Talk:Horses in the Middle Ages/Archive 1

Name and scope
Brilliant page; thanks Montanabw! I tentatively named it 'Horses in the Middle Ages' in my sandbox, as it fitted the convention used at Horses in warfare, and seemed a bit broader than 'Medieval horses' (just as Horses in warfare is broader than 'warhorses'). Same format could be used if other articles were developed (eg Horses in Ancient Greece, Horses in World War I, Horses in the Roman Empire....). However, most people would probably search for Medieval horses. I don't feel strongly: whatever you think. As for scope, the information is specific to Western Europe; I don't know if that should be noted in text or title. (It could be extend to encompass other geographical areas, but I really have little knowledge there). Assuming medieval horses covers more than warhorses, I'll bring across the other stuff from my sandbox, which still needs work, but that can be done here, now there is somewhere to put it. Gwinva 07:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea, whenever you want, you can use the "Move" command up in the tabs, it will move the article to a new name and create a redirect link automatically.  You probably do want to put something about the European focus in the intro, yeah, eventually someone will whine about that.   When I have time, I'll look at some of the sandbox stuff, but I figure you are the lead editor on this one, most of the work is yours!  Again, really great job! Montanabw 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Having said all that, I note that across at Middle Ages, most articles take the form 'Medieval hunting' or 'Medieval gardening', which would fit with 'Medieval horses'. I also considered 'Horses in medieval Europe' or the very long 'Horses in Western Europe during the middle ages', and then couldn't make up my mind at all!! I shall leave you to make the casting vote, and if you have no preference, the page can stay where it is.  Once we know its final name, I will start linking it from other articles.Gwinva 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote for SHORT titles. And, when possible, following wikipedia conventions used in similar subjects. The title should be as close to a logical search phrase as possible. I say if related topics use "Medieval," keep it as is unless we come up with something dramatically better. If we ever do move it, the redirect thing works pretty slick and the "what links here" command is easy to use. Montanabw 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Assorted comments
That photo in commons of the cart horses probably is a horse close to the type of the medieval cart horse--big bodies, short legs. That said, it's a guess for me. I'd be really careful using photos unless they are from historical reenactments or scientific studies.

Check out the article I linked to in the horse breeding section, it's a newer piece by Deb Bennett and pretty good.

Wikimedia has many horse images, but they are buried! There is both Category:Horses and Category:Equus caballus (plus all the stuff in wikipedia that's NOT in commons but you can only find it via other articles...) and many images are only in one, not the other. And that's the tip of the iceberg. For awhile I was finding things by typing the word for "horse" in other languages (Pferd, Chaval, etc...) For our stuff, also try: Category:Paintings of horses and Category:Knights I grabbed an image or two from there and sort of threw them in randomly...do as you wish with them.

You may find some of the material in the Arabian horse article useful as to the clashes between Islam and Medieval Europe. I also think we can wikilink to more Middle Ages articles...I think there are ones broken out here for early, high, and late periods, you'll have to check -- (I'm on a very slow dialup at home, so hard for me to do a lot of surfing when it takes three minutes to load a page!). The Andalusian horse page has some useful material, but most of it isn't sourced or footnoted very well and some of the resource links are a bit on the commercial side... Montanabw 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm on broadband, which does make browsing easy, but it does seem to lose the connection sometimes. I've learnt the hard way to save small edits, as I've lost a few bigger edits along with my connection!  It went down entirely for a bit today, so my edits on 'horse breeding' are pretty random.  I've run out of time now, but I will get back to it tomorrow: I want to merge your stuff in a bit (and I've got a few more references to complement it).Gwinva 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the remaining sandbox sections on work horses and women are both almost ready to merge in, just see the inline comments I have in those sections. Stylistically, they are pretty close to done...or as done as anything ever gets in Wikipedia!Montanabw 20:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hackney
I have begun expanding the riding horse section, which includes hackneys. That links to a disambiguation page. There is a Hackney (horse), which refers to a particular breed. Shall I leave it unlinked and explain all on this page, or does it need a new article (eg 'Hackney (riding horse)' and the other moved to 'Hackney (horse breed)'? From my limited knowledge of horses, I understand 'hackney' was used as a generic term in other eras also.?? Gwinva 11:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The riding horse section is now on the article page. I have also worked on the workhorses section in the sandbox below. Could you cast your eye over it when you have time? If you think it's ok, then it can be copied across to the article. As for the other stuff, ignore the long intro (your succinct one is better), but what of the women and horses stuff? Split up into appropriate sections or use as is? (or delete entirely!) What else do we need (associated trades, horse tack, horse transports)? Oh, I also played around with a couple more pictures, using your original template to figure how to do it. I won't be offended if you change them! I wasted some time over at W-commons trying to find a copyright-free picture of a medieval draft horse, without any luck. I have some good pictures in my books of some squat little things struggling to pull a rather small load. They don't look too dissimilar to the modern photo at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:10-09_002.jpg. Many thanks, Gwinva 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a small tweak to the bit on hackneys, indeed there is room for confusion, but I see little way around it, maybe what I added helped. As for the rest, will look at it later tonight. Montanabw 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox for revisions
Title:'Horses in the Middle Ages: Western Europe'

