Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Montanabw (talk | contribs) at 03:06, 20 October 2007 (→Where do you get off?: Removing comments from two trolls). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 User:Montanabw/Sandbox

If people want to talk to me here, do so:

I sometimes archive and delete old stuff.

Horses in the Middle Ages: GA!

It's passed. Yay!! Many thanks (again) for your help! Good timing: I'm heading off on holiday in a few days and will be off-line for a month. Gwinva 17:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Equestrianism

Now, why would you not want to write a nice, long article about beet pulp? ;)

As far as I know, we do not have any page related to "History of Equestrianism." I think its a good idea, I'm wondering how we are going to break it up. Discuss the different seats/styles of riding and how they emerged? Would we mention any sports? And would we begin with the "evolution" of riding (i.e. from the first person to sit on a horse), or from a specific time period? Eventer 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am totally new to Misplaced Pages--never even looked at it until last night, probably because i think I am something of an expert in most of the fields of study that interest me....lol....but I was and still am quite serious about using this medium to inform the intellectually curioous about the high probability that about the time that they started amking pictures of horses on the cave walls, people probably started experimenting with riding horses. GIven horse's sociable nature, and willingness to pal around with humans when there are no horses around, it would seem to me extraordinary that they would not have that relationship. BUt the 15,000 BP shelter cave in France that I walked into in 1989 is the hardest evience I know of for early domestication of horses. For the artist to do a study of a calm horse at rest, they have to have spent time in close company with horses at rest, horses tolerant of humans. Easy jump to conclusion that they are a domestic herd. I guess you are talking about the bit wear on teeth--which has always seemed so stupid to me. It is like saying that we don't have automobiles because there are no axle marks on our asphalt roads. Duh, rubber tires don't make axle marks. Bits do not make marks on teeth when they are properly resting on the gums of the horse. Both the idiotic Valley of the Horses(un which the male hero rides a twelve month old horse across Europe) and another caveman novel about horseback riding that I read and erased from the hard drive of my mind unfortunately appear to be written by novelists who not only do not know horses but also have never spoken to anyone who does know horses, or read anything about them. But now that I think of it, wo much of what we know as horsemen and horsewomen we learned from mentors when we were between eight and seventeen years old, and it was not written down any where. ANyway, hope you can walk me through this. I want to get this information into Misplaced Pages. I have owned and raised over 400 horses in the past 18 years. I studied horse management at the University of Massachusetts in the 1970's. I learned a lot about horses way before that, when my grandfather bought me a few mares and I raised a baby stallion to maturity and trained and rode him all by myself, as a teenager. I ran the Hawaii Horse Researach Station here in Hawaii for a while. I have a masters degree in Education from the University of Hawaii(MauiPinto September 23, 2007 8:56 pm)

Maui, raplying on your talk page, but long story short, wikipedia doesn't accept original research. So if this is your own theory, you need to get someone else to publish it elsewhere first. If you can verify it from other sources, then you need to cite them. Montanabw 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stirrup

So I was looking at the stirrup article and saw you made lots of changes. Most I agree with, but I have to say I really think a shorter stirrup provides more security, and I have several sources that also indicate this fact. The best explanation I found was that shortening the stirrups closes the hip and knee angles, which therefore lowers the rider's center of gravity closer to the lower leg. This has the same effect as if you squat (which is just what people tend to do when losing their balance, say, ice skating). End result: more security. Secondly, when a rider is jumping off a bank, shorter stirrups provide a great deal more security (ask me how I know!), because the rider may use them to maintain the shouler-hip-heel allignment. If shortening the stirrup was only to help the horse, riders wouldnt be cranking their stirrups up for cross-country. Even on the lower level courses, where fences may only be 3'6" or less, stirrups go up not only because the horse must gallop, but also because if the horse does stumble, the rider can brace against the stirrup to maintain balance. Obviously not ideal, but riding cross country hardly ever gives you an ideal ride. Also, when riders jump with longer stirrups (than ideal) you tend to see their leg slip back, even if they keep their center of gravity correctly over their horse's. Eventer 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'll look into getting some stable vices stuff together. We have 3 cribbers in our barn (they were like that before they came here, I promise), so it shouldnt be that hard to get a picture if I can get my digital camera to work.

So I've thought about it a bit. I think with beginners, shorter stirrups feel more secure because they haven't lengthened their legs yet. I dont know if its tight muscles or there is physical stretching of the ligaments, but it does take time to develop a longer leg. I know I have a longer leg than I did a few years ago. I ride with a stirrup length a hole or two longer--a length I would have had to reach for before, and a length which would have been insecure had I tried to ride with it before I was physically ready. I still dont have the super long leg of say, Anky van Grunsven, but not bad.

I think shorter stirrups provide a sense of security because they allow a rider to 1) get in a chair seat and push forward against them (therefore they enable a rider to have a lower skill level and still stay on) or 2) if the rider is correctly positioned, but still has not ridden long enough to develop that nice, long leg, they provide the correct length for the rider at that time, which gives their tight leg the support it needs.

