In Raiders of the Lost Ark, when Belloc predicts that Indy won't destroy the Ark of the Covenant 'because he's an archaeologist', it takes a strong will not to blurt out that Belloc's confidence might be somewhat misplaced, especially considering that Indy had, only moments earlier, destroyed an entire Egyptian tomb full of snakes and statues in an attempt to escape.
Thank you for this interesting and informative article.
I’ve sometimes wondered why it was that the Romans, whose knowledge of and expertise in animal husbandry was very considerable and long standing, never developed a breed of ‘heavy’ draught horses capable of carrying heavy loads or pulling a plough. A Roman equivalent of the Clydesdale, Shire or Percheron would have been greatly superior for such purposes than the teams of oxen they used for centuries for ploughing (or rather tilling) the soil.
Curious too that the Roman cavalry never adopted the use of stirrups, although this surely obvious ‘invention’ would greatly have increased the value and utility of the horse in both civilian and military usage.
The cavalry was employed as a 'light' force and as such, smaller horses were more beneficial than larger ones. The cavalry was used to deny battlefield position, to harass the flanks, to engage the enemy cavalry, and to chase fleeing troops. The idea of a cavalry 'charge' is something that came about much later in medieval times or was part of foreign army tactics. Charging headlong into an infantry unit on a pony would have been suicidal and the animals themselves would probably have refused.
They did develop heavier cavalry later on, the Cataphractii, but, a bit like elephants, they proved more hassle than they were worth on the battlefield.
Owning a horse was originally seen as something of a status symbol, so using them as draught animals was a bit like using a Bentley as a tractor. Originally the cavalry was made up of rich young men who could afford the mount and equipment that went with it. These became the social class known as the 'equites' (or knights), and although later cavalry units were made up of lesser ranks from the auxiliaries, the horse was still seen as an elite animal and not the sort of thing you'd use to pull a plough. There wasn't really a need for larger animals.
Roman saddles had four 'prongs' that the rider would grip with his thighs and use to help steer the animal. Sounds really uncomfortable, but it obviously worked pretty well.
Thank you for this interesting and informative article.
I’ve sometimes wondered why it was that the Romans, whose knowledge of and expertise in animal husbandry was very considerable and long standing, never developed a breed of ‘heavy’ draught horses capable of carrying heavy loads or pulling a plough. A Roman equivalent of the Clydesdale, Shire or Percheron would have been greatly superior for such purposes than the teams of oxen they used for centuries for ploughing (or rather tilling) the soil.
Curious too that the Roman cavalry never adopted the use of stirrups, although this surely obvious ‘invention’ would greatly have increased the value and utility of the horse in both civilian and military usage.
Thanks again for your writings.
The cavalry was employed as a 'light' force and as such, smaller horses were more beneficial than larger ones. The cavalry was used to deny battlefield position, to harass the flanks, to engage the enemy cavalry, and to chase fleeing troops. The idea of a cavalry 'charge' is something that came about much later in medieval times or was part of foreign army tactics. Charging headlong into an infantry unit on a pony would have been suicidal and the animals themselves would probably have refused.
They did develop heavier cavalry later on, the Cataphractii, but, a bit like elephants, they proved more hassle than they were worth on the battlefield.
Owning a horse was originally seen as something of a status symbol, so using them as draught animals was a bit like using a Bentley as a tractor. Originally the cavalry was made up of rich young men who could afford the mount and equipment that went with it. These became the social class known as the 'equites' (or knights), and although later cavalry units were made up of lesser ranks from the auxiliaries, the horse was still seen as an elite animal and not the sort of thing you'd use to pull a plough. There wasn't really a need for larger animals.
Roman saddles had four 'prongs' that the rider would grip with his thighs and use to help steer the animal. Sounds really uncomfortable, but it obviously worked pretty well.