A Critique of the Model of 1879 Whitman cavalry saddle by a military officer.
To the Editor of the Army and Navy Journal:
SIR: A writer to the ARMY And Navy Journal, who signs himself “109 Degrees in the Shade,” gives us his opinion on “The Question of Equipment,” and indulges the hope that others like himself will make public their views in the matter.
As to the Whitman saddle and halter bridle I beg to express quite a different opinion from that entertained by “109 Degrees in the Shade.” I claim to be somewhat of a horseman, have used saddles of several different models, including the Whitman, and am decidedly of opinion that the Whitman is inferior, and the McClellan superior, to them all. I have thoroughly tried the Whitman saddle and have fully satisfied myself of the existence of the following good and bad qualities of that saddle.
The good points are:
1. Good Bearing Surface under the Cantle.–I do not consider this an improvement on the McClellan tree because its bearing surface at the same place is equally good.
2. Position of Stirrup Rings.-This I consider the only real improvement in the Whitman tree over the McClellan. The position of the stirrups thus secured allows the rider to sit well down in the seat of the saddle without compelling him to carry his legs in an uncomfortable position. It secures a natural position for the legs. I would say about the same of the girth braces. Their position is excellent.
3. Easy Seat, but One in no Way Equal or Superior to that of the McClellan.-The only advantage a rider in the Whitman saddle has over a bareback rider is in the fact that the former has stirrups.
4. Light, but to the Sacrifice of Necessary Strength.—- A bucking horse would break the Whitman tree beyond any doubt the first time he indulged his propensity in that direction; and should a horse roll himself when saddled with the Whitman tree the latter would fare very badly. It is more liable to spread at the pommel than the McClellan tree. The bars of iron on the upper and lower sides of the pommel are riveted or screwed to cach other and really weaken rather than strengthen the tree. The wood between them is a mere thin strip, and should the tree begin to spread at the pommel this strip of wood would break. The two iron bars drop out and the tree itself falls to pieces. In this respect it is decidedly inferior to the McClellan.
Its bad points are more numerous and may be stated as follows:
1. Bad Bearing Surface under Pommel.-In fact this surface does not touch the saddle blanket at all, the lower edges of the pommel near the stitches rest directly on the horse, or rather on the saddle blanket.
2. Too Narrow in Front just under the Pommel.
3. Too Narrow between the Stirrup Rings.-After a ten or twenty days’ ride on a scout when horses’ backs begin to get tender the greatest care must be taken by their riders to prevent sorebacks. Sorebacks are generally caused by neglect, by careless riding, and in many instances by the saddle. After such a ride as mentioned above the Whitman tree would cut up the backs of the horses fully as badly as did the old Grimsley saddle or worse. It would do this because of the last three bad points mentioned above. This would not happen with the McClellan tree, unless the shape of the horse’s back was unusual or unless his rider was careless. A careful rider would fold his blanket so as to prevent his horse’s back from getting sore.
During the war when the demand for McClellan saddles was very great, they were not made as carefully as they should have been or as the designer intended. Many of them were consequently too narrow and too low in the pommel. I have observed that the saddles issued from time to time to my own company have possessed improvements and advantages in this respect, each successive issue over those last drawn. The McClellan tree as now issued, for the ordinary back, is as nearly perfect as need be, except in the matter of stirrups. The stirrups of the McClellan tree are placed too far back. They are not in the most fit place for the cavalry soldier.
4. Practically without a Pommel to Assist in Mounting.
5. Projection to Cantle Apparently for the Purpose of Holding to with the Right Hand when Mounting Highly Objectionable for that Purpose.-To mount a horse equipped with a Whitman tree the trooper would be in- structed to seize the projection to the cantle with the right hand and a lock of the mane with the left hand, put his left foot in the stirrup and spring lightly into the saddle.
Now that is all very simple, but it strikes me as being contrary to common sense, for the reason that the rider must get his hand and arm out of his way before he can get into the saddle.
He must give up his best hold on the horse before he can get on him. If he is vicious or hard to mount, it is difficult to see how a rider would ever get on his back. The only proper way to mount is to seize the mane in the left hand and to hold to the pommel with the right hand. A rider can thus maintain his hold until he is fairly in the saddle.
I have read many of the testimonials to the excellency, etc., of the Whitman saddle. All I have seen came from officers retired, from officers in the Staff departments, ordnance or engineers, or from civilians, men who, though “riders all their lives” have never ridden, I’ll venture to say, ten successive days in any one of their lives. I believe such men, especially civilians, are incapable of judging what sort of saddle is best suited for cavalry. They mount a horse, ride him half an hour or so, and then think themselves competent to pass judgment on the saddle. It is quite a different thing to ride twenty miles a day, more or less, for twenty, forty, sixty, or a greater number of days, as our cavalry is doing every week and even every day. With the very best saddle it requires the utmost care and watchfulness on the part of the company commander to prevent sore backs. The Whitman saddle is not calculated to relieve him of any of this care or watchfulness. It will rather increase it.
5. The Opening in the Seat is too Narrow.-In our Service where all sorts of horses are bought for the cavalry this becomes a serious objection. Frequently we get horses with high withers and sharp backs and they are not infrequently the best horses. On such it would be cruel to use the Whitman saddle, for the sides of this opening would rub their backs along nearly its entire length.