Transportation
(Edited section and moved it to the main article, other than the bit on lead and trace horses below)

Lead horses were worth more than trace horses.

Equestrian equipment and technological innovations
The development of horse technology proceeded at a similar pace as the development of horse breeding and utilisation. The change in warfare during the Early Middle Ages to heavy cavalry both precipitated and relied on the arrival of the stirrup, saddle and horseshoe from other cultures. The increased use of the stirrup from the eighth century on aided the warrior's stability and security in the saddle when fighting. This probably lead to greater use of shock tactics, although it remains possible to use a couched lance effectively without stirrups.

The invention of the nailed horseshoe in the late ninth century enabled longer, faster journeys on horseback, particularly in the wetter lands in northern Europe, and campaigns on varied terrains.

From the twelfth century, the high war-saddle became more common, providing protection as well as added security.

More on bits and bridles...


 * Two problems, though not insolvable: 1) Styles and types of Medieval tack is a whole new article in itself.  Problem 2) is that your source is not entirely accurate (Some medieval researchers can be a little bit Eurocentric), see stirrup and saddle as well as the shorter notes in the technology section in horses in warfare. The Stirrup was invented in India and China almost a thousand years before it got to the west, (seems to have arrived in western Europe with the Arabs, circa 8th century, but also from the east with the Mongols, perhaps even earlier) the horseshoe also was already invented, though may be worth looking at that technology to check details.  The firm tree saddle was invented during the Roman empire, circa 200 AD.  The only real innovation was the invention horse collar. Well, and the sidesaddle...Arguably, the deep-seated saddle was also a noticable stylistic change...and with it the la brida style of riding, which is a topic I am supposed to be doing an article on, one of these days...sigh...
 * Actually three problems, most "innovations" in medieval equipment were most notable for their brutality... This was one of the areas where the Renaissance and Enlightenment really were, at least as far as horses were concerned! Montanabw 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'll leave you to write the section, then... ! (smile) I was just throwing down a few rough references as I came across them: I'm prepared for them to be wrong! Clark's Medieval Horse has heaps of archeological data, and I've found Hyland's Medieval Warhorse. Eurocentric's ok (grin): we did mention this article was about Europe.  I know there are the main articles at stirrup etc, but it's worth summarising some of the pertinent stuff here, as it did effect the way they rode and fought (says she who's only been on a horse once). And, yes, horse collar comes here too.  Perhaps harnessing? The tandem style in the pictures linked below is not commonly seen now?!  Hey, if Medieval tack's a whole new article, then start it! I'm sure you could spend more time at the computer!! Gwinva 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Horse transports


