Forums at The Military Horse

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

Yes indeed: thanks

And the details do confirm my identification, such as the iron ring on the wolf (seat). This serves to hold the rolled greatcoat together with the center division of the triple staple on the front arch.

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

For the saddle in the Royal Armouries or for the real British M1805 saddle?

Is there a difference? Did different countries use different wood or did different saddlers use their own wood sourse?

I understand that the '02 UP side bars are maple on the Canadian made version and ,...ash(?) on the English models.

The drawings of the Dutch saddles have to be taken seriously....relative to the "1805" saddle at the Royal Armouries.
Some observations.

The front wood arch of the Royal Armouries/RA saddle and Dutch saddle appear identical.

Though the Dutch saddle sideboards look longer.

The number and position of the lacing holes in the underseat and leg flaps of both RA and Dutch saddle are identical.

Shape of leg flaps the same.

Both saddles appear to have the ring near front end of under seat.

Both RA and Dutch saddle appear to have an identical wide dee on front face of front arch.

Though the dees on front burrs are set at different angles.

The iron strengthening brackets at junction of front and rear arches with the sideboards are identical on both the RA and Dutch saddle.

Could do with a front elevational drawing of the front arch of the Dutch saddle to see whether the Dutch saddle has the same semi-circular flush fitted iron reinforcing member as the RA saddle. This is shown clearly in Major Tylden's photos.

Jack.....the wood for the side bars of, at least some, British military saddles in the 19th century was specified as beech. I have assumed that beech continued as the material for side bars during the 20th century. Though the bars on more recent saddles may be of laminated construction as with a Household cavalry saddle I have.

The saddle adopted by the Dutch light cavalry in 1824 had arcs of beech root and sideboards of ash.
The 1819 saddle had had arches of elmwood made of one piece. These tended to break because by cutting the hollow the grain was cut. In 1824 it was commented that elmwood could only be used when the arc was made of two pieces with a dovetail connection, LIKE THE ENGLISH SADDLES HAD HAD.
Allthough this does not necessarily mean that the English saddles were made of elm, this seams likely nevertheless.

DrsRob wrote:Allthough this does not necessarily mean that the English saddles were made of elm, this seams likely nevertheless.

Although I have no references to argue the point, I'd be wary of making this assumption. Elm was considered 'bad luck' in both army and navy because of it's extensive use for coffins, at least in the UK.

unclearthur wrote:

John M wrote:.

The breastplate has a long and a short shoulder strap, that buckle together, the long end was looped around the front spoon. The connection point of the 3 strap is covered by a heart shaped piece of leather.

The holsters were looped to the front spoon, the lower ends held by rings on the breastplate.

Don't you just love historians? Haythornthwaite is wrong, yet these two statements make no logical sense - practically, I can't see how they could work.

Interesting that the French saddle has steel on the 'wrong' side of the arch - the angle fixed to the sideboard must be weaker than if the steel were on the reverse. Could there be another hoop at the back with the two rivetted together through the timber?

http://cavalrytales.wordpress.com

I never answered this critisism as at the time I was not a member. A bit belatedly, but I would want to adress this.

I've added a drawing of a French hungarian saddle, that has the same configuration. You'll notice the ring around the lower end of the holster. This ring is at the inside attached to the shoulder strap of the breastplate. The shoulder strap itself continues underneath the holster towards the front spoon over which its looped. The loop is secured with a braided slide. The off-hand shoulder strap is the longer of the two, so that the buckle of the near end is to the left, above or below the left holster ring, depending on the model.
This construction is common to all hungarian and spoon-type light cavalry saddles until the mid-19th Century.

DrsRob wrote:

unclearthur wrote:

John M wrote:.

The breastplate has a long and a short shoulder strap, that buckle together, the long end was looped around the front spoon. The connection point of the 3 strap is covered by a heart shaped piece of leather.

The holsters were looped to the front spoon, the lower ends held by rings on the breastplate.

Don't you just love historians? Haythornthwaite is wrong, yet these two statements make no logical sense - practically, I can't see how they could work.

Interesting that the French saddle has steel on the 'wrong' side of the arch - the angle fixed to the sideboard must be weaker than if the steel were on the reverse. Could there be another hoop at the back with the two rivetted together through the timber?

http://cavalrytales.wordpress.com

I never answered this critisism as at the time I was not a member. A bit belatedly, but I would want to adress this.

I've added a drawing of a French hungarian saddle, that has the same configuration. You'll notice the ring around the lower end of the holster. This ring is at the inside attached to the shoulder strap of the breastplate. The shoulder strap itself continues underneath the holster towards the front spoon over which its looped. The loop is secured with a braided slide. The off-hand shoulder strap is the longer of the two, so that the buckle of the near end is to the left, above or below the left holster ring, depending on the model.
This construction is common to all hungarian and spoon-type light cavalry saddles until the mid-19th Century.

Thanks for that.

I can understand why the shoulder straps might have been looped over the withers, because they tend to droop when individually attached to the side boards. Mechanically, though, it still makes little sense to me given everything else that was attached to the spoon.

Interesting that the crupper was buckled directly to the saddle rather than doubled back through a loop and buckled on itself as perhaps one might expect.

Guess I'll have to learn French and read some period cavalry treatises

There was even more attached to the front spoon, not just the breastplate.

The holsters each had a braided strap, that had a loop, that buckled over the spoon. Then there was the carbine shoe-strap and but strap, and on British saddles the greatcoat strap.

According to Paul Dawson's new book Au Gallop: Horses and Riders of Napoleon's Army, looping the breastplate straps over the spoon was deliberate. French hussar saddles were apparently prone to lifting in front, due to both their design and consequent positioning as well as the rider's seat.

So my assumption of the breastplate's main function is wrong in this case. Can't win 'em all

Recently I found a contract for saddle fittings for the Light Dragoon Regiment. The Girths were listed as having 4 buckles each.

As it's extremely unlikely that they would all have been on one side, this would mean that the girth of the British Hussar saddle would have had 2 buckles at each end. The article in the Cavalry Journal stating that the off side was fixed to the tree with a leather thong might be wrong. Rather, there would have been a piece of leather with two billet straps at each side.

Interesting....is there any further information on the Light Dragoon saddle ? The girth to my 1859 dated UP1856 saddle is as described in that cavalry journal article by Major Horton, although my girth is leather rather than stout hemp web.
The girth on my UP1856 has a pair of buckles at one end and is leather thong laced at the other end to holes in the side bar. There would have been a chape with two billet straps ...missing..also laced to the other sidebar.

Perhaps the writer simply assumed that the girth of the Original hussar saddle was configured the same way as the 1859 pattern. That would mean however that he never saw one, or at the least never saw a complete one.