Did medieval knights ride war ponies?

[J-Lu]

@B_and_B

Dredging up my doctorate in medieval Scottish politics…Early Medieval for Great Britain is generally 476 (fall of Rome) to 1066 (Norman Conquest). High Medieval is 1066 to 1350. 1350 is seen as the end date as the Black Death and Hundred Years War really start to bite, but more importantly as the Medieval Warm Period during which one could grow wheat in Iceland, grapes in Norway, and commercial crops in Greenland, started to give way to the Little Ice Age which lasted till 1850 and we are still warming up from. Late Medieval is 1350 to late 1400’s, and ends due to gunpowder, exploration, population collapse, and Reformation (not really in that order!). All of this is subject to slippage…in Scotland, ‘prehistory’ i.e. no written records, goes later in to the 900’s for certain areas; on the other hand Medieval can arguably be moved to 1500 as an end date for cultural affairs. And of course, 476 really is a non date, Britain had been post Roman for well over a century at that point; I doubt they ever knew about the fall of the last Roman Emperor. And 1066 really doesn’t work well for architecture, 1100 is better.
Interestingly, as a medievalist, if you look at those dates…alot of the negative things like witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition are Early Modern not Medieval. (Just had to throw that in there, I’m always bugged by the bad rap the Medieval period gets! ).

Ooooo, Ohhhh. I have a question!!! You are the perfect person to answer it!!

What do you think the Medieval time for mainland Europe is? I ask because I’ve always been so turned off my the Medieval period. TO ME (a scientist obviously lacking in history knowledge), I think of Medieval times as a spread of Christianity and little tolerance for non-Christians.

I’ve always tried to pay attention to this but paid little attention to dates. I went to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and their Medieval wing included all sorts of instruments of torture and art from the time. Seemed like such oppression. But I think their artifacts are from Late Medieval based on your timeline.

Of note, the recovered horse chainmail armor fit a horse, not a pony. Not huge horses, but not ponies. So some horse-sized horses went into battle.

I want to say it was the late Medieval time? I went to 's-Hertogenbosch for a large horse show and I think the buildings were built in the 1420s (building imprints said). I was amazed that the guillotines (I think, some way to kill people) were placed right next to the church! In the public square so everyone could watch!
So brutal! And the moat around the city to keep people out. That said, what a LOVELY town these days!! So worth the trip!

Can you comment on this? I’ve always associated the Medieval times with Christians murdering other people for power in Europe. Either using religious fear or maybe they believed it. But they very brutally killed and punished people. Am I wrong? What am I missing about this time period that I should know about? I’d love to hear about the great things going on in th 1300s-1400s,

[BrendaJane]

Continental europe might have considered Medieval from around 800AD on. Wild guess, seeing that on Christmas 800 Charlemagne was crowned Emperor (?) of the Romans.
He definitely missionized by the sword…
the 15th century is drifting into the Renaissance.

and as for the mote - from 1618-1648 Europe was engulfed in the 30 year war where nobody was safe from attack.
sucks there are even churches around still with porticos for weapon use! They were the population’s last refuge.

[J-Lu]

@BrendaJane

Continental europe might have considered Medieval from around 800AD on. Wild guess, seeing that on Christmas 800 Charlemagne was crowned Emperor (?) of the Romans.
He definitely missionized by the sword…
the 15th century is drifting into the Renaissance.

and as for the mote - from 1618-1648 Europe was engulfed in the 30 year war where nobody was safe from attack.
sucks there are even churches around still with porticos for weapon use! They were the population’s last refuge.

Thank you for this info! Do you think the residents built the mote after the founding of the city? Is that what they did in the 1600’s?

I was kind of bowled over by trips to Europe and what I saw in the Rijksmuseum. Of note, I’m one of those annoying people who buys the audio device, brings it back multiple times when the batteries run out, and have to be kicked out at closing time.

History explains so much but I am woefully ignorant about it. Thanks!!

[BrendaJane]

I could not tell from afar, really. The defense positions are dictated by the terrain. In the mountains, you pick the highest peak, in the flatlands you dig motes, especially when you have a lot of water (and the Dutch used water early on as premier defense! Much of the Country is below sea level and it takes only a few strategically opened gates in the dykes to flood the inland.

