english saddles

[Hank Trent]

Re: english saddles

Here is a painting of Prince Wilhelm of Prussia (future Kaiser Wilhelm I) done by Franz Krueger in 1836.

That's just a dandy example of a common riding style one sees in the period--the long straight leg extended forward, both reins held in the left hand. Is there any style of riding taught today, where that's considered acceptable?

By the way, it just occurred to me, Eadweard Muybridge may be the closest chance we have to a motion picture of a rider in the 1860s. Check this out:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Horses_animations

All the ones labelled "Muybridge" were "filmed" (so to speak) in the 1870s.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Ken Knopp]

Re: english saddles

Gents,

The attached are some “period” drawings and photos of English saddles. The saddles are from 1870's and 1880's catalogs which I hope will help illustrate the differences I will try to explain. Please forgive me here, I hesitate so as to "not" present myself as condescending, overbearing or a “know it all”. I only wish to share some patterns and information that I have observed over the years and maybe also help someone find the right saddle for their reenacting experience. First, allow me (forgive) to re-cap some earlier notes and add a few more:

Answering Larry’s question about the relative appearances of period vs that of modern English saddles I concur with excellent points made by Hank Trent, Chris Shumacker, Curt Schmidt and Scott McMahon that most can be found in the materials used and general construction of the English saddle. From what I can tell, the major differences originated in the development of the “forward seat” in the late 19th century to early 20th for jumping which initiated a subtle evolution in the construction of English saddles. Over time this developed into a narrowing of the gullet and a curved, more forward skirt (flap). The appearance of the above are often easily observed in today’s English saddle by the construction of a more narrow but higher, structured gullet and a forward slant and curve to the skirt (flap). For example, the photo of the modern English saddle earlier in the thread displays this very well and includes highly padded and modern (rear) bars.
PLEASE BE AWARE that “period” saddles such as Somerset and Kilgore patterns are often mis-identified as English saddles. The differences can be very subtle to the untrained eye but in general English saddles TENDED TO BE MORE FLAT while the popular Somerset generally had a more pronounced pommel and the Kilgore even more so. For example, ....

SOMERSET: As a separate pattern the Somerset saddle originated before our Civil War (early 19th century or earlier) but it is not clear where or when. Their distinction is that they utilized an English tree but with pommel and cantle modifications allowing for a slightly deeper seat and a wider variety of enhanced leather treatments than typical English saddles. In appearance, the Somerset is a transition pattern between the harmonious, flat English saddle and, the higher pommel and cantle of the Kilgore saddle, (see below). Often appearing similar to the Kilgore it is differentiated by a more modest pommel and a low, graceful, (almost flat), seat and cantle closer to English saddles. Variations and enhancements depicted in catalogs were many including with or without stitched down seats, under padding, fancy tooling, assorted skirt treatments and sizes, open wood or metal stirrups but rarely with fenders. Saddle makers of the period blended so many styles the Somerset can easily be confused with both the English and the Kilgore and, occasionally even the post war Spring Seat saddles however, the basic configuration of an English tree combined with a varying pommel and cantle is what makes a Somerset.

KILGORE: While one of the most popular 19th century commercial saddle patterns it is not clear where or when the Kilgore originated but it was likely just prior to the Civil War. With the explosion of the catalog saddle business after the war the Kilgore became one of the best selling saddles with fanciful variations found in nearly every riding saddle catalog well into the 20th century.
The Kilgore tree configuration varied by maker but is noted for a higher, (often knobby), pommel and deeper seat than the two-piece, English style Somerset. In fact, its four-piece construction including pommel and cantle are often very similar to the McClellan tree. Even more than the Somerset, the Kilgore seemed to enjoy many style variations and fancy embellishments by its makers. Like many riding saddles of the day most included thick under padding of the bars and skirts for use without a saddle blanket.

Variations in all three of these patterns included seat sizes, leather treatment and colors (from cowhide to pig skin to kip to harness, enameled, buff, etc. etc.) knee pads, cantle rolls, under padding, moveable panels, varieties of flap patterns, stirrups and accoutrements and more- even rawhide covered trees! However, allow me to make the following very important qualification about saddle manufacturing in general:

Saddlery, harness making and leather tanning had not changed much in the 100 years prior to the Civil War (and to about the 1870's) and therefore, much as it was during the Antebellum period. However, about the 1870s’ great changes began to take place. In the 1870's oak bark as a tanning agent began to be replaced by both Hemlock and gradually, South American Quebracho bark which became extensively used by the turn of the century. Then in 1904 a blight destroyed the Chestnut Oak trees in the United States ending forever the use of that kind of bark as a tanning agent. In the 1880's leather bartering was changed so as to be sold by the square foot instead of by weight altering many of the processes in leather tanning and production that were designed to induce weight. Furthermore, in the decades that followed the war new machines were invented for sewing heavy leather, splitting and cutting leather, new metal alloys for buckles and stirrups (for example, nickel plating became popular) and, new rivets and machines for mass producing them evolved quickly so that by the early 20th century leather tanning, manufacturing and their products were noticeably different in appearance than that of Antebellum America.

So, ......in short the “look” of an Antebellum period English was actually very different from its early 20th century decedent. If you cannot afford the “excellent” Stuart Lilie re-pops and (do not want to use an original Somerset or Klgore) but prefer to find an English saddle that approximates an Antebellum pattern, start by looking at old photos and drawings to learn their subtle differences. Then try to find an old English saddle with straight down type skirts (flaps) and, as flat as possible. They are still out there. One can always modify it by adding padding, replacing the hardware, stirrup leathers, stirrups, etc. Please refrain from using nickel or chrome plated "anything".

PS: Correct me if I am wrong here but I think the "cut-back" gullets as noted are a post war modification "ala" the Whitman saddle.


1. Painting from 1771
2. Drawing of an English tree from the 1883 Peters & Calhoun saddle catalog
3. Photo of an old English tree
4. English or Somerset saddle from the 1875 catalog of Harbison & Gathwright
5. English saddle from Risser & Reitz 1882
6. Somerset saddle from Graf Morsbach Co. 1889
7. Kilgore Saddle

Ken R Knopp

https://www.confederatesaddles.com

[MustangGray]

Re: english saddles

That's a really neat painting depicting Prince Wilhelm... on several different points! To me though, it appears that the Prince is "posting" or standing in the stirrups giving the long, straight legged look and were he sitting, the look/leg position would be different. Still a very neat painting... I like the Prince's rig and I really like his clothing!!!

[Hank Trent]

Re: english saddles

To me though, it appears that the Prince is "posting" or standing in the stirrups giving the long, straight legged look and were he sitting, the look/leg position would be different

Yes, he's turned around looking at the dog, half standing, maybe posting too, so his position isn't necessarily natural.

Let me see if I can find some more examples.

Mr. Pinkerton.

Capt. Howard.

Plantation owner illustrated in Harper's Weekly (scroll down).

A set of Muybridge still photos, kinda dark unfortunately:

Okay, here's another Muybridge set of stills, though I can't be sure the rider isn't bareback.

A hunting painting. Check out the rider in the lower left background on the black horse too.

Cartoonish drawing.

Currier & Ives lithograph of a trotter under saddle.

That's just a quick random sample of variations on the theme, at different speeds, both photos and drawings. It certainly wasn't universal, but it's something you see often enough that it seems to be an actual type of posture.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Ken Knopp]

Re: english saddles

Hank, Thanks for posting those photos!! Hey, not to side track this thread but,....While he apppears to be riding a Federal officer's pattern Mac saddle a blow up of the Capt Howard photo clearly shows a non-regulation bridle with double rein Pelhem bit and, what appears to be a decorative tassle-like (?) addition hanging under the horse's throat. I may be mistaken here but I may also detect a British numnah under the saddle. The pattern and "look" of it is very similar to the VERY FEW Crimea era type British numnahs I have found in other photographs. All of this is very English if not British military which begs the question about Federal (or private) imports of British equipments or.....maybe...(speculation here....) purchase of Prize Court auction equipments from captured CS Blockade runners. Anyway, just some interesting observations. Great photos and thoughts about riding posture!

Ken R Knopp

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: english saddles

Hallo!

"That's just a dandy example of a common riding style one sees in the period--the long straight leg extended forward, both reins held in the left hand. Is there any style of riding taught today, where that's considered acceptable?"

Being left-handed, and having grown-up in the archaic system of a right-handed world beating left-handed-ness out of a lad, it is interesting (and perhaps historically/militarily) proper that the left-hand is for the reins and the right hand for a weapon or in civilian circles a crop/whip.

(Although I am reminded of the arena where even in the two handed reining of single and double reins in the "English" styles that the crop is rotated to the outside of the horse depending upon the direction.)

In my limited experience, exposure, and English and Western classes in the Modern World, I would say that "Western" can use both reins in the left hand or the right, as the reins are not "pushed and pulled/given and taken" with two hands but rather "laid" against the horse's neck with one.
(Although the loose ends of the reins can be held with the other hand to give the arm something to do other than hang... ;) )

Curt

[ButtermilkRanger]

Re: english saddles

Thanks for the good information, guys. Exactly the explanations I was looking for.

[Hank Trent]

Re: english saddles

In my limited experience, exposure, and English and Western classes in the Modern World, I would say that "Western" can use both reins in the left hand or the right, as the reins are not "pushed and pulled/given and taken" with two hands but rather "laid" against the horse's neck with one.

Yes, but what about the leg position? Modern western show-ring riding, at least, calls for a more centered/balanced seat, legs underneath.

And then there's more to the reins than just one-handed vs. two-handed.

Henry Herbert gives the usual party line here, with an illustration of the hands and reins on the next page. "As it is the almost universal custom among good riders in this country to ride with the reins in the left hand only, and as those deviating from this custom would be considered awkward, such persons as desire a reputation for skilful riding should hold their reins as is represented in Fig. 31."

The illustration shows the reins coming from a double bridle with each rein separated by the fingers. The horse is apparently ridden with constant light contact on the bit, modern-English-style (see next page about "lightness of hand"), with the horse's head encouraged to be up in the style of gaited horses today.

The overall result seems neither English nor western nor gaited nor anything that's taught today.

Obviously I don't mean that every person in the 19th century rode that way, any more than every person today rides in a definite show-ring style, though it does show up in a fair number of period illustrations.

But if that was the goal of how a gentleman should ride, is there any style of riding today where one could just go to a riding instructor and say "teach me _______ style" and come out looking like a well-trained gentleman from the 1860s? Ironically enough, I don't think there is, but I dunno.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[MustangGray]

Re: english saddles

I've kind of lost track of where this thread was originally headed... something about English saddles?!:D

Anyway, back to the saddle proper... does anyone know if it was more common to use deer hair for the flocking or wool as was seen in the Berney Bros. video? Maybe it was a regional thing, I'm not sure, but the one original 19th century saddle I've ridden was stuffed with deer hair and I was curious as to whether or not that was the norm.

[CJSchumacher]

Re: english saddles

But if that was the goal of how a gentleman should ride, is there any style of riding today where one could just go to a riding instructor and say "teach me _______ style" and come out looking like a well-trained gentleman from the 1860s? Ironically enough, I don't think there is, but I dunno.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Herein lies the problem. Reenactors look at even this...riding...as some form of a re-creation of events from some "imaginary" time ago. Horses are dangerous to those who don't know what they're doing. Horsemanship is timeless and believe me, as one who saw many "cavalrymen" over the years...there's very little of it in reenacting.

Take a look at this 18th century painting that Mr. Trent linked to earlier. What about this riding style isn't applicable today?? The way they're sitting astride looks timeless to me and they look no different than people sitting at a check or waiting for the hunt to move off than people hunting today.



I'm not picking on Mr. Trent here, in fact, he helps explain the problem between reenactors pretending and horsemen doing.

And regarding the flocking question, I've never seen any 19th century stuffed panels or pads that weren't hair as well.

[Mark Choate]

Re: english saddles

This has really been a wonderful discussion and Chris, you are very correct in saying that you don't see some "cavalrymen" riding in this manner. The reason is the same that you don't always see it in many forms of recreational riding. It does not matter if you are riding period or modern or if you foxhunt, compete in dressage (as does my wife), grand prix jumping, barrel racing, calf-roping, team penning, etc. the absolute foundational fundamental that oft times is discarded is simply "balance". Everything that helps you develop your seat and control the horse begins with balance. The different types of saddles that Hank and others have discussed are aids to achieving this balance.
The absence of that (again, in any riding) is why you see folks pitching forward or backwards or appearing to wrestle with their mount.

Thanks to all for the imput on this as even my wife has enjoyed it!

Mark

[English Doc]

Re: english saddles

Ok, this is a really informative thread, and I attach a period (English) reference to the 'seat'.

I make no apologies for its length - it really needs to be read in the whole. Of interest (and importance) though, is the final paragraphs. Whilst this description of the classic seat is for, in my opinion, 'gentlemen', there is no way that these rules could or would have been adopted by the majority of riders - (they couldn't afford the time, let alone the cost!)

Anyway...

THE SEAT

The position of the rider in the saddle, called ‘the seat’, admits of several variations according to the purpose to which he is devoted, but it is mainly influenced by the length of the stirrups. In the military style these are so long that the weight of the body is conveyed to the saddle by the inside of the thighs, or ‘fork’ alone, and the breech and feet distribute the weight between them. Colonel Greenwood, who is the only military writer on horsemanship that can be taken as a guide for the road, tells us – “There is one direction which I think applies to all seats. Turn the thigh from the hip, so as to bring the hollow to the saddle; this places the foot straight to the front, with the heel out and the toe in. Trotting without stirrups, on the thigh only, with the heel down and the toe up, shoulders back, a snaffle rein in each hand like a rough rider, is the best possible position for sitting”. Now the latter part of this is quite true, but the former is not quite consistent with my own experience, for if the short stirrups of the Eastern Horseman are adopted, the hollow of the thigh cannot be brought to the saddle, yet this style he admits is “admirable in its way”. Dismissing then the military seat for which Colonel Greenwood’s directions may suffice, I may assert that, in the ordinary English style, there are four points necessary to be considered; namely, (1) the position of the weight, which will be mainly influenced by (2) the position of the knees well forward on the flap, (3) the proper length of the stirrup-leathers, and (4) the carriage of the body. If the weight is not laid upon the middle of the saddle, which is the axis of the “see-saw” motion made in the gallop, it has to be raised at every stride, and thus additional labour is thrown on the horse. With long stirrups in the military style this is of necessity done; but, with short stirrups, the knees are often placed on the flaps behind the leathers, and then the breech remains close to the cantle and sometimes almost overlapping it. To get the length of leather adapted to most men, though there are occasionally exceptions, the rider should sit well on his fork, and then the stirrups should be taken up or let down till they just touch the ankle bone. For road riding this enables the hollow of the thigh to touch the saddle, because the ball of the foot being on the stirrup, the heel is down an inch and a half below it; whilst, in the hunting field, as the stirrup is worn “home”, the knee is carried higher and more forward on the saddle, and the weight is distributed between it, the breech, and the foot. With regard to the carriage of the body, all the directions in the world will not make it easy, and without the supervision of a master, or a friend, to point out defects, no one can be sure that he is sitting in a good , much less an elegant style. It is not possible even to know that the shoulders are square, or that the body is not carried on one side, defects which I have known persisted in for years without the slightest consciousness of them on the part of the rider, who would gladly have rectified them if he had known of their existence. One rule may, however, be given, namely, that no effort should be made to move in any direction, and that, on the contrary, every endeavour should be directed to keep the body and legs as still as the action of the horse will allow, bearing in mind that the opposite extreme of stillness is almost equally as bad.
(PP 289-290)

(THE HORSE, In the Stable and the Field: His Varieties, Management in Health and Disease, Anatomy, Physiology, Etc. etc. – By J H Walsh F.R.C.S.)

One other thing - as noted in the text, (long stirrups being a military 'thing') Do you thing that maybe period painting showed men sitting to horse this way as a sign of military prowess? A real magnet in those days.....

[Hank Trent]

Re: english saddles

Herein lies the problem. Reenactors look at even this...riding...as some form of a re-creation of events from some "imaginary" time ago. Horses are dangerous to those who don't know what they're doing. Horsemanship is timeless and believe me, as one who saw many "cavalrymen" over the years...there's very little of it in reenacting.

Take a look at this 18th century painting that Mr. Trent linked to earlier. What about this riding style isn't applicable today?? The way they're sitting astride looks timeless to me and they look no different than people sitting at a check or waiting for the hunt to move off than people hunting today.

Except when they do. ;)

http://www.pbase.com/renedehaart/image/57224076

Look at the man on the right in the image above. Perfect forward seat. That's how I was taught to sit and ride in the 1980s, shorter stirrups, shoulders above hips above feet. It would be possible to find dozens of pictures of men in that posture in the 1860s, and also dozens of pictures of men in the 2000s that look like the hunting painting, because they're both practical ways of riding horses. But they're typical of different eras and different contexts.

I'm not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing. :)

On the one hand, I agree that anything that works, works. One can't "pretend" to ride a horse. I can't say that I was all that good at it when I was doing it regularly at home and at events, but I never got myself hurt or my horse hurt and we could generally get ourselves where and when we needed to be over whatever terrain or distance was presented.

On the other hand, there are fashions, for lack of a better term, that come and go in different eras and different contexts. It's human nature to want to look cool, to want to find a better way, to do something the way you're told just because you're told, and so forth. And there are a variety of ways to do things that trade off different positive and negatives, so I don't think there's ever one single right way to do anything (though I've found that riding instructors can be quite dogmatic about their own personal preferences). And there are genuine discoveries/inventions that do objectively improve things, such as the forward seat for jumping and for flat racing. No jockey would ride today like a jockey in the 1860s. My riding instructor said I was only allowed to practice this when none of her other students could see, lest they think she was teaching it to me.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[CJSchumacher]

Re: english saddles

You're partially right...I would argue their stirrups aren't really much longer than most ride today in the hunt field. If you put your hand on your horses rump, half turn, and are leaning back as they are in the painting as often people do at a check or stop, you're naturally going to extend your leg as it appears in the painting. I believe they've "caught" a nice moment here. ;)

The seat is what's most important and stirrup length shouldn't disrupt an otherwise stable, comfortable, and most importantly, balanced seat. Believe me, it does come down to what works for each individual.

I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: english saddles

Hallo!

I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing.

But I also think we are reliving the Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant but perhaps more sight-impaired than totally blind.

Meaning, we have a mix of "modern evolutions" in method, form, and tack that we are trying to trace its ancestor in the images and "manuals" of the Past.

For example, the material from Walsh, as a modern equitation student, I would disagree that in my modern discipline that the "back saddle" shifts the riders weight behind the middle center of the horse to allow for the front end of the gaited horse movement. (And facilitates the bending of the horse's spine as well as the gait in turning the arena corners.)
Plus, the legs (and knees used to urge the horse forward through the arena turns or faster gaits) while perhaps appearing to be "still" are part of the command and movement function supplementing or augmenting the single or double reins supplementing the voice.

And as it (appearently has) evolved, the head is up, the look forward at where one is going, the shoulders squared, the chest forward, the back erect, the small of the back pulled, the hips lowered, the knees rolled in, the inner thigh contacting the horse, the legs extended on a line below the shoulders and hips (long) in the stirrups, the ball of the foot centred on the stirrup, the heels down, and the toes up AND the feet rotated outward (rather than straight).

But that is limited to the style and the function. Meaning, the above is not well-suited to jumping ditches, walls, and fences (which Walsh speaks to in is opening lines).

Then again, we are confronted with the artist and how much of life is their in his art? Meaning, 19th century and 18th century images will show say the
heels down and the toes rotated outwards as well as straight.

And last but not least, IMHO there is also the issue, question, or quandry as to what exactly does/did riding instruction mean? As with fencing, how did a lower class individual learn and what- versus say a nobleman or upper class student seeking out such-and-such fencing master's school in Italy or Spain.
Meaning, while there is obviously the formal military mounted instruction, what vast or not so vast differences were there between an upper class person learning to ride for fox hunting versus the farmer's son learning to ride the plow horse to go into town.

Curt