I also find that galloping in my dressage saddle is not comfortable, nor is it very secure. I have trouble getting my butt out of the saddle, and the pommel usually starts hitting my crotch. I also feel like I have to put more weight on the balls of my feet, rather than my heel, because it helps me get my butt up without resorting to a straight-as-a-board leg. Of course, this results in less security. I also have trouble leaning forward, which I need to do to stay with the movement, but which also forces me to push my leg a bit forward to stay centered. The long stirrups are a hindrance to me, and if I raise them 2 holes (or drop them entirely and physically raise my foot up slightly) I am able to stay perfectly balanced, keep my butt out of the saddle, and lean forward to stay with the motion.

I'm going to think more about this, since obviously in a western saddle it is easy to gallop with a longer stirrup length. But I dont know enough about the differences in saddle design to figure out why. I imagine the cantle of the saddle has something to do with it. The cantle of my dressage saddle is much more upright and high compared to that of my jumping saddle. Eventer 19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

More stuff on stirrups

Hummm... well I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Maybe I have a different definition of "security." In my mind, if I'm jumping a huge oxer, and my stirrup length hinders my performance (because it is too long) this stirrup is not secure. So long stirrups are not appropriate for galloping or jumping: they decrease the chance that I will stay on my horse if something were to go wrong and they do not help me even if things are going right. Therefore, they are less secure in that situation than shorter stirrups.

So maybe its situationally-based?

Anyway, I'm off to Rolex tomorrow :) Hopefully I'll get a chance to take some pictures, to upload on to wikipedia. But first I must find my camera... Eventer 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

gold star for you

Just wanted to give you a high five for your work on all things related to equine articles. I've noticed you policing around the breeds especially. Thanks for keeping it from turning into an elementary school pissing contest ("ZOMG MY ARABIAN IS SOO MUCH BETTER THAN UR STUPID 1/4 HRS!11!!!11!!!!"). I wish I had an opportunity to do more work here myself. =) -jett

Equine medicine articles

As I go through assessing the veterinary medicine articles, I find it difficult at times to correctly rate the importance of articles whose subject I am not too familiar with (or more likely, was familiar with ten years ago but have mostly forgotten). So if you could doublecheck my ratings on the equine articles as I assess them, I would appreciate it. If you're interested, there is a rough guide to importance ratings at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Veterinary medicine/Assessment. This message will be left over at Eventer's and Dlh-stablelights' talk pages also, since I think of you three as the horse guys. --Joelmills 01:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You can look at Category:Veterinary medicine articles by importance and it's subcategories, but it may just be easier to wait until I'm done, which hopefully won't be more than a couple more weeks. I was letting you know now in case I'm rating articles on your watch list, so you can doublecheck the importance rating. Right now I'm using the highly scientific method of (1) if I recognize the disease, it must be at least of mid importance, and (2) the length of the article on the disease in the Merck Veterinary Manual. Thanks! --Joelmills 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Equine Exertional Rhabdomyolysis

Is this the same as Equine polysaccharide storage myopathy, or is one a subset of the other? Neither article makes any mention of the other, so I guess they are duplicating information and should be merged. Before I added merge tags I wanted to check with you and dlh, as I am not too familiar with these conditions. --Joelmills 18:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry Babson

On 12 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Babson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 10:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gelding

Would you be able to drop over to Gelding - I reckon it's pretty much up to GA standard, what do you think?
Dlh-stablelights 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, long time no see! Hope things are going well (other than Gelding, I mean)...

I sorta agree with what the reviewer said, but agree with you that it should have been put on hold rather than quick-failed:

• The WP:LEDE definitely needs to be beefed up to make it a summary of the article. That should take a good fifteen minutes (or less, if you're faster/smarter than I am ;-) ). It's just a matter of copy/pasting the current lede to a Notepad doc, copy/pasting key sentences (you know, intros and/or conclusions) from each existing section of the article onto the same doc, then kinda smoothing it all out and making it "read pretty."
• You definitely need a section about what PETA-type people would say about castration, to comply with WP:NPOV. That might take a while, but if you're dedicated, you can get it done in under a week (hence my belief it should have been put on hold). If you're feeling particularly brave, you might ask them to provide their POV in a responsible manner.
• There are many punctuation probs. I might fix those, unless my better half calls me away from the computer ;-)
• Some of the shtuff reads a little like it might be too-nearly verbatim, e.g. "Geldings were once prized by classical steppe warriors for their silence; without mating urges, they were less prone to call out to other horses, easier to keep in groups, and less likely to fight with one another." Go through every sentence with a fine-toothed comb to look for that particular no-no. That might take a couple hours.
• I dislike the formatting of the references... seems incomplete & inconsistent. I "might could" help with that too, at the same time as I fix the punctuation (since the punct. probs are all with the refs).. if it's OK with you...
• Personally, I might consider changing the "Possible complications" section to read less like a list and more like prose, but it might actually be acceptable just as it is.. re-read Misplaced Pages:Embedded list and see what you think..
• I think the pictures are gross, too. Is that actually a problem? I dunno, but I think I know who to ask. I'll do so, and get back to you.
• Later Ling.Nut 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:TimVickers said the images are OK & left a message on the reviewer's talk regarding this (don't go there & add more comments)... :-) I fixed some punct/spelling errors. You really need to make sure the references are complete and consistent. I always use {{Harvrefcol}} templates. OH I AM NOT SURE about using "who" instead of "that" for horses; seems questionable to me. You gotta grammar guide nearby? Ling.Nut 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't wanna interrupt your love-fest with the editor from Bryn Mawr, but there's lotsa stuff going on re gelding.. can I change the format of all the references (see reference #15 for example)? Ling.Nut 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

