be sold to a king. The largest sticking point I have is simply usage - outside of those price lists, the term was used to mean 'nag.' There's no easy way to dodge that. Xaa 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See below. Gwinva 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Destriers were probably not the ancesters of shires and heavy draught horses, whatever their breeders might claim, (see Horses in the Middle Ages for a discussion of the latest research on this matter), thus we cannot look to their type to understand what a destrier might or might not be like. We do know they were rare, expensive, hot-blooded, and pretty fiery, agile stallions. Coursers were more common, and, like it or not, the majority of the mounted force (ie mounted men-at-arms) rode rounceys. Undeniable: coursers and destriers were restricted to the wealthy nobles, or better-off knights, leaving rounceys for the rest (unless they rode palfreys or hackneys in battle?). Of course, there were a few exceptions, such as the hobelars, and the Scottish borders mosstroopers etc who rode ponies. Gwinva 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I flatly disagree with Horses in the Middle Ages when it claims that shires and heavy draught horses are not the descendants of medieval war horses. This runs flat up against every source I have, including an article where they took armor from a museum (I believe the British museum) and placed it upon a percheron in France to see if it would fit - it did. I don't have that article handy, but if I find it again (or find a web-link to it), I'll post it. Regardless, the largest proof of the claim in the article is the notion that a five-foot six man cannot mount a sixteen-hand high horse. This ignores the fact that stirrups on medieval saddles were hung lower and the riders legs were straighter when they rode, and ignores the fact that a five-foot four jockey (or a five-foot six woman) is able to mount a sixteen-hand high thoroughbred, today. Most of that section of the article strikes me as being written by someone who has never actually ridden a horse. Horses just aren't that difficult to mount or ride. Xaa 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article? It does suggest Percheron as a good example. Also, museum armour: Royal Armouries used a 15.2hh Lithuanian Heavy Draught as a model for their armour, and (uncited, but I know this) use Irish Draughts and Irish Sportsfor their interpretations. It's the Shire horse type which I believe most historians take exception to. Although, since 'destrier' was another generic term (rather than breed), I guess all sorts were used. Temperament, strength and stamina were what counted, with hot-blood varieties highly valued. The size is relevant: if the armour fits a smaller horse, Museum of London's archeolgical analysis of skeletons and tack suggests smaller horses, pictorial and literary evidence points to it, then lets go with those conclusions. 15.2hh is good, 16hh would be an admired monster. As for mounting the horse, the point was they wanted to do it without touching the stirrups, so the stirrup's length is irrelevant (in this particular discussion: but medieval tack and equestrianism is another article worthy of someone's attention!). As to the article being written by someone who knows nothing about horses, I hold my hand up. (Why am I here, you ask? Who knows!). While it's not quite true to say I've 'never actually ridden a horse', it was so long ago it hardly counts. However, I'm not a complete no-hoper, as several people in my family own/ride horses. If there's a mistake, I'm happy to admit it. Montana has spent hours trying to educate me, and setting me straight on a number of things (but is not to blame for my remaining ignorance). Basically, I compiled a few sources together, and trust that Hyland (background in endurance riding and horse breeding), Oakeshott (who jousted), Gravett (at the Royal Armouries, who keep a stables and interpret regularly) have some horse-sense between them and others such as Nicolle and Prestwich are steeped enough in primary sources to talk sense when they analyse military history.Gwinva 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• By the by, dictionaries are authoritive, but not unquestionably correct on all matters. They gather information from a variety of specialist sources, and distill it for the general reader. Start looking up anything you are a specialist in, and you will often notice they have only caught part of the picture. And if you've ever seen/heard the popular British programme Balderdash and Piffle, you will see OED editors admit they get it wrong (staged for the camera, of course, but the point remains, even OED editors are fallible.) Gwinva 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, any dictionary editor is still going to be human, and still capable of error. Check here for an example: http://www.snopes.com/language/mistakes/dord.htm However, what I objected to was the blanket assertation by our mutual friend that dictionaries are not authoritative resources. If a dictionary is not an authoritative resource, then NOTHING is. Seriously. Xaa 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's probably not everything I meant to say, but it'll do for now. Your comments have been interesting and challenging, and I freely admit these pages need work: I created/edited them quickly when working on Horses in the Middle Ages, and always meant to come back to them and work them up properly. I shall have to do that, and present more of the ambiguity. Gwinva 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor on these issues, and I hope I haven't ruffled your feathers TOO much. ;-) Though I may never agree with some of the points you have raised, I think you've made your points well. =) Xaa 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No ruffled feathers...enjoyable debate. But don't think I'm going to nod and agree to everything you say, either!!! Gwinva 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A thought occurs to me:

