"1805" British light dragoon saddle.

[John M Φ]

This saddle frame came "from the depths of Europe" some years ago. Acquired it at a car boot fair, probably came from Romania or Hungary. Doubt whether it's military. Assembled with wood dowels. No sign of fixing points for girth or stirrup leathers.

I love the look of this - as if someone out in the sticks, and fed up of riding bareback, remembered once seeing an old hussar saddle and thought 'I can make one of those'!

Merry Christmas!

http://cavalrytales.wordpress.com

I think you are absolutely right in your comment.

[Pat Holscher]

Stockman and Ringers used this same method with stirrup leathers, but without the keeper.

What is a "ringer"?

The reason for this was that many stock horses were a bit rough around the edges. Getting on them required some skill and so usually they got on them in the yards and someone opened the gate for them. This was because mounting and dismounting could be hazardous. Losing a horse might mean a long walk home and perhaps a busted saddle and bridle. (Incidentally this problem has led to a unique method of mounting that stockman developed to counteract horses that darted away when climbing aboard).

What was the mounting method?

[Pat Holscher]

The Australian connection is really interesting. The first serious colonisation by the British (through the so-called 'First Fleet' of 1787-88) included a large number of convicts and military personnel, as well as civilians. It seems to make sense that a military style of riding, comfortable over long distances, would remain popular, perhaps retaining many particular conventions - such as the stirrup buckle positioning.

I'm sure military rough-riders of the period would have left the tab of their leathers hanging loose for exactly the same reasons as more modern stockmen.

Australian Stock saddles are still fitted over a blanket and with a surcingle/overgirth, just like their military forebears. And I gather it's pretty common for stock horses to work in both breastplate and crupper.

I'd be careful about going too far with the assumption that military riding greatly influenced Australian stock riding.

The Australian stock seat is remarkably similar to the traditional American stock seat. Both seats feature long forward stirrups. I suspect those seats were more influenced by riding conditions than anything else. In the Australian case, the seat was probably largely picked up on location and most riders were probably introduced to it at home or by agricultural users who probably would have been unlikely to have been greatly influenced by miltiary riding.

[Pat Holscher]

The days of the surcingle or over girth you mentioned are almost totally gone and perhaps left in secluded pockets wher people might still use a very old styled stock saddle. The most common saddle ringers, stockman and campdrafters use are the new aussie style saddle with swinging fenders. Beastplates and cruppers are mostly a thing of the past...again in rare pockets of those who still use the old saddles.

With the new swinging fenders the loop on the stirrup leathers are pretty much gone as well. see "www.kentsaddlery.com.au" for further information on the new styles.

cheers

Gerard

There's been an exchange of stock influence between the US and Australia over the past century that's expressed itself in all sort of ways. Most American sheep outfits went to the "Australian System" for sheep raising prior to World War One, for example.

Post World War Two there's been some stock saddle influence that's come in from the US to Australia, although of course the Australian stock saddle is still around. Conversely, the Australian stock saddle has become a fairly popular general use saddle in the US. It doesn't see any stock use here at all, but it's a pretty popular general use saddle.

Anyhow, some of what you note in stock saddle evolution probably reflects these cross influences.

[Pat Holscher]

I guess my point is that the saddle or the type known as the Hungarian Military saddle can legitimately trace its roots back to the military saddle of the Eurasian Steppe. If the Up and the Mclellan and I suppose most "modern" cavalry saddles claim the Hungarian as their sourse, then they too have an eastern and ancient liniage.

The McClellan at least can't really legitimately claim Hungarian ancestry. It's pretty clearly just a modified Spanish tree saddle.

One thing about these "primitive" tree saddles (if we dare call them that) is that they very often do bear a fairly strong resemblance to one another. But I really wonder if that's more due to a fairly obvious way of addressing saddle tree construction using natural materials, ie., wood and leather. Almost every culture that ever made a saddle seems to have made a tree that looks like this. It's natural for us to presume that they're all linked, but I wonder if they really are? It'd make for an interesting study to map out the first appearance of this sort of tree, based on a common set of features, and relate that to where we know the tree to have more or less appeared and when.