do you want this?

• The 'Forfex' of the 'Veterinarius' Virilis (Vindolanda Inv. No. 86/470) and Ancient Methods of Castrating Horses
• J. N. Adams
• Britannia, Vol. 21. (1990), pp. 267-271.
• If so then email me so I can reply & send it to you.
• Ling.Nut 03:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can't send attachments via the wikipedia email page. You'll have to email me (see link above); then I'll respond and attach the file.
• The article is a little dense (but brief) and a little bit difficult to follow, but in later pages it describes some historical castration procedures.
• Actually, the whole thing is fascinating.. not the castration part, but the Roman part. If I had time, I would write the stuff for you.
• Ling.Nut 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

CA

Just got back from my conference... Had a word with a couple of the neurology guys. Yes, CA is recognised in the UK - but the only guy I spoke to who had come across it in "real life" had only seen one case in the last 15 years. His advice is that in Arabs, always X-ray to confirm Wobblers before diagnosing it. He reckons Wobblers, although rare in UK Arab lines, is more common than CA, but that as we import more bloodlines from across the pond, we'll start seeing CA more and more often, and suggested I contact the DNA test people over your side if I had any suspect cases. Dlh-stablelights 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Competitive Trail riding Article

Thanks for your feedback. I didn't write the article, I only submitted it for our organization. Credit needs to be given to the person who did write the article. I had originally given credit, but since it's not there now I wasn't sure if credit wasn't allowed? Is there someplace to reference the person who wrote it? I wouldn't have used some of the language patterns written, but since I was just asked to post the article with few edits as a starting place, I didn't make those changes. I'm glad that you did. If there is anything else I could/should do, let me know.

Also we want to add photos, but I wasn't sure how.Ayovich 03:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Datelinking

The reason for wikifying dates isn't so they can be used as links - it's to allow users' date formatting preferences to work. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links)#Dates and numbers for an explanation. Colonies Chris 18:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly it. So an American reader can choose to see today's date, for example, as August 18, 2007; or a British reader as 18 August 2007; or other cultures might prefer 2007-08-18. You can set your preferences at 'my preferences'.

WikiProject horse training

I will lend a hand in what ever little way I can. But I was going to ask you about the WikiProject relating to the Horse. 1. There is a Dog, Cat, Fishes etc WikiProject but no Horse project?!! 2. I was thinking there should be a WikiProject for the Sports horse as there is for the Thoroughbred (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject American thoroughbred racing) - Culnacréann 15:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Related to this topic, I am back from my short trip, and picked up some used books that will be helpful with trying to sort out the references on the Horse Training WikiProject. Just need to rest some ... still recovering from some sort of crud I picked up. Also picked up a really odd little book on the Caspian Horse, and a copy of Connell's Hackamore Reinsman, along with the usual pile of history related books. Will try to get stuff organized tomorrow. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Equine conveyances?

You mentioned never having heard of horse floats before on my page: I did a quick google and it seems to be used here. I explicate briefly on the topic back home. I appreciate your efforts to make Misplaced Pages a more accurate place! —Felix the Cassowary 02:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with identification