It's possible that regarding Rounceys, we're arguing at cross purposes - it's entirely possible that BOTH of us are right. Consider, for a moment: If I'm right and the term meant 'nag' (I.E. cheap horse), one then has to ask the following: Would a king (or their exchequer), who has a higher standard for what a 'good' horse is, have used the term to refer to cheap warhorses of no particularly stellar breeding? Answer: Quite likely they could have, if the term actually was used to mean 'nag.' Something like buying a passel of warhorses, then saying "well, we bought ten good horses and twenty nags." Even though all are from the same breeder and technically all trained for war, not all of them will be considered to be "good." If true, this would explain both the price lists you derived, and the sources that I am looking at, here... *sigh* Unfortunately, even if I'm right in this conjecture, it's still conjecture - it can't be used in the article, as it represents Original Research. =P Xaa 14:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that makes sense. Like the film star who refers to his 'old bomb'. However, that brings us to the point that literal meaning and etymolgy are a useful sub-section of an article, but the average reader wants context. ie. they find references to rounceys in an account of campaign or battle. "The king rode a nag?" they cry in disbelief. They want to know what in reality the rounceys the king took on campaign were like. How did these naggy horses pursue the Scots? Why did Edward III spend a small fortune shipping them across the channel? Or, at least, that's what I wanted to know when I first went to Horses in Warfare and left a comment which dragged me (kicking and screaming, of course) into spending hours researching and writing these pages.Gwinva

Cite your sources or let it go

Xaa, You argue endlessly but cite to NO sources. Open a book or please just go away. Gwinva's research has been meticulous and these issues were thoroughly discussed and documented before the article was written.

Actually, I have cited sources. You just don't like what I've been saying so you've been conveniently ignoring it, and sniping at me. If you will review my comments to our mutual friend, you will miraculously discover it is not that I am an uncivil person to everyone. The problem is you. Xaa 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I speak as someone who has taught riding lessons (English and western styles both) for over 30 years. I was a national equitation qualifier and have ridden since I was a child. Your comment that I never rode a horse is insulting in the extreme. Posting allows a well-conditioned rider to travel at a trot for long distances, but if you notice endurance riders, they carry virtually no baggage. You can't sit a trot for a long time, nor can you stand in your stirrups in a two-point position for a long time. Posting is the only way one can effectively ride a trotting horse for long distances for long periods without bouncing all over, yet, according to historical sources, it was not "invented" until sometime in the Renaissance. (But given that horses were domesticated for probably 2500 years before anyone invented the solid treed saddle and longer before the stirrup came along, I guess this shouldn't be surprising...and by the way, it's pretty tough (though not impossible) to post without stirrups...)

I'm sorry, I have given this a great deal of thought, but despite everything, there simply is no polite way to put this: When you say that riding a non-gaited horse makes you feel like you're "killing yourself", you don't talk like someone who teaches riding. Riding is very low-impact excercise, and can be performed on any steed with any gait for as long as the horse has wind. Thus, your assertations of riding being physically exhausting to the point where a knight simply could not do it for any extended period of time does not jibe with reality as I have experienced it. I am aware that you claim to be an expert. I am aware that in your opinion, just saying this should instantly shut down any objections to anything you say. With respect, I simply do not believe you, because your description of riding as being physically torturous and actually *requiring* the use of a gaited breed to be comfortable simply does not jibe with reality as I have experienced it. No matter how many times you tell me the sky is green, no matter what credentials you show me to identify yourself as a sky-color expert, I look up, and it's still blue. Xaa 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You admit knights rode palfreys on pilgrimages and such, this is my point-- they rode another horse to the battle area before getting out the war steed. If I spoke imprecisely, do forgive me.

Yes, you spoke imprecisely, but no, my response was not imprecise. Your assertion is that knights lead their destriers and rode palfreys because a normal horse is impossibly uncomfortable to ride for any real length of time. This simply is false. Riding is not as hard or as uncomfortable as you make it out to be. As for the rest of your comments, with respect, I think I shall pass on replying, as it seems EXTREMELY unlikely that anything I say will make any difference whatsoever. I have already said on MULTIPLE occasions that I am not going to edit your work on the article, because it's clear it would just be reverted, we'd end up in an edit war, and absolutely nothing would be accomplished. I say to you again: WRITE THE ARTICLES HOWEVER YOU WANT. Xaa 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mongols and other nomadic warrior people who used trotting horses traveled at the speed of the supply train until they were ready to fight, then they galloped much of the time. The Bedouin rode camels to the battle site before exchanging them for their horses to actually ride in the raid or battle. That's documented. (see Bennett, Conquerers: Roots of New World Horsemanship) The American Indians also galloped or walked much of the time. Bennett is clear that people who rode horses that were bred to trot instead of amble had other means to get to war other than riding a trotting horse.

