Talk:Palfrey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Trying to make sense of all this

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cite your sources or let it go 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pain in whose A--? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interesting Discussion