Hi, I'm writing because you have touched bases on the article I started on Ali Pasha Sherif a while back, and I could use some assistance. In essence, everything on this fellow I have researched is about his history as a horse breeder, but the articles I used suggest that he had some significant influence in the Egyptian government of the mid-1800s. Problem is, the horse breeding histories are vague (one said he was the "president of the Chamber of Commerce" for crying out loud!) the titles and claims of his fame conflict, people confuse titles and honorifics with names, and in short, I can't find his father's name on the list of Governors of Damascus, which he supposedly was, I can't find Ali Pasha Sherif on the list of Foreign Ministers of Egypt (which allegedly he was) and basically, while the fellow obviously had money and political power from somewhere, my sources are neither definitive nor helpful. For all I know there is another wikipedia article on this fellow under a different name. Can you skim the article for me and let me know (on the talk page would be fine) if this fellow or his father, El Sayed Mohammed, went under other names and titles? Or edit to correct information? My stake in this is that the fellow was a significant breeder of Arabian horses, worth a study for that reason alone, but I also want the article itself to be an accurate biography of the whole person. Help! Help!! Montanabw 05:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. Well, i found some great reference for you. Bred for Perfection: Shorthorn Cattle, Collies, and Arabian Horses Since 1800 - By Margaret E. Derry, ISBN-0801873444. The fellow is mentioned many times in the book and you can get enough details about his activities indeed. In fact his father had been educated by Mohammed Ali and had served him as governor of Arabia. By 1873, Ali had around 400 horses from the breeding of Abbass Pacha but most died before 1890 because of a virulent disease which led to his imprisonment by his own sons (Ali's sons) because of the stud their father introduced. They immediately dispersed the remnants of the breed. Ali died shortly after his imprisonment. Is that sufficient? -- FayssalF - 06:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Unfortunately, most of that is already in the article, though I have heard of your source before and I will add it. The bit on his imprisonment is new, and rather interesting. What I cannot figure out is what he did for his career, the source information is very sketchy, and I cannot figure out, for example, if his father, El Sayed Mohamed, was the same person as Muhammed Sherif Pasha or not. Ali Pasha Sherif was allegedly a foreign minister of Egypt, but I can't fine his name on any list, nor have any idea of when he served other than the vague reference to the rulers under which he served. The problem is all available material seems only to list his accomplishments (and failures) as a horse breeder. But you have to have a small fortune to raise horses--where did he get it? Montanabw 06:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your last question is relatively simple. On page 106, it says that after the death of Abbas Pasha, and after the spread of animal diseases his son Hami Pasha (who has little interest in horses) auctioned them off w/ low prices. Around 200 horses went to Europe while Ali Pasha bought 40. I personally believe that since the sale was auctioned, the prices were relatively low for a son of a governor of Arabis/Syria... But i am not sure about the correct spelling of his father.

The imprisonment by his sons can be found at page 107. Here is the link by the way. As for his father, in fact he was educated by Muhammad Ali of Egypt and was later appointed as Governor of Arabia (i am not sure if the book includes Syria but i just can't guess) see page 106.

What is worth mentioning (page 122) is that by the 1950's the horse breeding situation in Egypt changed dramatically from the last days of Ali P. Sherif.

Also (see page 141), from 1914, the Agricultural Royal Society started focusing on Ali's breed which carried the blood of those of Abbass Pasha.

I see that there are many post-Ali Pasha era information which is related to his breed. If you can't have access to the book please let me know. -- FayssalF - 07:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

horses in warfare

I nominated it for an A class review by the military history project. You did a pretty good job after the initial problems were solved. Wandalstouring 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, gee, thanks. Appreciate that! Montanabw 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And from the don't shoot me department...

I'm kinda thinking we need to form up a Wikiproject on horses. Not on horse racing or training, but just plain horses. I can hear you screaming in terror now. However, the dog folks have one, and the cat folks have one... And on that lovely note, I'll leave you in peace. We're off Tuesday for a farm shoot in Texas, I'm going to try to get some tack shots taken as well for Commons. Anything you just gotta have from an Arabian breeding farm? Ealdgyth | Talk 04:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No farm shoot this week, they are being besieged with rain again. So you're stuck with me. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Montana the almighty?

Where do you get off being the all-knowing gatekeeper to all things halter for AQHA? You need to check your fact Montana, impressive AND HYPP figure mightyly in the halter class for both Paints and Quarter for the last 25 years. Why do you insist on repressing this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.157.158 (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Chill out! The article is about "halter,": meaning ALL BREEDS, not "controversies for one breed." A general article is NOT the place to put stuff about one breed, other than a general overview. If you bothered to read the edit summary, you would note that I MOVED most of your material to the Quarter Horse article, where it belongs, and where I happen to be one of the original editors who created the "Genetic diseases" section of the article. Your accusation is way out of line. Now calm down and go read Quarter horse where you will see that things should be hard-hitting enough for you but still sufficiently NPOV for the wikigods. Montanabw 02:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: A-Class question

See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Horses in warfare; basically, there were concerns about a lack of citations in certain portions of the article. Kirill 08:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheer up!