[clanter]

Recently my city rewrote its animal control ordnance, I was setting in on a few of the meetings when they were saying they were separating Horses and Ponies. They were to consider a Pony as less of an issue that a Horse.

I asked them do you even know a Pony if you saw one. Then sent them these photo of two our horses…one is a real pony (14.1+) the other is a 15.2h horse

!

the Bay is the pony

So, with that I had them remove the word pony and insert a real height in inches and how to measure the height.

[BrendaJane]

They would have found Sarah Sattler to teach them how to measure…

[clanter]

@BrendaJane

They would have found Sarah Sattler to teach them how to measure…

that was what I was fearing

[exvet]

The following is often a passage found on many Welsh Cob or Welsh pony websites, mostly taken straight from and/or paraphrased from the WPCS. I have no knowledge of the accuracy of the recount of history, nor the actual dates/periods referred to but have always (having been a breeder of Welsh Cobs for a couple of decades and still hold on to a few) found, even if it’s folklore, this to be quite interesting.

In medieval times the “Rouncey” or the “Rowney” were trotters and very strong, active Cobs. The “Destrier” was a war horse that would take knights into battle wearing the very heavy armor of the time period, and because of their strength and speed, they could easily gallop into the battlefield. This horse was continually being imported from other areas and was extremely expensive, and because of this knights could usually only afford one and possibly another as a backup.

Nebo Brenin-photo courtesy of Owen Jones of Nebo Stud

The squire would lead the destrier when the knight was not engaged in battle, while the knight rode a pacing horse. The squire would ride a rouncey (or cob) that had the stamina to trot alongside the much larger destrier, who was a natural trotter. The squire would lead another rouncey carrying supplies and armor. If a destrier was killed, the knight could mount one of the rounceys and ride back into battle.

They were very valuable as remounts for armies as they were “remarkable for their majestic proportion and astonishing fleetness” (Gerallt Gymro, 1188). Gymro also noted in his account of Wales that these mid-Wales Powis, or Powys, horse (the Welsh Cob) had derived their origin from fine Spanish stallions that Robert de Belesme, Count of Shrewsbury, had brought into the country. Following the Crusades, Arabian stallions brought back to England and Wales by the returning Crusaders were bred with the more heavily boned native ponies, producing the body and height for war and farming.

During Henry the 8th’s rule, in 1535, the king made a proclamation that all stallions under 14 hands in height and all mares under 13hh could not be bred and must be destroyed. A bit later, Henry issued another law that banned the use of any stallions under 15hh. The Welsh rebelled and either hid their ponies or released them into the mountains and desolate rugged areas so that they would survive. Only the strongest of the ponies and horses lived. Once the law was repealed by Queen Elizabeth, the horses and ponies were much hardier. What looked like a disaster may have actually improved the breed.

Over the centuries the Welsh people, who were, in general, very poor and could usually only afford one horse, continued to improve the versatility of the breed by introducing other breeds that would add the qualities that they needed. There were infusions of Spanish Barb, Thoroughbred and Yorkshire Coach Horse blood. Some believe that roadsters were also part of the bloodline, (roadsters were highly prized trotting horses, either ridden or in harness, and trotting races were extremely popular in Wales.)

[B_and_B]