[ReversiblePortsmouth]

1. The Oxford English reference dictionary describes a ringer as: a stockman or station hand. I understand the name arose from the days of running cattle on large expanses of unfenced land and catching cattle and using quiet controlled cattle to persuade uneducated cattle into a mob. The use of ringing around the mob ensured the uneducated stock were retained within the quieter mob until they settled down. Also uneducated cattle were sometimes turned on themselves if they were able to be bent.

2. I understand the method of mounting was devised when droving cattle on the open plains without the use of yards. So when training young "colts" they were first trained to "face up" to be caught and hobbled. When progressing to mounting, the hobbles held them still to practice mounting. Once drilled, the hobbles were released. As there were no yards an "off sider" ie another person on a quiet horse could stand by the horse to be mounted to assist or "pick up" where possible and should this be required.

Mounting was a fluid movement performed by pivoting the knee on the shoulder rather than pressing the knee in the saddle flap. One stands parrallel to the front leg and the stirrup iron is grasped and pulled to the foot. It is now twisted and not horizontal to fit the boot, because pivoting on the knee the foot is on an angle. The mane is grasped in the left hand and the "split" reins specially looped around the elbow to control the horse by a simple movement of back or forth to hold the animal still. It's looped in the palm of the hand so as not to tangle ones' arm. Part of the training to "stand up" was this process. The right hand then grasps the off side knee pad or monkey strap which is tied on the pommel, the arm resting on the seat of the saddle to stay low. This method provides 2 holds of the hands until the backside hit the seat.

This is different to mounting by standing on the side and grasping the pommel with the left hand with the reins on the pommel and the right hand on the cantle with the knee straight up and down pressed into the flap. The right hand must be released to allow one to seat themselves in the saddle.

Pivoting on the knee provides the fluid movement. With practice one can get quiet fast at mounting. This method allows mounting big horses with more ease than the other style. I'm not a tall bloke and now I've learnt this method I find I have little difficulty mounting. This way works well on a UP saddle without a knee pad.

[Anulf]

The McClellan at least can't really legitimately claim Hungarian ancestry. It's pretty clearly just a modified Spanish tree saddle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClellan_saddle

I find this a little confusing. If Capt. McClellen went to Europe, studied the European Cavalry, observed the battles of the Crimean war, returned to the States with books and manuals to revamp the U.S. Cavalry and then designed a saddle that he claimed was a modification of the Hungarian saddle used in Prussian service,....how come the saddle was

certainly a modification of the Spanish tree saddle in common use in Mexico during this period, and which had become common in some parts of the US.

I always thought it was Hungarian only missing the suspention seat, the rider sits down on the frame, but instead it is "obviously" a common tree that he could have picked up down at the local harness shop. I'd like to know more about this Spanish saddle tree and why Capt. McClellen needed to make up a story about his saddle's design.

As for how saddle technology travels, it is true that there is only so many ways to saddle a horse using wood and leather. I think I recall seeing a photo of a "Squaw" saddle made from buffalo bones and rawhide that had the spoon cantle and pommel. Still, the Hungarian saddle seems to have been "imported" with the Hussars as they moved from army to army, and country to country. In many cases a Hungarian Hussar became the adopted country's leading military "advisor" on Cavalry,...I think this is including the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussar

If I'm not mistaken, didn't many of the British, "Light Dragoon" regiments become Hussars at a later date?
So this particular saddle may have Hungarian "roots" but I guess not all military saddles had to follow that same route.