The use of horses for war and general transport required effective means of transporting the horses long distances. The Romans had developed efficient methods of sea transport for horses, which were improved by the Arabic nations in the Early Middle Ages; these transports became common in Europe from the tenth century. Small boats (often referred to as tarides) could be powered by oar (or sometimes by sail), and were able to be loaded and unloaded directly on a beach, using doors as loading ramps; these could carry up to 20 horses. Later boats were larger, capable of carrying over 1500 men, but could not land men or animals directly. The merchant roundship was often adapted for warfare, and in the thirteenth century, two- and three-deck ships could carry 100 horses (or 600 men). However, the need for fodder and water probably restricted the number of horses that could be carried; in the fourteenth century, ships transporting horses between Scotland and Ireland never carried more than thirty-two. Adapting a ship for horse transportation required the installation of wooden stalls or hurdles, probably with supporting canvas slings.

Records of cavalry transportation abound throughout the period, reflecting the changes in warfare. For example, the Scandanavians had adapted the horse-transport technology by the twelfth century as part of their move away from the traditional Viking infantry. The Norman conquest of England required the transfer of over 2000 horses from Normandy. In 1174, an Italo-Norman force attacked Alexandria with 1500 horses transported on thirty-six tarides.

The development and building of horse transports for use in war meant it remained easy to transfer horses for breeding and purchase during peacetime. After William of Normandy's successful conquest of England, he continued to bring horses across from Normandy for breeding purposes, improving the bloodstock of the English horses. By this time, the Normans had already been transporting horses around the Mediterranean.

Other useful points awaiting references
Tournament The researchers also tested historic artifacts and found that the medieval war saddle within the armoury fits one of their smaller horses perfectly. Breeding Other modern breeds, including the Shire and Frisian also claim such descent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gwinva (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

GOOD SOURCE!
Check this out: http://www.imh.org/imh/kyhpl2a.html

International Museum of the horse. Good history section, explains much about Destriers, etc... I have no time to steal from it now, but FYI and help yourself! Montanabw 20:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures








I have quickly browsed commons and found an assortment of pictures. I see you have added a painting of the battle of Tours. It's a nineteenth century painting, so probably not too accurate with the horse. One of these might be better (although they don't relate specifically to battle mentioned in text). Gwinva 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good collection and I like parking them here for review. I say do whatever you want, it's all good.  I wouldn't be adverse to replacing the jousting photo with something more historic, personally. BTW, don't be too hung up on Clark, he's just one researcher.  Just like the average lifespan of people in the Middle Ages might have been 45 but some folks lived to be 80, just because most horses were 14 hands doesn't mean they all were. Some could have been 16 hands. Remember that Henry VIII wanted all his horses over 15 hands, so there had to be enough already for that decree to be somewhat possible to fullfill! Montanabw 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I could play with the pictures all night...Gwinva 21:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)



Progress
Good to bump into you tonight! Article is looking good; as you've seen, I've added links and played around a bit. To be comprehensive, we should cover some of the info about saddles, bridles etc etc, plus horse transports. Threw a few ideas down in sandbox, but only a rough start. Will get back to it tomorrow, perhaps. Gwinva 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about relying too heavily on one source, but I have still decided the harrowing picture left is not a good example. I know the series it is from: highly idealised (I mean, how many medieval castles looked like that?), and making a statement: rich enough to build an amazing castle and use a great horse on the farm... Have a look at these British Library images. No licence to reproduce them, but interesting. Note the three horses, which you queried (and they still have to help push the cart up the hill). Gwinva 11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC) carriage with five horses harvest cart, three horses harrowing, one horse