Awful lot to unpack here! Generally speaking the start of Western Medieval Europe is considered to be either the fall of the Roman Empire (400) or the consolidation of power under Charlemagne in 800. Obviously, such dates are a convenience for historians, it isn’t like people suddenly woke up on Jan 1st 800 and said: we are medieval now!
End dates are trickier. Do we start with the first Italian authors who are ‘Renaissance?’ The would be 1200’s. Obviously not right for northern Europe. An end date for some areas of Germany or Scotland might be close to 1500. But the Netherlands might be closer to 1400. We tend to pin it to the printing press, but again that is an invention that takes time to take hold.
When the Reformation takes hold is really the best end date. There are a couple of reasons for this. First off, war becomes far, far more ‘globalized’ and tends to engulf entire populations rather than being a shoving contest between nobles with the peasantry only involved if they had the misfortune to be in the direct way of the battle. Within Europe, the Early Modern period is far more violent on a major scale. The second reason for this is that the Reformation was not simply cultural, it was economic. In areas where the Catholic Church was dismantled, as in England, vast tracts of property become crown property, the same in Europe proper. Welfare, which had been haphazardly run by the monasteries, along with hospitals and education, also become the government’s job. This helped drive the creation of the modern state. Finally, the access to the Americas, Africa, and India caused a huge influx of gold from 1500 onward. This cash flow also drove change.
Now…on the medieval Christian bad problem. The Victorians have much to answer for. No seriously, alot of the more horrific torture instruments are either wrongly dated (they come from the Early Modern Period) or have no actual proof of use. Was there torture? Yes? Was there very much? No. It is not then or now an effective way of either controlling or motivating people. Was the capital punishment? Quite a bit. Was it all sweetness and light? No. However, gruesome deaths are far more common in the Reformation period. Internal religious wars tend to do that.
What about castles with moats? They aren’t anything to do with the peasants. They have everything to with the neighboring lord. They are also status symbols. They looked cool then, they look cool now.
Conversion in Europe, this is generally early medieval, Scandinavia converts last around 1100. Here is where our perception really struggles. As best as we can tell conversion was generally a useful political tactic by the leader. Sometimes it was genuine religious belief, but it was also a way to tap into a new European wide network. Christianity meant literacy, literacy meant power. Huge draw. Was there conversion at the point of the sword? Undoubtedly. However, here is where it gets interesting. Remember Charlemagne? If we look at how power is consolidating under him, we see that it is partially in response to external forces. Western Europe had just sort of been sitting, quasi Christian and not doing much about anything, aside from some Irish monks, for 400 years. Although the artwork of the period is amazing. Along about 700 two forces arise outside of Europe that are very real threats. To the north the Scandinavian tribes start expanding rapidly probably due to a better climate = over population. The Vikings gain control of Russia/Ukraine, much of the British Isles, Normandy, and get all the way round to Sicily (everyone wants a vacation home in the Med). At the same time, the now consolidated North African tribes, Islamic, start to expand: Spain (Islamic from 800s to 1200s, and the architecture and food show this), southern France in the west and then five hundred years of war over the slowly shrinking Byzantine Empire. We shouldn’t ignore the Byzantine Empire, the Crusades are part of a much larger geopolitical fight there…Islamic expansion also has some peaceful overtones, the critical exchange of ideas in Spain and Italy lead to among other things the concept of ‘zero’ in math and the development of modern astronomy.
These invasions seem to be what drives Charlemagne to create the Holy Roman Empire, which then starts nation building off with a vengeance. And of course, turn around and start pushing outwards, which Europe continues to do, as all people will, right into the 20th century.
I could go on, and on, and on. And write multiple textbooks.

[Willesdon]

@J-Lu

@BrendaJane

Continental europe might have considered Medieval from around 800AD on. Wild guess, seeing that on Christmas 800 Charlemagne was crowned Emperor (?) of the Romans.
He definitely missionized by the sword…
the 15th century is drifting into the Renaissance.

and as for the mote - from 1618-1648 Europe was engulfed in the 30 year war where nobody was safe from attack.
sucks there are even churches around still with porticos for weapon use! They were the population’s last refuge.

Thank you for this info! Do you think the residents built the mote after the founding of the city? Is that what they did in the 1600’s?

Any boundaries are arbitrary: think of national boundaries or why a farm is shaped the way it is or where blue turns to indigo in a rainbow. With cultural change it is even harder to make a clear break, one side or the other.

Sometimes it is easier to set a convenient political event, so here in the UK “modern history” starts in 1485 when Henry Tudor won the crown. Not in the least relevant for Scotland or Ireland but that is where academics work from.

Modern British historians and archeologists even refer to “the Roman interlude” because in terms of material culture there is such continuity from pre-Roman through to post-Roman daily life. Yes, there were fancy villas, cities, straight roads and industrial scale pottery production and Britain (in part) was within the Roman Empire, but most country people lived in the same style round houses as before and didn’t speak Latin.

Most human activity is piled on top of previous history. Sometimes the consequences are surprising. One common thread though, is that people assume a golden age in a distant past. Think of attitudes about race, women, the environment, the law etc in the USA today and consider what a strange mish mash of half knowledge and myth influences political discourse today.

On the 30 Year War, which is definitely within the “modern” period, it was substantially Catholic Vs Protestant, old religion v new style. In many ways it was the first modern war because, for the first time, there were large professional armies using firearms. It was a vile period when entire towns were destroyed with the citizens inside. Tens of thousands of people massacred. Nothing is comparable until WW2. Poland, for example still shows the effect of destruction and depopulation.

