Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

StekenDeluxe t1_jbdohue wrote

Hmmmmm.

The earliest written evidence seems to suggest that horse-riding was, for the longest time, considered a bit of a reckless, foolhardy "circus act" - something wild and dangerous, fit for clowns, fools and daredevils.

We have letters from one Mesopotamian lord to another, scolding him for riding on horseback - basically saying "cut it out dude, don't be a fucking clown - and next time, drive a chariot like a proper gentleman."

In the Iliad, too, horse-riding is described as a dangerous activity one does in front of a paying crowd - all the Homeric heroes go into battle either on chariots or on foot (and often first on chariot and then on foot).

In the Vedas, too, the only instance of horse-riding I know of seems to have a comic, ribald (and perhaps even mocking?) tone - the Maruts are described as "spreading their legs like women" in order to mount their horses. In all other descriptions of their heavenly rides to and fro, they drive in chariots, as do practically all other Vedic gods.

All of which makes me wonder if perhaps this skeleton might have been that of an acrobat or a clown of some sort, rather than a shepherd, a warrior or a lord?

108

Colonial_trifecta t1_jbeao8m wrote

Before the introduction of stirrups you would have a lot less stability. It would make it alot more dangerous and harder to ride. It also limits the activities you can do with the horse. I wonder if this contributed to that earlier attitude towards riding?

38

Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jbezziq wrote

> Before the introduction of stirrups you would have a lot less stability.

Stirrups are considered important for allowing you to fight more effectively while on horseback. Simply riding without stirrups is not a problem at all.

5

kerill333 t1_jbf1gih wrote

Stirrups make riding a lot easier, and safer.

5

War_Hymn t1_jbfntph wrote

If you have a decent saddle. But most early horsemen (including the Macedonian companion cavalrymen that rode with Alexander the Great) had nothing more than a thick blanket or hide to cushion the back of the horse. This sort of riding took a lot more skill.

4

mordom t1_jbe7zyv wrote

I wonder if this had something to do with the anatomy of the horses back then. Apparently horses in antiquity were much smaller than their current size, which would definitely make it harder and slightly more ridiculous riding one (the image of a fat man on a donkey comes to mind). Also, I am guessing the back of a horse and its neck had to undergo some structural changes to be able to support giving long term rides without suffering any lasting damages. You can already see how quickly their neck stance changes when they go feral.

13

Runonlaulaja t1_jbeny30 wrote

People were also a lot smaller back then...

7

j4nkyst4nky t1_jbezdz8 wrote

Not by much. The average was lower, but people were still getting to more or less modern heights. A six foot tall man would have been considered tall, but not like a freak of nature or anything.

4

AmadeusV1 t1_jbffork wrote

Read in a book the other day that around the 10th century, the average western European warhorse was approximately 14 hands, about the size of a large pony today. A quick Google search reads that they may have been as short as 13 hands on average around Roman times.

3

kerill333 t1_jbffce2 wrote

The back and neck haven't changed. Being ridden damages horses, as their back is in effect a suspension bridge, but there are ways to prevent or delay this. Wild horses' 'neck stance' is not necessarily that different to ridden horses'.

2

[deleted] t1_jbducmn wrote

[deleted]

4

SpaceShipRat t1_jbe02q8 wrote

Wild guesswork isn't the best way to figure out things, especially when contradicting someone giving actual sources and facts.

Training animals to pull things came before horse riding, as humans already had experience attaching oxen and donkeys to ploughs and carts. Then they had the idea of standing on a tiny cart pulled by a horse, and only a long time afterwards did folks get the idea to sit on the actual horse. It might seem obvious to us, but it was absurd in ancient times, so much that legends of centaurs sprang up in greece when they heard of barbarians "riding" around.

9

StekenDeluxe t1_jbe98y3 wrote

Precisely. Very well-put.

If folks were riding horses all through the Bronze Age, one suspects that this would have left at least some trace in the written record.

But no.

Not a single text from that era describes horse-riding as something “normal,” at home or abroad, among the rich or among the poor. It’s always wild, crazy, dangerous, comical, irresponsible or absurd.

I’ll add one more example.

In the fifth book of the Odyssey, at one point Odysseus survives a shipwreck by straddling a plank of wood. As he is helplessly thrown hither and thither by the waves, he is compared to a man on horseback. Now think about that. The image only makes sense if, to Homer and his contemporaries, a rider on horseback was in no way, shape or form in control of the situation. The animal, much like the raging ocean, was seen as a wild, headstrong, violent thing, heeding no command and obeying no orders. Think rodeo, not cavalry. That stuff came later.

9

SpaceShipRat t1_jbfssqc wrote

what comes to mind is the minoan bull rodeos, where they'd do just that, hop over a bull, do handstands, it's not a strange idea that someone would try the same kind of rodeo with horses.

3

CandidFriend t1_jbdxdm6 wrote

>My suspicion is that the earliest horsefolk were riders

Don't archeological records seem to indicate that the early domesticated horses to be too small to bear the weight of a man same way latter breeds do, which is why chariots were invented to begin with?

5

TheTempusrex t1_jbeob8o wrote

The osteological analysis of "horse rider syndrome" is based on fairly well researched biomechanical stress factors. The bony changes dont occur randomly and the muscle groups involved in the movement are isolated, so no it is not likely that this person was an acrobat.

2