6. Affords no Support for Body of Rider either in Front or Rear.-In the cavalry service of the United States, where neither trooper nor horse is ever trained, or if ever very rarely, where men serve whole enlistments without ever having a mounted drill, it is imperatively necessary that the saddle should to some degree make up for this lack of training and skill. This is especially necessary in the cavalry, where a trooper has to manage his horse with his legs and one hand and often with his legs only, as in those companies armed, and so injudiciously, with the infantry rifle. The inclination given to the cantle of the Whitman tree makes it objectionable. It destroys the support which is so necessary. The cantle of the McClellan tree has been objected to as being too straight, too nearly perpendicular to the seat. It is easy to explain the cause of this objection. They who make it do not know what the real fault is. It is this: the stirrups are too far back. The least pressure on them throws the rider back on the cantle, which is very disagreeable and frequently causes blistering, etc. The remedy for this is not, as some think, in making the cantle less perpendicular, but in moving the stirrups farther front so as to allow the rider to sit well down in the seat. The writer owns a McClellan saddle which was thus modified under his immediate supervision, and for comfort, security and ease is unequalled by any saddle he ever saw. This modified position of the stirrups allows the feet to merely rest in the stirrups, giving the rider a natural and easy seat. The pressure on the stirrups being slight, the weight of the rider in the seat practically raises the front of the saddle from the horse’s back, thus preventing sore withers or other injury. The writer has ridden one horse on an average of more than twenty miles a day for sixty days, without injury of any kind to his horse or fatigue or injury to himself. Every one who has been permitted to use this saddle pronounces it the best, most comfortable and safest saddle he ever used. The men of my company have pronounced against the Whitman saddle, and several have expressed a desire to have the company saddles modified so as to be like mine.
The writer recently rode eighteen miles in a Whitman saddle, and found it very tiring ou account of increased care necessary to keep the seat. He was compelled to constantly watch his horse and himself lest any sudden shying, etc., should throw him from the saddle.
7. Bad Seat.-The Whitman tree is so narrow between the stirrups a rider can get no “purchase” on his horse. There is nothing to hold to. An otherwise admirable seat is thus made bad.
8. Girth Braces too Short.-For a cavalry saddle these should pass entirely across the saddle at the pommel and cantle. As now put on the Whitman tree they make it essentially weak. A bucking horse, and there are many in the Service, would break them from the saddle at his first effort.
I am considered by my friends a first rate rider, but objections 6, 7, and 8 deter me from using my Whitman saddle on any of my reckless, devil-may-care rides. I know it is weak and I am afraid of it.
9. Nothing in Front for Securing Great Coat, Blanket, Shelter Tent or anything else. –This defect renders it unfit for a cavalry saddle.
The McClellan tree has stood the test of twenty years, notwithstanding the faults which hasty manufacture consequent upon the demands of the war made it almost impossible to avoid. It has never been equalled and never will be. In the words of my captain, an old dragoon of over twenty-seven years of mounted service, the McClellan tree, like the man who designed it, is everlasting.
Now a few words on the Whitman bit and halter bridle and I am done with this subject. It is not difficult to see that this combination is weak. It is weak because, after a little rough usage, the hook will work loose and the hook and bit will fall asunder. The Whitman bit is not capable of enduring the severe usage of our Service. The cheeks are too nearly straight. The bit is liable to be pulled laterally through the horse’s mouth. I am not expressing an opinion in this matter. I know this from some personal experience with a bit of about the same shape.
The halter bridle is a clumsy affair and should never be adopted. Halters are used up more rapidly than any other part of a horse’s equipments. They are used up in chewing, rubbing, etc., on the part of the horse. If a trooper must use his halter as a bridle also, could he ever make his horse presentable at inspections with a bridle showing signs of horse teeth, or of having been rubbed against the timbers of his stall or elsewhere? If they are issued it will be necessary for each trooper to have two or three, one for dress occasions, inspections, etc., one for field–he will need a good one-and one for stable use in the garrison. This last one will not be fit for field use, as it will always be weak from chewing, etc., by the horse. I have seen no one yet in the cavalry service who liked the Whitman bit or halter bridle.
The present Government bit is a much better one, but it too is objectionable. It is far too heavy. Its shape is the best. I think it the most perfect, as it avoids the danger of being pulled laterally, through the horse’s mouth, and at the same time gives the most perfect control over the horse. To secure this latter, however, the trooper must know how to use it, or rather how to ride. A man who “rides on the bit” very soon renders his horse incapable of obeying the bit. The only feasible method of remedying this fault that presents itself to me is to make the bit lighter, shorter, add snaffle rings, and to change the slot for the cheek strap into a ring large enough to receive the cheek strap and curb. present arrangement of the curb is weak and faulty and seldom stands ten days’ usage in the field. Something like the old dragoon bit would be more to the purpose. There is another objection to the Whitman bit. It is claimed that it can readily be removed from the horse’s mouth in the field to allow him to graze and drink. A careless trooper will lay his bit down and never be able to find it again. I have seen this done time after time in the case of guns. When in the field the practice followed in my company is this: when halted for a few minutes’ rest, etc., the men are directed to “unbit.” The throat strap is unfastened and the bit removed from the horse’s mouth. The bridle is left on his head, the reins resting on the pommel of the saddle. In this way the horse can graze or drink without inconvenience to himself or danger of losing the bit.
I quite agree with “109 Degrees in the Shade” on the question of a summer uniform. The wearing of white trowsers, other light clothing and straw hats or white cork helmets, whether on duty or off, should not be left to the whim or caprice of individual post commanders. There should be a prescribed uniform for summer for both officers and men, and the Government should furnish it for all enlisted. I would suggest that the officers of the Army take this subject up, and give such weight to the expression of their wishes by open discussion as will at least make them known, and perhaps induce the powers that be to give them a hearing.
LIEUTENANT OF CAVALRY IN TEXAS.
From a letter to the editor of the ‘Army and Navy Journal’, September 27, 1879, pg. 144.