[Pat Holscher]

The McClellan at least can't really legitimately claim Hungarian ancestry. It's pretty clearly just a modified Spanish tree saddle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClellan_saddle

I find this a little confusing. If Capt. McClellen went to Europe, studied the European Cavalry, observed the battles of the Crimean war, returned to the States with books and manuals to revamp the U.S. Cavalry and then designed a saddle that he claimed was a modification of the Hungarian saddle used in Prussian service,....how come the saddle was

certainly a modification of the Spanish tree saddle in common use in Mexico during this period, and which had become common in some parts of the US.

I always thought it was Hungarian only missing the suspention seat, the rider sits down on the frame, but instead it is "obviously" a common tree that he could have picked up down at the local harness shop. I'd like to know more about this Spanish saddle tree and why Capt. McClellen needed to make up a story about his saddle's design.

There's a lot of threads on that topic on the general forum. An introduction to McClellan can be found here of course, followed by a discussion of each saddle:

http://www.militaryhorse.org/studies/mcclellan/

Suffice it to say, while McClellan may have claimed it was a Hungarian saddle, there's really no evidence to support it. And, at that time, with Hussars being regarded as the model of cavalry, that was a good claim. But even as early as the 1833 saddle Spanish trees were in widespread use and varied little from the McClellan in basic features:

http://www.militaryhorse.org/features/1833.php

While there are similarities to be sure, the basic design is different enough. The Spanish Tree saddle was in common use in the United States and on the Frontier. The only really significant difference between it and McClellan's design is that it had a horn, which most McClellan's lack. Neither design requires a suspension seat. The only real evidence for the claim of Hungarian ancestry for the McClellan saddle is McClellan's apparent claim that that was the inspiration. But the saddles are better evidence that the claim was probably a bit of sales puffery.

As for how saddle technology travels, it is true that there is only so many ways to saddle a horse using wood and leather. I think I recall seeing a photo of a "Squaw" saddle made from buffalo bones and rawhide that had the spoon cantle and pommel. Still, the Hungarian saddle seems to have been "imported" with the Hussars as they moved from army to army, and country to country. In many cases a Hungarian Hussar became the adopted country's leading military "advisor" on Cavalry,...I think this is including the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussar

If I'm not mistaken, didn't many of the British, "Light Dragoon" regiments become Hussars at a later date?
So this particular saddle may have Hungarian "roots" but I guess not all military saddles had to follow that same route.

The US did not participate in the Hussar mania of the 19th Century in any meaningful sense. Perhaps it was because of our relative isolation, but when the Hussar fad hit Europe the US basically sat it out. The only US units that you can find that substantially participated in trying to copy their style in any sense were militia units, at least one of which looked a lot like a German unit early in the Civil War.

Otherwise, for the US, France was the huge influence of the time, which showed itself in such diverse things as sabers and uniforms, although native patterns were very much coming into use as well. From 1845 on Frontier conditions started to have an original impact on the U.S. military and that became increasingly apparent as time went on. After France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War there was a brief period of Prussian influence, which did have some permanent impact on the US military, but by that time the US Cavalry was near sui generis and it never participated in the highly colorful stylistic elements of European cavalry.

Really, all in all, the US Cavalry is remarkable for having skipped the entire Hussar/Uhlan/Lancer, etc., period in a way. It did show up a bit, particularly in militia units, but for the most part US Cavalry morphed into a type of light cavalry/dragoon/mounted infantry very quickly after being reestablished and, except for perhaps the Civil War, it stayed there.

[Brian P.]

Pat,
I would have to disagree to a certain extent. Early on, there were definite Hussar influences on US Cavalry. During the War of 1812, the US Dragoons wore a heavily braided short jacket - definitely of a Hussar pedigree. This was probably inherited second hand from the British light dragoon uniforms, which were adopted from Hussar styles. Some US Dragoons (regulars and militia) even wore longer hair and moustaches, contrary to popular fashion, in order to look more "Hussar-like". Even US Cavalry weapons and tactics of the time were more Hussar-like than Dragoon-like. That is, US Dragoons were armed with pistol and saber and served in a traditional Cavalry role. The early Walker Dragoon saddle was obviously a Hussar style. Even the Ringold and Grimsley saddles could claim some Hussar influence, I believe.

I think that the failure of the US to continue in the Hussar style may have more to do with the practical elimination of the Cavalry arm in the years following the War of 1812. Whereas European Cavalry regiments had a chance to continuously evolve the Hussar style, the US Army just moved on to the next fashion. When the US Dragoons were reorganized in 1833, they just adopted the French military fashions that were popular at the time. It is true that some militia units carried on or revived Hussar styles later in the century. Philadelphia's 1st Troop and New York's Squadron A are good examples.

[unclearthur]

Really, all in all, the US Cavalry is remarkable for having skipped the entire Hussar/Uhlan/Lancer, etc., period in a way. It did show up a bit, particularly in militia units, but for the most part US Cavalry morphed into a type of light cavalry/dragoon/mounted infantry very quickly after being reestablished and, except for perhaps the Civil War, it stayed there.

If this was the case, do you think it was more a rejection of European ideas by a fledgling country, or simply practical acceptance that driving the British out had proved the traditionally accepted methods of attack and defence would not work for them? I'm thinking along the lines of Sir John Moore's 'copying' of US small-group ambush tactics that led directly to the formation of British Light Infantry and Rifle brigades.

http://cavalrytales.wordpress.com

[Pat Holscher]

Pat,
I would have to disagree to a certain extent. Early on, there were definite Hussar influences on US Cavalry. During the War of 1812, the US Dragoons wore a heavily braided short jacket - definitely of a Hussar pedigree. This was probably inherited second hand from the British light dragoon uniforms, which were adopted from Hussar styles. Some US Dragoons (regulars and militia) even wore longer hair and moustaches, contrary to popular fashion, in order to look more "Hussar-like". Even US Cavalry weapons and tactics of the time were more Hussar-like than Dragoon-like. That is, US Dragoons were armed with pistol and saber and served in a traditional Cavalry role. The early Walker Dragoon saddle was obviously a Hussar style. Even the Ringold and Grimsley saddles could claim some Hussar influence, I believe.

For the early patterns mentioned here, I'd refer to the studies on the main page of this forum, which I think address these questions pretty well. Suffice it to say, I'm seeing no real Hussar influence in the 19th Century, and I don't think the studies on it, either here, or in such works as Man Made Mobile, bear that out.

I'd yield, a bit, on the war of 1812, but only a bit. I don't really know much about our cavalry in that period, or what influences it was exhibiting, so I can't really address it. I'd question if the weaponry being used was really dragoon like, so much as it was practical given the conditions, but again, I don't have the resources or knowledge to really address it.

I think that the failure of the US to continue in the Hussar style may have more to do with the practical elimination of the Cavalry arm in the years following the War of 1812. Whereas European Cavalry regiments had a chance to continuously evolve the Hussar style, the US Army just moved on to the next fashion. When the US Dragoons were reorganized in 1833, they just adopted the French military fashions that were popular at the time. It is true that some militia units carried on or revived Hussar styles later in the century. Philadelphia's 1st Troop and New York's Squadron A are good examples.

I do agree with that. Whatever influences were strong at the time of cavalry's elimination (which would suggest an overall low influence in the Army as a whole, to some degree) disappeared and weren't exhibiting an influence in 1833 when mounted forces returned. And, I'd suggest, while the French influence was indeed pronounced at that time, some native elements were beginning to be prominent as well, and would never really leave after that. That is, when mounted forces were reestablished in 1833, Frontier conditions were beginning to make an impact on the US Army, and to some degree, influenced what we saw thereafter.

[Pat Holscher]

Really, all in all, the US Cavalry is remarkable for having skipped the entire Hussar/Uhlan/Lancer, etc., period in a way. It did show up a bit, particularly in militia units, but for the most part US Cavalry morphed into a type of light cavalry/dragoon/mounted infantry very quickly after being reestablished and, except for perhaps the Civil War, it stayed there.

If this was the case, do you think it was more a rejection of European ideas by a fledgling country, or simply practical acceptance that driving the British out had proved the traditionally accepted methods of attack and defence would not work for them? I'm thinking along the lines of Sir John Moore's 'copying' of US small-group ambush tactics that led directly to the formation of British Light Infantry and Rifle brigades.

http://cavalrytales.wordpress.com

Neither one really, although I'm not an expert on on the early history of our Army.

Cavalry did, of course, exist in the Colonial forces, and I think that to some degree its role has been unfairly minimized in the military histories of the Revolution, but for whatever reason, Washington did not favor the cavalry branch and the expense associated with cavalry meant that it had a relatively minor role in the early military history of the country, coming ultimately to be completely disbanded. Early on, therefore, much of the country's early cavalry history is somewhat muted. At the time of the Revolution it would be interesting to know what tactical influences were strong, but I can't really comment on them. An interesting aspect of the post Revolution, pre 1833, period is that much of US cavalry really existed in militia, rather than Federal forces. Militia influences probably varied, and of course some militia cavalry of the period had a policing role in addition to a military one.

Beyond that, however, when cavalry was reestablished in 1833, it was reestablished with Frontier conditions being paramount. From 1833 until the 1890s the cavalry was continually engaged in some sort of Indian war, with the Mexican War and the Civil War providing periods of regular combat against established armies. Even the Mexican War, however, featured elements of Frontier conditions, so really only the 1860 to 1865 period were dominated by conventional combat in the European sense. This means, I would argue that from 1833 forward the conditions that predominated required a force that contemplated warfare between Western nations, but which would undoubtedly require combat and deployment in Frontier conditions. The European pattern, featuring multiple types of cavalry, and various types of cavalry weapons, just didn't lend itself to that role.

[DrsRob]

Hello People,

I'm the one who stated that the Saddle in the Royal Armouries is a Dutch Pattern. I joined to let you know that I now have posted scans of drawings on the Napoleon Series forum.

Gr. Rob

On second thought, I can just as well post them here:

Artillerie paardentuig - 1 by drsrob, on Flickr

Artillerie paardentuig - 2 by drsrob, on Flickr

They are drawing of the Home artillery saddlery, 1 an earlier pattern, 2 a later one. You'll notice that nr. 1 has an iron loop on the front of the sideboard and none in back, while nr. 2 has two in front and one in the back. Of the Colonial M1897 pattern I have no drawing, but I do have a detailed description in Dutch. This mentions one loop in front and one in the back - like the one in the Royal Armouries.

[John M Φ]

Thanks for posting the drawings, Rob. Will study them.

[DrsRob]

You're welcome.

Do you by any chance have a photograph of the saddle in question? The one I posted got lost in a Computer crash and is no longer on the Net.

[John M Φ]

No, Rob, I have not. The only ones I have at present access to are those in Major Tylden's book and they are not clear enough to make a definite comparison with the drawings you have posted.
I am sure I have seen better photos of the Royal Armouries "1805" saddle on the internet but have had no luck in tracing them yet.

[DrsRob]

Too bad.

Perhaps you can help me with something else: another victim of my computer crash was an article in the cavalry journal about the development of British saddlery. It was posted/hosted by someone on this forum, but is no longer extant on the net. Perhaps you have a copy thereof?

[Tony Barton]

I hope these might be useful. They are not very good, since they were taken through glass without a tripod with a pre-digital camera.







I needed them myself as reference for making a model version ... but now , from what this thread suggests , it's not the real thing anyway !

[John M Φ]

Thanks for putting up those photos, Tony. Useful...they show a little more detail than the photos in Major Tylden's book.

[Anulf]

Just curious,...what wood was used in these saddles?