It hasn't rained in Texas at the ranch for two whole days! We might make this farm shoot yet! Wanna trade all the horse issues for my Anglo-Saxon saints and bishops I've been slogging through? (grins) Keep your chin up... Ealdgyth | Talk 05:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, going to try to take boot pictures for you tomorrow, as there are no boot pictures to be had in Commons. Check out this too.. new spiffy pedigree format! I stole it from the William I of England article... Driftwood Ealdgyth | Talk 05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Boots up and in the article. Other misc stuff got photoed, it's over in my gallery on Commons. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Driving

I had a carriage driving category, but I decided to move everything from there and put it into Category:Horse driving, as I think that name will be more appropriate for topics such as Sulky, Roadster, etc. Eventer 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Motorcyle saddle

I moved the new material you added into the saddle article into a new article which I titled Motorcycle saddle. There is also already an article titled bicycle saddle, so the move seemed appropriate. I also added a link to the new article at motorcycle. Interesting information, just really needed a home of its own. Montanabw 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I hope you retitle "Saddle" to "Horse Saddle." Motorrad-67 21:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Response on your talk page. Montanabw 02:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Hi! Been a while since I dropped in to see you...Hope things are going well. I've successfully moved, although I'm still waiting for all my stuff to arrive by ship, so I feel I'm camping a bit (and missing my books). Anyway...I noticed you added "though in actual combat, a well-trained war horse was largely controlled by the rider's legs" to the Barding section on warfare. I'd got the impression from my reading that the armed rider couldn't control the horse with their legs, due to their own armour, the high war saddle and the stirrup position (see some photos of saddles and position at http://ilaria.veltri.tripod.com/tack.html), and this is why they used such vicious spurs and bits. Would this make sense, or do you reckon they'd get enough control anyway? Just wondering... Gwinva 04:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi G, welcome back!

Well, if knights could walk or fight in armor, they could use riding aids, perhaps not terribly subtle ones, but definitely they could give leg commands. You can't ride if you can't move--you'd fall off the horse as soon as it moved faster than a walk! Obviously they had control with legs, because legs give the "go fast" commands. Horses are sensitive to weight and pressure, thus a heavily armored rider would actually have a tremendously obvious use of weight-- If you turn your head on a well-trained horse, that is enough shift of your weight to cue them to begin a turn. After riding for 40 years, I am still being reminded that if I look down while riding I will throw my horse onto the forehand, so if 10 pounds of human skull moving six inches affects a horse, 250 pounds of armored rider most certainly does! As for the phrasing in the article, you can sure tweak it if you want, as "legs" in the broader sense does include "legs with really obnoxious spurs." I kind of wonder (just me speculating) if the obnoxious spurs weren't in part a result of needing something to get through the barding??

Now, the images you use as examples aren't all that extreme, many western riders today have a similar "backward" seat, the leg aids may not be terribly subtle and far from the riding aids of classical dressage, but one-handed neck reining can only accomplish so much too (and many medieval bits were even more horrendous than the spurs). Bottom line is that a horse had to be pertty quick to respond to very little rein cue, and be trained to work off of legs and seat (the classical masters insisted upon it) whatever weapon they used, there would inevitably be times when they'd have to drop the reins and use both hands for something, so a horse would have to be trained to respond to legs and weight shifts.

Now, there are also modern examples we can look at. For example, riders in the Arabian horse competition called "Mounted Native Costume" (more like "Hollywood costume," but I digress) have to control a horse through several layers of heavy fabric, usually lined with felt or vinyl. If it isn't the modern equivalent of basic barding, I don't know what is! (Here is an example: http://www.arabiancostumecreations.com/ ) I know from having ridden in this type of competition myself, you can control a well-trained horse just fine with simply a little stronger leg aid (basically squeezing with the calves), you don't even need to add spurs. And they usually ride some of the most high-spirited horses in these classes because they are all about flash and drama, a horse with high action places higher-- but they still have to behave. Now, if I rode a horse into combat with leather barding or something, I'd definitely add spurs to be on the safe side, but they definitely can feel your leg close against their sides through even heavy fabric. You couldn't put metal armor UNDER the rider's legs, as just sitting on the horse would make plate armor irritate the horse so bad they'd probably buck rather than be of any use in the battlefield.

Ok, so now I wrote another book. Welcome back to the fray! And yeah, things coming by ship take at least half of forever. Montanabw 20:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that all makes sense. It gives me a better understanding. I think there's a lot of nonsense talked about knights in battle; common sense tells you that if you're riding a horse into battle (where your life is at risk) you'll want as much mobilty as you can and as much control of the horse. The really solid saddles, where the armour and reinforcing extended down to protect the legs, were used for jousting rather than war, I think. Fully encasing plate armour (for knight) which covered all the leg was used for foot combat in tourneys, ratherthan mounted. Back/inner leg of war knight probably free of much plate. Yes..I've heard the long spurs were to get through the barding, also, but perhaps some of it is a fashion statement, too (?). I've often wondered how practical barding was in battle... Reins were held in shield hand: shield strapped to arm, reins gripped in hand, so arm position dictated by defence, rather than control of horse. I think horses were probably trained in the charge and did a lot of it themselves (stories of horses who've lost their rider joing in the charges anyway), although the rider would dictate things more in the melee. Alright for the wealthy knight with a well-trained horse, but I wonder how many poor men-at-arms cursed their cheap horses...!