The medieval period was comparatively peaceful, with very few battles, because war was the business of aristocrats and there were firm rules of behaviour i.e. “chivalry”. Armies were small. Peasants weren’t generally involved. Ransome of noble captives was profitable whilst death was just waste - though foot soldiers were considered of lesser importance. The Church even imposed days of the week when fighting was forbidden.

P.S. the water-filled ditch around a site is a moat.

[B_and_B]

I should add though. One group always gets the short straw. The Jews. They are alternately valued and hated in both the Christian and Islamic areas. Some things never change…

[BrendaJane]

Tribalism.

In this case, it is usually the same virtues that come back to haunt them: the international connection that foster trade and finance…

There is a lot that is always overlooked when it comes to history: Why.
I think it was a lightbulb moment when I saw a scene in a movie. The history teacher hands a paper back to the student, The topic was apple orchards. He comments on how he had gotten the dates and numbers right but forgot the biggest part of the theme: Why.
The answer was prohibition. With the country being in dry dock, there was no use for acres and acres of cider apples.

the same goes for the turn from the Victorian age to the less restrictive Edwardian.
Why? I am reading a book about Arts and Crafts gardens. Why did the family suddenly converse outside of the house and take up gardening and gathering outdoors?
I suppose the weather suddenly turned warmer.
Why did the art suddenly change? There was an influx of Asian art reaching the European market, changing the style and motives (in visual arts as well as gardening)

For the Brits, the Romans were only a blip on the radar.
But then again, they had a old over much of Europe for hundreds of years prior, and just because we are static without our cars, it does not mean there was no lively trade and exchange throughout.

Uderzo and Goscinny made it common knowledge that the Gauls feared the sky may fall on their head (possibly as punishment). A friend suggested that there is an area in Europe, North of the Alps, I believe, he said where apparently a meteor struck and the locals used Obsidian in their weaponry, which is not common outside of the area at all.

As far as borders, usually, they follow topographical lines, rivers, mountains (one can still see it in some of the early states)
things get tricky when there is no such defining line, and people intermingle.
Like the language line between French and German. the line is in reality several miles wide and includes many towns and Hamlets. And ended up contested for the ages (but mostly because of the coal underneath…)

[Spudsmyguy]

“Feudal Frat Boys”

[Arelle]

I always love when actual historical data backs up a simple hypothesis.

Of course knights rode horses that were shorter in stature. If I was having to roam the countryside and get on and off of a horse in heavy armor without a mounting block, I absolutely would want a smaller horse. It would also require less feed, and probably be hardier. (All of my giant hunter horses have growth issues my smaller horses never seem to have.)

It makes more sense in my head that their horses were built more like the reiners of today - grown men on “technically” ponies, but with a size appropriate build. Much like Cade McCutcheon pictured below on his stallion, Super Marioo.

Image Source: https://vimeo.com/378062618

[BrendaJane]

think Carmarque horses

[J-Lu]

@B_and_B, THANK YOU for that very informative and interesting post. It perfectly shows why history is so interesting and hard to pin down. Soooooo interesting - you comments about horrific torture instruments being wrongly dated or had no proof of use. I obviously don’t have my timelines straight or historical periods straight. I thought the Medieval period was the most gruesome in history, thank you for explaining that the Reformation was moreso. You mention conversion. Do you mean conversion to Christianity? Yes, I remember from junior and high school Spanish class the the Moors from Morocco invaded Spain which has a lasting influence on Spain. Maybe the Moors are what these descendants were called in Spain? Don’t quote me!! Anyway, I did learn about that.

@Willesdon THANK YOU as well! It seems inconsequential to consider American history because there’s so little of it compared to Europe. At least if you look at European conquest of the rich Native American history that pretty much isn’t considered or taught at all in America. Oh, thanks. Moat.

This is why I love COTH! I have copied and pasted your responses into a word document so I can reread and explore topics further. I obviously misunderstood these periods in history and really find the deep history in Europe so fascinating. I’m from immigrants on all sides of my pedigree (all grandparents went through Ellis Island as kids) so I find European history fascinating.

Thank you both again!!!