As for the destrier, these were big, aggressive horses, often stallions. You probably have never ridden an Andalusian (unquestionably documented as the descendant of one type of destrier), and I challenge you to ride a well-fed stud horse with a huge. powerful neck and jaw for 40 or 50 miles, you'd be exhausted. So would the horse. (Ever see the bits they sometimes put on a war horse? They look like torture devices!) The war horse would be led to the lines, then armoured and mounted just prior to battle.

The Shire horse breeders do claim their animals are the descendants of the Great Horse, and maybe there are some war horses in the bloodline, but there is no way a horse built like a modern Shire could be a war horse, the modern version is slower than slow, not very agile...a Friesian or Andalusian, yes, but not a Shire. The Percheron has some better claim, but it is a smaller and more agile draft breed than the Shire, and unquestionably the modern animal is larger than its ancestors.

Saying the war horse was a Shire would be about like claiming a miniature horse is a palfrey because it has ancestors who probably ambled. Selective breeding over several hundred years can do some astonishing things; look at dog breeds!

Further, 5'6" people easily mount tall horses. It has nothing to do with stirrup length, other than perhaps in the case of jockeys. Modern dressage and jumper riders like Debbie McDonald or Beezie Madden are tiny women who can easily get on a 17 hand thoroughbred or warmblood. When I was younger and more agile, I jumped on a 17 hand thoroughbred bareback to win a dare. You don't even need stirrups to get on a horse!

Now, please stop being unconstructive and uncivil. If you can't cite to a verifiable source, then please go away and bother someone else. Montanabw 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pain in whose A--?

Xaa, you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have had to say. If you ride at all decently, then you actually DO know what I am talking about, even if you are choosing to deliberately misunderstand it here. I am not doing original research, I am stating classic horsemanship principles.

In short: If you post, you can ride long distances at a trot. Sure. But you better be in real good shape. However, if you are carrying anything at all, it will bounce about quite a bit unless tied down very, very firmly--to a degree that is almost impossible to achieve if you have very much stuff. This bang-bang-bang over time is pretty tiring to the horse (can cite to articles from Trail Rider magazine if you wish)(You can tie down a water bottle or small pommel or cantle bag pretty good, but beyond that, good luck). Ever see a pack train of mules? They don't trot a whole heckuva lot. OK?

Second, if you don't post, riding a trot is more tiring. You know this. Your choices are: 1) to sit, which requires powerful stomach muscles, even on a fairly smooth horse, and will quickly result in fatigue at anything more than a moderate jog. 2) To stand, in what we now call two-point position, which is also tiring over several hours, or 3) To bounce around like an idiot, which wipes you out quite quickly. Now, maybe posting was a technique known in the Middle Ages, but who knows? Most history of riding sources I have claim that posting was "invented" by the "post boys" who rode astride the near side lead carriage horses, sometime around 1600 or so...while it doesn't seem logical to me personally that it took humans 3500 years to figure out posting, well, the stirrup seems obvious too, and horses had been domesticated about 2000 years before that was figured out. So maybe this is true, I'm not going to fight about that one.

Finally, even many modern people can't figure out how to post or otherwise ride a trot very well. Trust me, I've tried to teach a few folks who just cannot get it together. I also know some old cowboys who stubbornly bounce around on their horses their whole life just because they think posting is for "sissy" English riders. (I don't agree) (They also walk or gallop most of the time, little trotting in-between) In terms of verifiability, one need only look at the numbers: ambling or gaited horses are very popular to this day, especially among people who like horses but aren't very good riders; they just don't want to bother learning how to ride the trot.

Now, as I've said before, please stop deliberately misinterpreting what I have to say, and henceforth, please cite a verifiable source for your own remarks. We would all benefit greatly from knowing what these sources of knowledge are that you tap. Montanabw 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I think having the relative clause in the first sentence is clearer. 217.28.0.230 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note that "phrasing was intentional" is not an argument against this, or really against anything. Please state the grounds on which you are objecting. Simply applying post hoc reasoning to justify the reversion of any change that is made is somewhat childish. 217.28.0.230 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

What is important to understand is that in the medieval period, people didn't think of horse breeds the way we do in modern times. So to say it is simply a type as opposed to a breed does not point out the historic context. If were were talking about a modern group of horse types, such as the warmbloods, your phrasing might be helpful. But here is isn't. Montanabw^(talk) 06:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting Discussion

I speed read all the comments with interest re riding and comfort. A little background of me : I took my first riding exam in 1975. I am now 55 years of age. I own 4 horses at the moment. I ride in English, Western, Australian, Roman and medieval saddles. I ride in both a civilian and military context. I find it nigh on impossible to maintain a rising trot without stirrups. I can, however, maintain a sitting trot for a long period of time as the horse is in self carriage and my core is strong. In terms of level of impact exercise - riding is high both from a muscle building and cardio vascular aspect. It can be blooming hard work and, like anything, you've got to do it regularly to make it easier. Cheers. Sara.2A02:C7F:92A6:D00:598F:8AC6:2C26:6923 (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)