On a separate note, I've been reading a bit lately about the Napoleonic wars (culminating, of course, in Waterloo). Cavalry, light or heavy, was tremendous against infantry arraigned in line or column, no matter what guns they had. Only way to survive against cavalry was to form square, using bayonets in the way the medieval soldier used pikes. Reading it again, it confirmed in my own mind my ideas about the transition away from mounted knight. It was certainly not caused by the invention of gunpowder (even nineteenth century guns weren't effective against charging horsemen). Range of a musket was too small, and reloading too slow. Horsemen on to them too quickly. I'm convinced heavy cavalry were responsible for their own destruction: ie. too good, too hard to defend against, pitched battles didn't occur much. Skirmishing, ambushes etc much more common. Way of fighting changed...Pitched field battles only came back in 18th/19th C, with trained infantry, but cavalry remained essential. Speculation, anyway... Gwinva 03:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad you followed my illiterate garble above: I was in a hurry and just threw my thoughts down. Yes, I wonder if we’ve discovered something that’ll turn traditional interpretations of history on their head (!!!)…what a shame Misplaced Pages does not allow original research. (It's just that some of the stuff I see trotted out again and again in histories doesn't make sense to my layman's mind. Perhaps I'm missing something). Fascinating thoughts about the Bedouins and American Indians…not history I’m particularly familiar with, but interesting to see smilar things enacted in different contexts.

Conventional thought holds that the downfall of the mounted, armoured knight came about due to the use of longbows and the invention of gunpowder. For the first, certainly, the example of the Battle of Crecy is regularly brought out (and the English have always used it as proganda to scare the rest of their enemies). But while the longbow was significant, the French loss is more complicated than that...after all, battles don’t come down to ‘my weapon is better than yours’… the terrain, training, morale, tactics, supply train, sleep-patterns, idiot officers etc etc etc will all impact on a victory. Panic is the main cause of death in a battle: witness the collapse of the Scots cavalry at the Battle of Falkirk. I mentioned Crecy, as that article itself claims the arrow pierced the armour of the knights, but that no longer stacks up...research at the Royal Armouries shows that arrows couldn’t penetrate mail easily, and certainly not plate. Short of shooting into the un-armoured face, or other parts of bare flesh, the archer had to be extremely skilled to get it through armour chinks. Poorer men-at-arms without full armour were also at risk. Basically, armour was exceedingly good protection, even the early mail, (witness modern butchers who still use mail gauntlets) and the arrow head, bodkin or otherwise, was never made of hardened steel (how could any army afford thousands of them?) Soft iron will bend in impacts against hardened steel. (see Talk:Bodkin point). Unarmoured infantry, moving slowly, are a target for arrows, and a mounted soldier is exposing his horse as an easy target. But place the men on flat ground (at Crecy the French were clambering through a bog and up a hill…who do you think is going to win, arrows or no arrows?), with heavy horses able to travel at speed, then I wouldn’t want to be an archer, unless they were present in overwhelming numbers, and able to fire off enough arrows in the charging time…be worth sitting down & doing the maths: (ie. fire rate per archer, number of archers needed to impact on line of cavalry travelling at x speed through the ‘target zone’). But of course, horses can outflank, break a line. (And such warfare would encourage full armour, not sound its death knell, I would have thought). Anyway, armoured knights surrendered at Crecy and were murdered afterwards (not died under the arrows). It's just that most of the army weren't armed knights, but poorly-armoured soldiers.

That said, it’s amazing the longbow was ever ditched in favour of muskets. Arrows could be shot at tremendous speed, had a long range and, in the hands of an expert, were extremely accurate. A musket had a short range (even in the early nineteenth century it was not effective beyond 100 yds), appalling accuracy, and was slow to load. Admittedly, a man could be trained to fire a musket in an hour, allowing the use of untrained men (compared with a longbow, where a man needed to be trained from his youth), but realistically, how much good is an untrained man with a musket? Line them all up, facing another force of infantry or cavalry, and they’re not going to stand. One shot, then they’ll be dead, or have run away (unless, of course, their opposition is as untrained). A constant problem for the Spanish and Portuguese during the Peninsula War). It took much training for musketmen in the British army to fight well with muskets: learning speed (needs continual practice with live ammunition, something no other army did) and, as importantly, positioning: forming line, turning, wheeling, forming square etc etc without breaking formation. As soon as formation is broken, any advantage is lost. Skirmishers were highly trained, and were most effective once the rifled barrel was invented. So where am I getting at? Basically, what is there in the above to terrifying a mounted knight? He has speed, protection and superior height. For most of his charge, he’s beyond the reach of fire power. It was combined forces warfare which really advanced the pitched battle: send your cavalry in, the opposition forms an impenetrable square. So use your cannon or infantry to break the square, enemy forms line, and you’re able to use your cavalry again quickly. Again, look at Battle of Falkirk, where the English won by panicking the Scots cavalry, forcing the infantry to form schiltrons (by threatening with a cavalry charge), which were eventually destroyed by arrows (equivalent of a Napoleonic carronade).

