4 ms·

Notable that they don't include horsemanship in western martial arts, given it was the deciding factor in military conflict for thousands of years. There is a

Notable that they don't include horsemanship in western martial arts, given it was the deciding factor in military conflict for thousands of years. There is a significant gap in writing on it between Xenophon's horsemanship and cavalry general treatises, and the 14th C. king Dom Duarte's book on horsemanship, which includes a chapter on wrestling. I suspect early books on horsemanship are rare because it was a military secret on par with cryptography (which, oddly, I do both). From what I've been able to tell, the next major (public) work wasn't until the 15th C. with Antoine de Pluvinel's "education of the king." It may be useful for the people who maintain that library to include this facet of physical culture as well. A couple years ago I discovered a great blog on this history which can be found at http://worksofchivalry.com/ http://worksofchivalry.com/ Maybe they need to connect?

eternalban 6y ago
This could very well be a legacy of Rome. Rome apparently wasn't big on cavalry. Second possibility is that it was not so much about military secrets, but rather social class, as horsemanship was a generally required skill for nobility and these skills were taught as part of a "gentleman's" education. This was up until the time that European nobility began the intermarriage process with new moneyed classes, the related economic phenomena of companies such as East India, and the related military matters of colonizing (something new for Europe) far flung lands. Those changes to social order and military requirements likely gave us the impetus for "commoners" on horses; i.e. scaling the officer class ranks beyond aristocracy. Your Dom Duarte's timeline fits well with that speculation.
- owyn 6y ago
  Maybe in the later empire? The Romans might not have had their own cavalry but they used mercenaries heavily [1]. From what I remember of the Roman history podcast, many of Caesar's battles were won entirely by judicious use of cavalry. [1] https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/caesars-elite-germanic-cavalry.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/caesars-elite-germ...
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Rome wasn’t as big on cavalry as later European armies because the stirrup had not yet been invented at the time. The stirrup appeared only in the late first millennium BC/early first millennium AD in Asia, and incidentally was a big part of why the nomadic steppe societies of Asia were able to conquer their way so far into the west during the Age of Migrations.
- icegreentea2 6y ago
  I wouldn't describe late Rome as "not big" on cavalry. Certainly they were not cavalry dominant, but they had their share of cavalry units. See the cataphracts in the Eastern Empire. In the West, there's the famous/infamous "mobile cavalry reserve" that Gallienius setup. I think it's very much worth considering preservation bias. For example looking at wikitaneur as a whole (so mostly one on one, on foot combat), there's basically no material from before the 1400s.
baxuz 6y ago
A number of treatises cover mounted fencing, including the "core" Liechtenauer's verses and Fiore: https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Category:Mounted_Fencing https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Category:Mounted_Fencing A classic one is from Von Danzig: https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Pseudo-Peter_von_Danzig#Mounted_Fencing_Gloss https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Pseudo-Peter_von_Danzig#Mounted_... People have been researching this since the early 2010s: https://youtu.be/AYxZcZE0Yyk https://youtu.be/AYxZcZE0Yyk (HEMAC Dijon 2013)
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Duarte's book of horsemanship is estimated to have been written before 1438. It's also about horsemanship itself, and interestingly, an early philosophical self-help book. What was not true? Edit: ah, so their mounted fencing category includes Duarte's book, and other horsemanship books outside the cannon.
  - baxuz 6y ago
    > Notable that they don't include horsemanship in western martial arts. My bad, you're right – I didn't catch the context of the whole post: > There is a significant gap in writing on it between Xenophon's horsemanship and cavalry general treatises, and the 14th C. king Dom Duarte's book on horsemanship That being said, the earliest European work that can be called a martial treatise is the MS I.33 from 1320, so it kinda matches.
    - motohagiography 6y ago
      Thanks! This might be a new avenue to explore from a horsemanship study perspective. There is a lot missing from the narrative arc that essentially goes from Xenophon to a 'dark age' where practices were brutal, and then de Pluvinel brought both kindness and geometry to the discipline in France after learning, but defecting, from the harsher methods he learned in Italy from Pignatelli. This arc also ignores Duarte and probably a bunch of others. I"m interested as a practitioner, but also from a philosophical perspective, as I suspect equestrianism underpins the foundations of what became ethics. Can't say how much is accurate or true, but that's history for you.
99_00 6y ago
On the wiktenauer.com I seem scattered references to 'vaulting'. Is that a horsemanship skill?

