I’ve got a really stupid question about horses in ye olden days

[CmonBobby]

I don’t know anything about horses or riding and I’m just asking this out of curiosity.

I have read and seen lots about weight limits to ride horses of about 14stone. However surely in the olden days when knights rode horses, these were big men wearing armour carrying shields and jousts etc and they would have weighed far more? And in the films etc these horses aren’t drays or shire horses are they.
So my questions are were they just being cruel to horses then OR are there actually massive war horses that can take huge amounts of weight and be agile etc in battle? Do they still exist? Does anyone ride one? Do people still train horses to do this stuff?

Yes, in the olden days these horses were huge. Shire equivalents. Good for trampling people.

The films annoy me when they show these spindly legged creatures supposedly holding 20 stone. As PP said, in real life huge draught horses were used.

Knights rode medieval destriers - the Belgian draught horse is considered a descendant. They’re enormous and very stocky

Also they weren’t particularly big men .. Edward IV was 6’4” but he was head and shoulders above most of his troops

I’ve ridden at a heavier weight. ID x mare that took the piss out of anyone under 12 stone
she was unusual in that she was a man’s type horse but needed a female rider really for her sensitive side!
regular saddle checks, physio etc and happily tanked off with me at 16 stone

horses probably didn’t live that long either

Not a stupid question at all! I think the answer is multi-faceted maybe. For a start people were much, much smaller then so would have weighed less - even knights who were presumably on the taller and more well nourished end of the scale. Also depending on what time period you are thinking of by 'ye olden days' 😂the armour commonly warn on horseback and into battle may have been more chainmail style than the plated 'suit of armour' style. And yes, battle chargers would definitely have been big and strong - probably not shires or other draft breeds who are built to pull rather than carry but probably scaled up versions of Spanish type horses (which is what is largely used in film and tv work these days but you're right that the modern type is not huge) with very strong necks, backs and hind-ends. But also even assuming a small-ish person maybe wearing chainmail and a helmet but carrying a wooden shield and a longsword or lance must still have weighed an awful lot so perhaps the conclusion has to be horse welfare was maybe not the top priority either.

That being said, 14 stone is not the absolute weight limit for anyone riding a horse ever, more so that most riding schools or establishments with horses to hire set that (or even lower) as the most they can accommodate. There are very well balanced tall riders on big strong horses that can ride without compromising their horse's welfare at more than 14 stone (clothed and with tack) - things like modern day joust and display teams I'm sure must ride at more than that with all their kit. You have to take into account the activity and terrain and duration of the riding as well. But most riding schools simply wouldn't want to keep the sort of big horse that can comfortably carry a 6 foot man with a huge wooden pole 😉 😂 (they cost a lot more in everything, food, equipment etc as well as needing experienced handling) when 90% of their clientele are children and small adults women, and most beginner riders are not particularly well balanced either.

They used pretty stocky, muscular horses and honestly, weight limits now have gone nuts.

Horses can carry quite a bit more than most schools allow them to, you just have to use common sense. I wouldn't plonk my tubby backside on a dainty 15hh TB, but the 18.2hh ISH? Yeah, he will quite happily cart all 17 Stone of me over the hills and far away at quite an alarming speed and if the lack of brakes is any indication, he doesn't feel particularly burdened.

Definitely. I’m very cautious, nothing young, weak, fine boned or under 16.2hh but my old mare treated me as a minor irritation

Not a stupid question at all. Exeter University did some research on it and said they measured around 14 hands. Link below.

The Size of a (War)Horse | Warhorse share.google/C7yBy5rUXrv5KaPiO

There were warhorses and there was animal abuse. But also humans were smaller and lighter generally.

I imagine that the working lifespan of these horses was much shorter than what we'd expect nowadays. They had different ideas about welfare back then.

What an interesting thread. Thanks, OP
and contributors.

This was a fascinating question! Reading some of the information on the web, it looks as if the horse's ability to react and stop, turn and feint really quickly was a key feature of its effectiveness, but in war, the riders could also train a horse to bite or kick an enemy on command! That's quite cool, although I expect a few also did it when they felt like it, to show who had effective teeth and hooves as well.

In Those days nobody probably cared , it’s really no different to beach donkeys , back in the day anyone could ride a beach donkey now there are weight and even height restrictions quite rightly so

War moves are where some of the modern day Dressage movements came from I believe. Although the Spanish Riding School in Vienna are probably reasonably unique with the training of the capriole which was a move that (I think) made the horse leap up and kick out.

I assume there would also have been a difference in riding ability between a soldier in full armour and a beginner with no balance. also, in ye olden days,ie pre 20th century horses were working animals, not pets and treated as such. yes it was cruel but so were a lot of things by today's standards. Some of the things that went on when I was a kid learning to ride in the 70s and 80s would horrify a lot of people now but horses and ponies and pets in general weren't worshipped and mollycoddled in the way they are today. I'm NOT saying this is right btw!

Really interesting thread. I used to ride a lot until my early twenties, and then aged 62 I decided to have a couple of riding lessons, just for larks.

I was really struck by how much more seriously they took weight limits, compared with decades ago. Not just absolute limits, but also taking into account the skill level of the rider, which clearly makes a big impact on the manner in which the horse has to carry the weight.

I was also struck by just how much strength you need in your core and lower back to ride with any degree of skill. Presumably riders who lack this strength may be more of a deadweight on the horse.

Didn't notice how important this core strength was when I was young, presumably because I had it in spades! I always found it quite surprising when the Riding for the Disabled Association (for which I was a volunteer) spoke of the improvements in back strength that riding could provide for a lot of their clients. I certainly see that now!

I was also doing Pilates at the time that I had these recent lessons, and the lessons felt just like Pilates on horseback!

Just a note on animal welfare. Yes, there are different expectations these days and many 'working animals' are treated more like pets. BUT, a war horse would have been a very expensive animal and they would have to be in good health to carry out their job. They might not have been mollycoddled, and expectations would have been different - but they would not have been treated as disposable.

@blobby10 I learnt to ride from 1970 and our horses and other pets were definitely mollycoddled ! We were the first people on our yard to move to quilted night rugs from jute rugs / rollers / blankets and to the newer type of lightweight turnout rugs . That said I still have a soft spot for jute rugs and that lovely smell .

Riding schools have conservative weight limits as their horses get a lot more activity than many privately owned horses, plus an inexperienced rider is more difficult to carry than an experienced one.

Knights would have been very experienced riders, on horseback since childhood. Also most men would have been much lighter than today - probably around 11-12 stone, so even with armour they wouldn't have been very heavy

Henry 8th was a big man when he got older and reportedly had to be winched onto his horse, but he probably wasn't riding much at that age and as the King he did as he pleased, noone would have worried too much about his horse.

I thought that the weight limit is about safely renting school horses to strangers.

School horses will be selected to cater for the school's main demographics, which close to the cities will be children and women.

I've checked offerings in my area (elsewhere in EU), and each just have their own limit - children focused places often have it at 70 kg (11 stone), mainstream schools 90kg/14 stone, and big places/farms go up to 120kg/19 stones, presumably having a few large horses.

That's really good to hear! Admittedly my experiences were in a rather run down riding stables where any teen who was keen could work at the weekend in return for a lesson - ponies and horses were well looked after ie fed, watered, shod, groomed and sheltered but definitely not mollycoddled!

Agree with you about the jute rugs and I also hanker after the thick straw bedding instead of wooden pellet stuff that my dad uses these days.

A long time ago I heard a veteran of WW1 saying how when it got very cold the Calvary men had to give up their own blankets for the horses. So the horses' welfare was paramount - no doubt because without a horse in good shape you're literally not going anywhere!

There's a bit in some ww1 memoir I once read to the effect that horse blankets were much higher quality than infantry ones!