OK, another belief is that armour stopped being used with the advent of gunpowder; but if you are charging at a line, and one shot might get you, would you give your armour up? No…because after that one shot you’re going to be hitting the line of men in traditional close combat, when you do want your armour, especially if (as you say) the armour doesn’t impede your control of the horse. I guess speed might have something to do with it, but over the short distances, would weight of armoured knight effect the speed of the charge enough to counteract the effect of a solid armoured line?

No, armour just got too expensive. Especially since the fashions of war had changed years earlier, knights regularly dismounting to fight in the 14th century, not because the mounted knight was ineffective, but because it was so effective (especially when combined as above) no enemy would stand on a field. Better to nullify the shock troops by seeking ground impassible for heavy chivalry. Witness the French knights having to fight on foot at Crecy. Skirmishing, chevauchees and other light cavalry was more important.

The infantryman’s only defence (other than better choice of ground) was a schiltron or the excellent bayonet squares of the Napoleonic wars where the cavalry forced to swerve away from impenetrable points, and run obliquely down the side of the square, where they remain in range for too long to be safe. But when a square is broken, cavalry have immediate advantage. (and these formations are basically defensive unless you have extremely well-trained troops and a genius commanding, as at the Battle of Bannockburn.

As for guns changing the way cavalry themselves fought, I’m not sure…the sabre or sword was the cavalryman’s main weapon, his pistol having a short range, accuracy no doubt impeded by the movement of the horse (and then how do you reload?).

Cannon against horses: again, compare with the Napoleonic wars…cannon great on infantry square or column (men massed together make an easy target) but against line of infantry or line of cavalry…you’re only going to pick off two or three with each shot (if you’re lucky). Then time to reload… Not much chance against men advancing in numbers. The rapid fire Gatling gun was needed to make much impact.

OK, so when did the armoured knight become obsolete? Not as early as historians claim. I would have liked to see a troop of them at Waterloo… Certainly at that stage the heavy cavalry (a wonderful resource for both sides) still wore some armour (like a lightly armed man-at-arms, probably). Would they have worn full plate if they’d had it? I wonder!!

Ah, but now I've rambled on far too long and your page has turned into an essay. Sorry! I'll stop now. Gwinva 02:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling down to add this message, I realised just how much I rambled on last time...seemed to cover a lot, but I'm not sure where it all went. Yes, I think you're right in your analysis of economic and social changes affecting the status of the knight. Feudal society was breaking down by the thirteenth century, soldiers (and knights) expected to be paid for war service (rather than the old feudal due), armies became increasingly professional. The inventions of the nineteenth century, as you say, rendered traditional cavalry obsolete (although they were used a little in WWI). No, I've no qualifications relevant to the discussion, so my thoughts/conclusions might be totally ill-founded! Anyway, I've enabled email, if you're interested in pursuing the discussion. Gwinva 04:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is thoroughbred a proper noun?

Why is thoroughbred, or should I say "Thoroughbred", a proper noun? Just curious. WinterSpw 23:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a proper noun referring to a breed of horse, just like Morgan, Appaloosa, etc... My citation on this is the article on Thoroughbreds at the International museum of the horse: http://www.imh.org/museum/breeds.php?pageid=8&breed=94&alpha=Five Note the name is ALWAYS capitalized. It is incorrect to refer to a purebred animal as a "thoroughbred" , the term is only to be used to describe the Thoroughbred horse. Very common error, though, especially among non-horse people. Montanabw 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh but just be cautious when the term is used as a non-proper noun. When I looked up "thoroughbred" in dictionary.com, I saw that the term can be used in its lowercase form. Well thanks for the info. WinterSpw 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, any use related to horses must be capitalized...a "throughbred Morgan" is a horse that is half Morgan, half Thoroughbred, NOT a purebred Morgan. Misuse of "thoroughbred" is one of those many examples of sloppy language becoming so commonplace that no one remembers what is correct. But, I will also note that the Thoroughbred breed was one of the first written Breed registries in the world, so it is understandable that the term "Thoroughbred" instead of "purebred" has sort of gotten to be like "Kleenex" for "facial tissue" This dictionary link explains it: http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=RA3-PA905&lpg=RA3-PA905&dq=purebred+of+thoroughbred&source=web&ots=nXyQjlv408&sig=ReocOrbnIwJ8ZyJV-z9rivrLD5U

Nice work with maintaining the article, keep it up! =P WinterSpw 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK - Easy keeper

On 3 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Easy keeper, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

MDC Stirrups

Dear Montanabw,

I have added information in the stirrup section and, yes, I am the inventor of the MDC Stirrups(R).

The article clearly shows traditional stirrups and plastic stirrups in the background. The article refers to other types of stirrups and mentions their considered benefits.

I added enhanced comments regarding the lack of ergonomic tendancies of traditional stirrups and named a patented invention that overcomes some of stirrup's basic design flaws and inherent dangers. To mention a patented product is no more commercial advertising than mentioning a Peacock Stirrup, a break away stirrup, or a tapadero as the name for the enhanced stirrup is instrumental in the understanding of the feature. The MDC Stirrup can be accessed with the Patents and Trademarks Office and I hope you would consider their being called by name as no more than a reference to the invention.