[B_and_B]

Conversion is complicated! We generally speak of conversion to Christianity because our world view is strongly Eurocentric. But, if we look at Scandinavian/German history in the 800-1200 era, one finds rulers converting back and forth from pagan to Christian to pagan and then Christian. The same thing occurs in Spain, North Africa, and the Byzantine Empire regions, there going from Christian to Islamic to Christian (though the latter tend to end up more pluralistic with a dominant Islamic religion and multiple other religions still present). Yes the ‘Moors’ is the old term for the Islamic Kingdoms in Spain, because of the North African connection.
When we get to the Reformation, conversion is between Catholic and Protestant.
Many of the early medieval conversions were for expediency. I mentioned that Christianity equaled literacy which equals power. The funny thing is that quite often the leader who is converting isn’t literate at all (I had Scottish nobles up into the 1300’s signing documents with x). But, monks were literate, the only literate people. So a noble or king would want to have a monk to hand to write things down. But, the only way to have a monk at court was to convert at least in name, otherwise you couldn’t have a monk (at least not a cooperating one!).

One of the important things with history is bias. Every, every historian has bias. Myself included. Until very recently, and arguably still present, the major bias in European history, especially being written in the US and in the UK was a huge anti-Catholic bias. In the early Medieval/Classical studies this tended to become generalized anti-Christian and or anti-Semitic. This tended to drive the Medieval equals bad; Reformation equals good. It also is why the Byzantine Empire and the various Middle Eastern sub-kingdoms are an area that has long been ignored. This is primarily a cultural and language issue. Generally all medieval historians have some grasp of Latin. Old and Middle German, French, and English are common. (I had to have the Norse translated and the German, my Latin is very rusty now!) Very few though have a good grasp of Greek, and fewer still have Arabic or Hebrew. It is part of the silo effect. Greek is the domain of the Classics, and the Classics do not have anything to do with Christian history. Arabic and Hebrew were simply not taught at all till recently. The end result is that our understanding of history ends up getting shaped by what the languages are that we can read or write…I am over simplifying this quite a bit, you will always find outliers.
Do not get me going on what the current biases are. Suffice it to say that in my opinion people don’t spend enough time in the actual primary documents and modern cultural trends are heavily invested in. The first thing I do when I pick up a history book is flip to the bibliography. If no bibliography, no good at all, I won’t even read it. If the bibliography is all secondary sources (i.e. other people’s arguments) not good, though better. If the bibliography has numerous primary sources, excellent, they actually did research! If the bibliography has works in multiple languages, good too. if the bibliography has lots of primary sources, and secondary sources from a wide range of decades (to adjust for bias) and in multiple languages, best. A+ is given if they not only have the bibliography, but actually use footnotes so one can actually review their findings.

[BrendaJane]

@B_and_B

Suffice it to say that in my opinion people don’t spend enough time in the actual primary documents

I think that is the crux of the matter, really.
I majored in HIstory back in the high school days (badly so, while I could ave been the star, we followed the teachers all time favorite Senior class, we could not score a lot of favors with her))
The books we got then were void of the pretty pictures that were crammed in the previous book. Instead they were slab full of exerpts of (translated of course ) historical documents.
You had to figure out what was said, (translation bias wasn’t a thing we thought of back then) in context with the timeframe they were written in.

But language plays a huge role, for sure.
You can’t feel the heart of a culture until you can access it through the language.

[sophie]

I grew up in France learning about my country’s history so got a lot of info about the Middle ages (500-1500) over my school years, and also later read numerous novels written by French historians and authors who had researched the middle ages. I don’t have such a bleak image of it at all. One historian in particular, Régine Pernoud, dedicated her lifetime to rehabilitating the Middle ages and especially the place women had in medieval society.
As a Lutheran Protestant I also learned a lot about religious intolerance at the time against any creed that was not Catholicism, and resulting persecutions.
As for horses, from what I’ve learned, there were “categories” of horses, rather than specific breeds: the destrier (battle horse), the palfrey / palefroi (parade riding horse)/ the roncin/roussin (jack-of-all-trades) and the farm horses. However, the baroque horses (barb, iberic, Camargue and the like) were the most prized horses at the time.
And yes, they weren’t that big, 16h max but often much smaller. I think the myth of the huge, 17-18h war horse, has long been debunked.

[frugalannie]

Thank you to all the posters here who have expanded my knowledge of times medieval with their erudition and expertise. One of the reasons I love COTHers!