Welsh mountain ponies are one of the breeds I had in mind. They still exist today
>One of the first adult Rosemary Sutcliff novels I ever read was "Sword
>at Sunset". Arthur as he might have been in history, not the Mallory
>version, and she does her research. She had Arthur's strength being
>his cavalry: and, once he'd imported some breeding stock, his stud
>farms being in the valleys around the Snowdon massif.
>
>We know of one major tech difference between most cavalry of that
>historical RL period and that in Glorantha. Glorantha has the stirrup
>in common use. That makes a cavalry charge with "lances" vastly more
>effective. There's been a few writeups of Arthur that suggest that was
>his secret, too: ideas imported by Sarmatians who'd retired from the
>Roman army into Britain. He wouldn't have the resources for the heavy
>horse armour, but stirrups and decent horses, yes.
Stirrups were certainly common by the 6th Century. Whether the Romans acquired them from the Sarmatians or elsewhere isn't important - they were in widespread use across the later Roman Empire. Notice that Arthur imports breeding stock, implying that there wasn't a source in Britain. So the Sarmatians hadn't left sufficent breeding stock or it had degenerated since the unit arrived in Britain four centuries earlier.
>Now take another series of novels to look at: the recent (ish)
>Boudicca ones. Ignore the magic and mythology. Look at what it
>depicts Celtic warriors as being like. For one thing, remember
>that these were the people the Romans hired as cavalry... they
>were all-rounders. They often fought on foot, true, possibly more
>often than on horseback, but they expected to be able to dismount
>and re-mount at the gallop, fight from their horses, all the "I'm
>a hero" tricks. They're not heavy cavalry, they're not "regular"
>troops in any sense, but a cavalry charge from them is a shock that
>you don't want to face.
Boudicca is five or six centuries early than Arthur. The Roman legionary cavalry of the period was few in number and trained as messengers and scouts. In Gaul they faced proper cavalry and needed something better so hired some. I'm not sure they ever hired any in Britain but then the Britons still used chariots. The stirrup was almost certainly unknown at this time.
Certainly any cavalry charge is a shock to someone on foot. That's how cavalry defeat infantry - get them to run before contact. If the infantry remain in close formation the cavalry bounce especially if the infantry have spears. The legions could easily stand against a cavalry charge but without scouts and stuck in close formation they were in trouble. There are a few recorded cases of well trained cavalry breaking formed infantry but that's over centuries.
>None of these horses, on any side, will be as big as what we're
>used to today, true, but I don't see anythg like such a sharp
>distinction as is being suggested. As Joerg says, we have the
>Dundealos, we have other horse-specialist tribes, we have a
>long-standing connection with the Grazers. Sure, ponies may well
>still be around, but the warriors won't be riding them. Scouts,
>yes, warriors no. You've got the option of both, you pick what's
>appropriate for the job.
>
>Think about the use of chariots, too. If the horses were too small
>to ride, the Sartarites would still be using chariots for more than
>ritual use. They're not.
Nobody's saying the ponies are too small to ride although a big warrior on a pony may look a bit silly to our eyes. For endurance and weight carrying some breeds of pony are better than much larger horses.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail