User talk:Montanabw/Archive 2

Greetings!

Montana, I appreciate your contributions to the horse topics here. Yours is a practical voice of reason, free of guru-worship. Lil 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Have considered becoming my own guru and worshiping myself! <Grin> Montanabw 22:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Montana, How long does it take for a page to get "locked" so no one can mess with it? I see several of the horse related ones that should be closed up so vandals can't hurt them. As soon as I get a good clear day I'll take those tack photos for you. I've got a really nice bosal and show bridle, as well as some really odd bits. Apphistorian 23:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Horses in warfare

The article Horses in warfare you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Horses in warfare for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Shimeru 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, equine nutrition, was selected for DYK!

On February 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article equine nutrition, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Equine nutrition possible copyvio

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Equine nutrition, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.esc.rutgers.edu/publications/factsheets_nutrition/FS038.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Equine nutrition and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Equine nutrition with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Equine nutrition.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Equine nutrition/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Equine nutrition saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Cyclopia 12:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You've done a good job at referencing, but I think Cyclopia's concern was that you took too much of the article from that other website. Can you possibly rewrite certain sections that might be almost identical to that Rutgers website? Also, contact Cyclopia before you think you're ready. It's best to get his opinion on this, too. Nishkid 64 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think that it was that much of a copyright violation, but in any case, we deal with any possible copyvios seriously here. After you reword and stuff, I will restore the article, and I will contact Cyclopia. Nishkid 64 19:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did the page merge. Everything looks fine now. Nishkid 64 22:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the problem. I didn't want to be rude. I tell you what I did: I just did a random check on a couple sentences on Google and I found what seemed to me quite a copyvio. I checked copyright infos on the site and I didn't find anything allowing publication of content under GNU GFDL (quite the opposite, indeed). So I looked for instructions about copyvio, and WP instructions clearly say Blank the page and replace the text with.... So I followed them. I'm sorry for any trouble this caused, but I know WP takes copyvio very seriously (I personally think that using such content in an encyclopedia should be fair use, but alas the laws are not on my side, sigh). Next time I'll try to be softer. Thanks for your understanding. --Cyclopia 11:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo Edit

Montanabw, is unencyclopediac really a word? :-). Ronald C. Yochum, Jr. 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Draft Horse Showing

Thank you for your comments about the 'draft horse showing' page. I think I am going to leave it about draft horse shows in North America and the North American standards for showing. I am new to Wikipedia and would really appreciate input on my page. Do you know of anyone I could get in touch with to make the page better? Or do you know of anyone who is knowledgable about draft horse showing? Thank you in advance! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kgrange (talk • contribs) 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Medieval horse

Hello. Just to let you know, I've not given up on the revisions and research discussed at Talk:Horses in warfare. I've got a stack of books beside me, and too much in my head. I'm throwing everything down in my sandbox as a way of sorting through it. I can note things as they occur to me, then format it into something appropriate. Saves me flicking from book to book, too. If you want to drop in sometime to see what I've got, then feel free. There's more in my head than there is on the page, but I'll get there. Oh, and I know much of the info is on the various pages in one form or another, but noting it down helps me think it through. Gwinva 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice; I've begun expanding and referencing the quick framework you saw. As a point of interest, I've got some excellent references that put the medieval war horse at 14-16 hands. One question: Your discussion about hot-bloods and cold-bloods put me in mind of the four humours of classical medicine (outlined at Humorism). In medieval times, men were considered hot and therefore good warriors (the hot blood ascended in battle) whereas women were phlegmatic (cold). I've read a reference to a medieval text where the writer scorns the cold-blood horses of one country, preferring his own hot-bloods for war. Has the terminology crossed over, or am I misunderstanding? Gwinva 14:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your prompt, detailed answers -they really are a big aid to my understanding. I hope I'm not trading on your good-will too much by bringing you another question. What do you know of rounceys? Every book I've read seems to categorise them differently. I've seen them described as: horses of little worth; riding horses; all-purpose horses; trained war-horses for men-at-arms or poorer knights; swift, sturdy horses for raids... Are they the same as the German textual runcini ("beasts of burden or to pull wagons")? As for my draft.. I've plugged in a few more references, but haven't had much time today. Gwinva 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The second (http://www.netserf.org/Glossary/r.cfm) actually references the glossary of one of my books "Rouncey: An ordinary horse. (Prestwich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience, 348)". The full reference is on p 30:

"Destriers were not common; of the twenty-seven horses lost by members of the earl of Derby's retinue in Flanders in the late 1330s, only two were of this type. By the later middle ages, the destrier was known as a great horse; the type appears to have vanished from England in the seventeenth century, and is most unlikely, as is sometime suggested, to have been the ancestor of the modern carthorse. Coursers were another highly prized type of horse. More ordinary animals were described as rounceys, or simply as equi, or horses. All of these were suitable for use in war; in general, warhorses were clearly quite distinct from palfreys, or riding horses, and from various types of farmhorses."

Ewart Oakeshott (A Knight and His Horse, p 12) says: "The rounsey was as strong as the war-horse, or nearly as strong, but of no particular breeding. He served as a cavalry horse for non-knightly men-at-arms...or a as a riding horse simply to get about on." But, as I said above, I've got references that define them otherwise. And I did hope you would provide the definitive answer (sigh).

Siobhan ni Seaghdha's article is interesting. I've got Ann Hyland's book somewhere (yet to be unearthed) plus the Museum of London's analysis of their London finds (The Medieval Horse and its Equipment, ed. John Clark) which discusses horseshoes, amongst other things. It refutes the claim made by historians (such as RHC Davis, referenced in Siobhan ni Seaghdha's essay) that the great horse was 17-18 hands, and comes out with a figure of 14-15 hands for military horses (p25). It also discusses the difficulty of assessing horse size from horseshoes and bits (which you would understand much better than me), although it provides a lot of figures and compares these to the horse skeletons. One interesting point raised was the suggestion that "early measurement by 'hands' followed the contour of the horse's body, rather than being taken vertically" (p 23). This book, of course, deals with more than warhorses: it lists pulling weights of carthorses, hire rates for hackneys, a comparison of spurs...etc etc.

Why am I spending hours on this? I'll have to blame you: too much encouragement. (grin).Gwinva 14:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've pretty much finished the warhorse stuff in my sandbox, just a couple of references to go (nice to have, rather than essential; I know I've got them, just need to find them). I've got more info on riding and work horses, and also horse transports (ie. how they got horses across the channel, etc). Also horse tack, feeding etc etc if it seems relevant. Anyway, warhorses: anything good for Horses in warfare? I was looking at Destrier again: pretty useless (what a nonsense last paragraph). Thing is, most of the information applies to medieval warhorses in general (as in my sandbox) not destriers particularly. Should I improve destrier, or make a medieval horse article out of what I've got and redirect destrier there? And, by the way, I haven't been here all day. Gwinva 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your theory sounds good. I think I even have a reference somewhere to Friesians...somewhere in the stack of books surrounding me. Yeah, I've heard the longbow/gunpowder arguements, but that's too simplistic. 1. longbow arrows (even bodkin) couldn't penetrate plate (and mail withstood most of it, too). 2. range of guns too short to impact mounted knights much: galloping horses don't give you much chance to shoot. The heavy chivalric charge disappeared before that as a major tactic, anyway. I think it was because of its effectiveness: no opposing army wanted to fight that way. eg. Scots refusing to meet English in field, English chauvauchees during 100 yrs war, etc etc. If you know a mounted army's coming you: 1. run away, 2. head for the hills, 3. dig lots of trenches and put up spikes that the horses can't get through. 4. choose your own ground. Anyway, I must go. Gwinva 22:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've copied all the warhorse stuff across to Talk:Horses in warfare, so see what you can make of it. If you think anything needs expanding or more references, I'll have another look through my books. I've done a quick overhaul of Destrier, removing the obvious nonsense, and reformatting it so we can work with it. Also created Rouncey and Courser (horse). Initially, I wasn't going to make a separate courser page (keeping the information at Destrier), but a search through wikipedia unearthed a few links there already, so I went with that. I've also linked the Charger disambig. page to those three, and Horses in warfare, and each of those to each other. I'm not sure how much to break off into the separate articles, and how much should stay with Horses in warfare. Palfrey needs work, but I'll get to that eventually (if I'm not driven mad first). And that's just the horse articles...you wouldn't believe the nonsense, misinformation and poor writing that abounds throughout the medieval warfare pages...

One last thought (well, probably not the last), my wikisearch brought me to Horse breeding again. It'll need to be made consistent with any changes to Horses in warfare. Gwinva 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Medieval horse 2

The pages look brilliant. Yesterday was hectic, but I logged in for five minutes to see what you'd made of the info; sorry I didn't have time to get back to you. I've read through the text, which looks good. When I get time I'll work through it more carefully and add those references etc. I'll outline my thoughts about name and scope at Talk:Medieval horses. By the way, I had a return email from one of the interpreters at the Royal Armouries, which was generously detailed. I put a summary on the Talk:Horses in warfare page, but it probably got lost amongst all the text there. So here's a copy:

I've had a reply from the Royal Armouries, which was very informative. A few facts and figures:

man's armour (25 kg) plus mail and 'foundation garments' (7kg) = 32kg

weapons: sword and scabbard (3kg) plus lance (7kg) = 10kg

rider (5'8") = 70 kg

saddles (modern, based on British army SU02) = 14-19 kg (hard to determine what original weighed)

caparisons (horse barding) = 10 kg

total load approx = 71 kg

Compares that with 19th century cavalry horses expected to carry 28 stone (including rider) reduced to 21 stone in Boer war. Horses expected to carry that load for 25 miles a day.

Other comments: variety of breeds used as warhorses during middle ages, some of which became draft breeds. Bayeaux tapestry shows horses of 12-14 hh; 15th century horses 14-15 hh. None of this can be classed as a citation, but bear in mind that this information is provided by those who work with the original artifacts, and interpret using modern replicas.

I'll just head off to Talk:Medieval horses, and add my bit there. Hopefully I'll get time to come back later. Many thanks for working on my stuff. Gwinva 07:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over the stuff you've added at Horses in warfare and tweaked it slightly. It looks good. I don't have time right now to work through Medieval horses and add those references and expansions you suggest, but I'll work on that (and the rouncey, destrier and courser pages) as and when I get time. I've got an ever-growing list of things I want to look at/revise... this wikipedia-thing is dangerously addictive!Gwinva 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Was reading your message on jumping position, responded there. But saw you mentioned la jineta and la brida seats. Just wondering if you would do an article on them... I'd be very interested. Eventer 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hay

Hi. Thanks for your superb work on the Hay article. I've just edited the section on Modern Mechanised Baling. (I even added a photo I took last (Southern Hemisphere) winter.) Please check my work and fix any problems you see. Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Your version is much better than mine. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we have both thrown around a few bales! One of these days if I ever remember to put my digital camera in the car, there is an area not far from me where they still do a type of non-baled haystacks, right here in the USA. For some reason in this little valley, it just works for everyone, even though they have modern equipment otherwise...kind of fascinating. Montanabw 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Silly bot

As you probably noticed, I'm working my way backwards alphabetically through some of the wayward tagging that the bot did. It delved into all the color categories, few, if any, of which are relevant. Unfortunately, since there were a number of categories and they are difficult to isolate, I'm just going back through all the bot's edits. I've made it through S and, quite frankly, it's mind-numbing work and an interruption to my focus on the Portal:Visual arts. So be patient with me and, if you are so inclined, don't feel obliged to wait for me to remove those tags!. Cheers, Planetneutral 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Horseshoes and horse size

Ann Hyland relates the development of the horseshoe to breeding for increased size and heavy warfare. Rather than summarising, I'll copy the quote, so you can follow the argument:

"According to archeologists using bone deposits from Avar, Magyar and Germanic burials, it was amongst the Germanic and also some Avar peoples that selective breeding for heavier conformation began in the ninth and tenth centuries. Simultaneously horseshoes also began appearing in central Europe. The shoeing lends force to the size augmentation. In a climate damper than that of their original steppelands horses' hooves would have become softer; with an armoured man to carry, plus the equipment of use in war, the combination of damp, weight and pounding impact with the ground meant hooves had to be protected from splitting, cracking, laminae deterioration and sole bruising. The heavier body mass means that most hooves would have had a shallower and overall larger construction and the softer horn that goes with that. I have had experience of the adverse effect that climate and underfoot conditions cause. Two horses I owned in the USA and brought to Britain underwent significant hoof changes. One, a mare on which I had competed in 100-mile events without having her shod, and which finished sound, needed constant shoeing in our damper climate. The other, a horse weighing 1200 lb with weaker hoof laminae, needed constant shoeing in Britain." Ann Hyland, The Medieval Warhorse: From Byzantium to the Crusades, UK: Grange Books, 1994, pp 58-59

ie. horseshoes weren't found prior to the 9th century because they weren't needed. John Clark (The Medieval Horse and its Equipment), notes research by Lynn White which puts the first documentary references in the late 9th/early 10th by Byzantine and Frankish authors. As I've mentioned somewhere before, Clark's archeological research suggests horseshoes are an early medieval invention. Gwinva 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ps. You need Suggestbot?! I'm obviously not demanding too much of your attention! (grin).Gwinva 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a glutton for punishment! And the Gelding article DID need serious work! (Why they gave me "Lundy" is a mystery, though) I think the material on horseshoes that you quoted here is pretty accurate. There is also the impact of stabling; horses standing in their own excrement also weakens hoof structure, and not moving around a lot other than when working has the potential to cause some problems -- the hoof is quite fascinating; the frog structure in the sole actually plays a major role in circulation, every step essentially helps boost blood flow back up the leg.

The Arabs of the 19th century did shoe their horses -- poorly -- but that may have been due to the impact of roads as much as anything.

Had another thought about horseshoes. Hyland published Equus: The Horse in the Roman World in 1990. I have never read it, but she can't have found any reliable evidence for Roman horseshoes during her research if in her later book she dates them to 9/10th centuries. She seems a safe bet for accuracy: neither Euro-centric or Medieval-centric, plus she's a horse-expert (according to my dustjacket, she is an equestrian consultant for OED). I think this provides reliable dating for the horseshoe page. Gwinva 20:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness in Halter

Sorry, it wasn't on purpose. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolrascal (talk • contribs) 06:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your GA review

Thanks for taking the time and effort to review and comment on reparative therapy. Much appreciated! Fireplace 11:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I had grown to like 'Medieval horses', and wasn't impressed with the new name, until I remembered it was my suggestion in the first place!! Bit miffed at the move, as it happened when I was mid-edit and had to cut and paste all my new references. However, I guess it's not too bad!!! (grin) Gwinva 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably best to check the Medieval style preferences at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages. Unless you decide its a WikiProject Horse (new invention?) article, and design your own style guide!! I wouldn't rush to move it back, given it's something we had considered. Can always do it later, when we're not so irritated...Gwinva 16:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC) BTW, our page mover is from WP Middle Ages, so perhaps he does represent the establishment view. Perhaps we should leave it while under review? Gwinva 17:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the WP:Middle Ages preferred style question is now answered at Talk:Horses in the Middle Ages, and since that title fits with Horses in warfare and the recently renamed Horse transports in the Middle Ages, I say keep it where it is. As I think I said at the original discussion, you can now write 'Horses in Ancient Rome' and 'Horses in the Arab states' or whatever...(!):-) Gwinva 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review

What have you unleashed?!? Someone reminded us we had left a few statements uncited, so I parked them on the talk page. Now we are questioned about over-citing. !help! (smile). Gwinva 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Things seem to have got a bit heated there for a bit! (grin) I felt compelled to add my twopence worth earlier, and explain the rationale for referencing. I hope it's a fair representation. Feel free to renounce me if it's all gibberish!! Gwinva 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cass Ole

Hi Montanabw,

I found the {{Sport Horse infobox}} template searching through Category:Infobox templates. It's pretty new though, looks unfinnished. Like the new pic for Cass Ole? --Edokter (Talk) 22:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Great photo! Will Wikipedia let us keep it? Copyright and fair use guidelines have cost us a lot of good horse images! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I'll take my chances. There are simply no free alternatives available. So far, none of my uploads have been deleted. --Edokter (Talk) 13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Me again

I can't keep away! This time my question has little relevance for any article, and is purely for my own interest. In trying to establish the speed and distance covered by mounted parties in the middle ages, I've taken Barbara Tuchman's figures as a guide. (ie. average day's journey 30-40 miles; messenger 40-50 miles; good horse, road, no load = 15 miles an hour; urgent messenger, with change of horses 100 miles in a day; pack trains 15-20 miles a day; armies about 8 miles a day). Hyland's reference to Robert the Bruce's guerilla campaign had him travelling 60-70 miles in a day, although presumably he couldn't use those horses in any skirmish at the end of it. I'd imagine he wasn't riding over easy country, either. I read the Endurance riding article you directed me to; obviously, they can cover more ground than could normally be expected (working alone, trained for the event, no need to repeat it the following day!). Presumably, a large party travels slower than a small one. Leading extra horses would slow you down as well? (By which point you're probably wondering what on earth I'm getting at). I think I mentioned once that I only strayed onto your horse pages because I was trying to confirm which horses were used for mounted raids. I've read all sorts of articles here (eg about wars in France or Scotland), plus all the books I've got piled up here, but I can't get seem to find these details! Basically, if you wanted to cover 60-odd miles quickly, anticipating there might be a skirmish (not a battle) at the end of it, would you ride one horse, and fight on it, or bring a second (which would slow down any pursuit of the enemy)? How much slower would 200 men be than 50? Also (these questions keep mounting up!) how fast could you realistically travel at night? (like the Border reivers, or other details of armies being surprised by their enemy's night movements). Like I said, this is for my own interest. If you haven't the time or inclination to answer, I won't be offended. Oh, btw, thanks for polishing up my hobby addition, which was badly needed. I stared at it for ages, but all my understanding of the written language seemed to vanish! Collaboration's good: all the hard work seems to get done magically! (grin). Gwinva 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We've made the main page (via Horse transports DYK)! Gwinva 16:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou! :) Enough there to keep me going for a while! (grin) Gwinva 17:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cowboy protection

Actually, I set an expiration date for the protection (March 10) and that's why it was automatically unprotected then. DumbBot just removed the protection tag. Also, I think it is safe to keep the article unprotected. There has not been much vandalism to the article in the six days since protection. Nishkid 64 16:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What is a riding crop?

You wrote in an edit comment:-

... Riding whips and crops are not precisely the same thing. Riding whips do not have a long lash.

Here in England, "riding crops" do not have a long lash, either: see http://www.kuroyumes-developmentzone.com/appleyard/3dthumb/ridingcrop.jpg . Have we run into a difference between British and USA word usage? Anthony Appleyard 06:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Here in England as far as I know, a "bat" is always a sort of solid stick and never a whip or similar. Anthony Appleyard 07:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)