If you feel that my comments are untrue, please advise as my purpose was to inform and educate as well as name the product (my invention) that remains noteworthy in the stirrup world.

Thanks for your time and attention.

MDC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdcohen (talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary reason stirrups catch a rider's foot.

Primary reason stirrups catch a rider's foot. As a professional trainer, rider, FEI and USEF Judge, Course Designer and Steward, please understand that my comments regarding the primary reason that stirrups catch a rider's foot comes from years of active involvement in the sport from a broad background. I have witnessed these events on many occassions and my comments come from real life experience over more than 35 years. I am also an expert witness in equine related litigation and refer to this phenomena under oath in courts of law.

The primary reason a rider gets hung up in an accident is due to the stirrup's tendency to return to a position flat against the horse's sides. When this happens the opening of the stirrup quickly gets smaller as the stirrup turns back and this narrowing of the opening has the strong potential to catch the falling rider's foot whereby the rider's own body weight aids in lodging them in this 'closing door' effect. Incidents of stirrup that are too small and too large are secondary to the turning back consideration. The improper sizing of stirrups that result in causing accidents is not a design flaw. It is a mistake in making the initial purchase of the product or the ignorance of the user in riding with an improperly fit stirrup. The flaw is in the human usage and not the design of the basic stirrup.

My invention which has a name and can fairly be called by its name (MDC Intelligent Stirrups(R) greatly reduces this non ergonomic tendency.

I would like to point out that by your editing of the name of the invention to the term "Intelligent Stirrup", it could be construed that you are using a name that is convered under patent law in that MDC Intelligent Stirrup(R) is a copyrighted name and any like or similar usage of that term would lead another to consider if it were legally referring to the protected name MDC Intelligent Stirrup(R). It is for that reason that I believe referring to the patented protected name of this emanation of a new form of stirrup is justified and in proper usage.

I look forward to you comments.

Mdcohen 07:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Stirrup"

You cannot promote one commercial brand, wikipedia is not an advertising service. You also provide absolutely NO scientific verification for this data. I am more than glad to remove any copyrighted name. Your statement are also totally unapplicable to western stirrups. Without outside studies (not paid for by your company) your statements cannot be verified. Furthermore, your own expertise is not terribly relevant, see Misplaced Pages:No original research if you are correct, then your expertise can be verified by neutral, outside sources. Montanabw 23:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Australian Stock Saddles

Below I have included a rough outline on these saddles. I'm struggling to find my way around the editing and posting here, please forgive me. Please improve the article! I can also provide a photo of a ladies saddle if you would like one. The last reference article has been quite well done. You have done a great job with your other contributions. Thanks in anticipation, Carole Cgoodwin 04:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Initially the stock saddle was a park style saddle with low set knee rolls and short flaps. This style of saddle did not suit the rugged Australian terrain and did little protect the rider’s legs from sweat.

Jack Wieneke later developed a saddle with large high set knee and thigh pads and included longer flaps. The cantle and pommel were also raised giving a deeper seat. These saddles were popular for a number of years, but the design became too extreme and lost favour to more conservative styles.

Noted saddle makers were George Schneider, Bob Thurlow, Syd Hill, “The Tenterfield Saddler”, George Woolnough and nowadays Warren Newcombe, John Davis and Bernie Brady, whose handmade saddle won at a Sydney RAS Show for hand crafted leather objects.

During the early days of buckjumping in Australian rodeos, riders rode in a modified stock saddle using a crupper instead of a flank girth. Ladies Stock Saddles were traditionally made with a pigskin seat and the older longer style knee thigh pads.

The traditional Australian stock saddle was designed for security and comfort in the saddle no matter how harsh the conditions. While having stylistic roots from the English saddle in the design of the seat, panels, fenders, and stirrups, it has a much deeper seat, higher cantle, and flared pommels (sometimes called Poleys) in the front to create a very secure saddle or riders who ride in rough conditions or spend long hours on a horse.

Modern styles range from traditional models through to a newer "half breed" that incorporates the independent swinging fender of the western saddle with the traditional Australian tree and seat style. There are also "cross breed" saddles that combine other western saddle elements, such as a saddle horn or a western cantle design, with traditional Australian elements, such as the pommel swells and deep seat. These saddles are becoming very popular with equine competitors.

Ref: Outback magazine Aug/Sep 2007 – pp 28-44

http://www.jamessaddlery.com.au/history.htm

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Khemo's up

Khemosabi is up, finally. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You rock, man!  :) Montanabw 03:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And for your pleasure - Indraff as well as some bit source citations. Gotta do something while I wait to see how my gelding does at Nationals... working cowhorse semi-finals are Saturday afternoon, and I may just go bonkers waiting to see if he makes the cut. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)