eternalban 6y ago

This could very well be a legacy of Rome. Rome apparently wasn't big on cavalry. Second possibility is that it was not so much about military secrets, but rather social class, as horsemanship was a generally required skill for nobility and these skills were taught as part of a "gentleman's" education. This was up until the time that European nobility began the intermarriage process with new moneyed classes, the related economic phenomena of companies such as East India, and the related military matters of colonizing (something new for Europe) far flung lands. Those changes to social order and military requirements likely gave us the impetus for "commoners" on horses; i.e. scaling the officer class ranks beyond aristocracy. Your Dom Duarte's timeline fits well with that speculation.

owyn 6y ago
Maybe in the later empire? The Romans might not have had their own cavalry but they used mercenaries heavily [1]. From what I remember of the Roman history podcast, many of Caesar's battles were won entirely by judicious use of cavalry. [1] https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/caesars-elite-germanic-cavalry.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/caesars-elite-germ...
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Rome wasn’t as big on cavalry as later European armies because the stirrup had not yet been invented at the time. The stirrup appeared only in the late first millennium BC/early first millennium AD in Asia, and incidentally was a big part of why the nomadic steppe societies of Asia were able to conquer their way so far into the west during the Age of Migrations.
icegreentea2 6y ago
I wouldn't describe late Rome as "not big" on cavalry. Certainly they were not cavalry dominant, but they had their share of cavalry units. See the cataphracts in the Eastern Empire. In the West, there's the famous/infamous "mobile cavalry reserve" that Gallienius setup. I think it's very much worth considering preservation bias. For example looking at wikitaneur as a whole (so mostly one on one, on foot combat), there's basically no material from before the 1400s.

baxuz 6y ago

A number of treatises cover mounted fencing, including the "core" Liechtenauer's verses and Fiore: https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Category:Mounted_Fencing https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Category:Mounted_Fencing A classic one is from Von Danzig: https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Pseudo-Peter_von_Danzig#Mounted_Fencing_Gloss https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Pseudo-Peter_von_Danzig#Mounted_... People have been researching this since the early 2010s: https://youtu.be/AYxZcZE0Yyk https://youtu.be/AYxZcZE0Yyk (HEMAC Dijon 2013)

motohagiography 6y ago
Duarte's book of horsemanship is estimated to have been written before 1438. It's also about horsemanship itself, and interestingly, an early philosophical self-help book. What was not true? Edit: ah, so their mounted fencing category includes Duarte's book, and other horsemanship books outside the cannon.
- baxuz 6y ago
  > Notable that they don't include horsemanship in western martial arts. My bad, you're right – I didn't catch the context of the whole post: > There is a significant gap in writing on it between Xenophon's horsemanship and cavalry general treatises, and the 14th C. king Dom Duarte's book on horsemanship That being said, the earliest European work that can be called a martial treatise is the MS I.33 from 1320, so it kinda matches.
  - motohagiography 6y ago
    Thanks! This might be a new avenue to explore from a horsemanship study perspective. There is a lot missing from the narrative arc that essentially goes from Xenophon to a 'dark age' where practices were brutal, and then de Pluvinel brought both kindness and geometry to the discipline in France after learning, but defecting, from the harsher methods he learned in Italy from Pignatelli. This arc also ignores Duarte and probably a bunch of others. I"m interested as a practitioner, but also from a philosophical perspective, as I suspect equestrianism underpins the foundations of what became ethics. Can't say how much is accurate or true, but that's history for you.

99_00 6y ago

On the wiktenauer.com I seem scattered references to 'vaulting'. Is that a horsemanship skill?