Right, more questions for you!!! I checked out the source you gave above, and used it in a discussion of weight, only to refute it with another reference! Throughout the article, I think we have managed to present a fairly balanced view of the various (and sometimes conflicting) theories people hold about medieval horses. I'm still working out how to present the weight one. The Museum of the Horse link states that the warhorse was twice as heavy as a riding horse. I've read that elsewhere, including a few wikipedia articles. Where does this idea come from? Is it just the '17-18hh great horse' theory rephrased? Is it likely? As for it being necessary, I lean towards Alvarez's theory (as per web link) that it makes no difference. For shock impact when the horse itself is a weapon, ok; I'd imagine a small horse running into a line of infantry would be effective enough, but cavalry on cavalry, you'd want a bigger horse than your enemy in any collision, perhaps. But a wielding a weapon? Dredging up my little-used physics knowledge, I can't see how the horse's weight can be translated to, for example, a lance tip. The man is holding it, not the horse, and the weakest part of the unit, as it were, is the man's arm. He can put his weight behind any blow, but not the horse's. Surely? Height would be useful (although too high, and you'd have to hold your weapon at an angle, which would lose force), and speed, of course, is important, as the lance travels at the same speed as the horse (obviously). But I'm neither an historian or a horse expert; what am I missing that others see?

A couple of wikipedia examples: From Stirrup:  From the rather poor Jousting article: <The two most common kinds of horse used for jousting were warmblood chargers and coldblood destriers. Chargers were medium-weight horses bred and trained for agility and stamina, while destriers were heavy war horses. These were larger and slower, but helpful to give devastating force to the rider's lance through its weight being about twice as great as that of a traditional riding horse. The horses were trained for ambling, a kind of pace that provided the rider with stability in order to be able to focus and aim better with the lance.>

Talking of which, is the pacing discussion in that right? As for coldblood destriers, I've no reference for that, only the suggestion in one book they were hotblooded...Gwinva 13:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course they were hot-blooded. Nicolle (p266) refers to early European horses (outside Spain) as all cold blooded, with the destriers so prized because they had Spanish and Arabian blood.Gwinva 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of the controversy is due to the changes in horses over time...the horses of the Early Middle Ages were ill-bred, un-pedigreed, completely different animals than those highly-bred, pedigreed animals found at the cusp of the Renaissance. The whole problem with the "Middle Ages" is how long they lasted...well over 500 years!

And we also appear to have had a lot of medieval traditions lingering on well after their practical use ended--as late as, say 1600 or even 1700, that would have been considered by people of the time to be "traditional," but were actually stylized renditions of form and not substance...I suspect the heavy war horse being one of them. Consider: a king would love to parade around in a ceremony on a huge, tall horse so loaded with decorative armour that even a Shire could barely carry it, and if he couldn't ride worth squat, he's want a huge, cold-blooded, quiet horse so he'd look good and not get dumped on his butt! So, people at the time write about the 17 hand "war horse" who carried the king around, and no one even remembers that the Battle of Hastings was probably won on horses that stood a stocky 14.2!

What we also have here is the very real problem that, unlike you and I, horsepeople and medievalists don't always work together or talk to each other. And neither group checks in with geneticists about how selective breeding can bring about dramatic changes in a given population (look at Poodles--teacup to Standard!)

I think that some of the IMH pages would benefit from citing their sources, as you say, with a lance, the weak link is the rider, but keep in mind too, the saddles --how high the cantle--the back part--is. To deliver a real blow, a knight would probably have to lean into the lance and brace their butt against the back of the saddle, but with that high cantle, they'd either knock over the other guy or literally break their backs trying...and I can tell you from looking at modern "cowboy" art, just because an artist paints something doesn't mean they know what they are doing, either. (I mean, I see a lot of bad modern cowboy paintings of the mountian man leading a fat, modern Quarter horse, when they actually rode scrawny, cheap thin horses of questionable breeding!)

Howeve, all that said, a destrier could certainly be close to double the weight of a palfrey. Like I mentioned the other day, I own an overweight Arabian horse who is 14.3 and 960 pounds. In fighting trim, she probably would weigh in at 900-930 pounds. But, she has a pasture mate who is the same height she is, but a "nervous nellie" and of different pedigree, who can't weigh more than 850 pounds after a heavy meal! (I'll put the tape on her and check, just to be sure) Their ancestors would have been about 14 or 14.1 hands, poorly fed and so easily 800-850 pounds. A very well fed Destrier who was 15.3 or 16 hands (a size achievable by at least a few horses in the late middle ages) and all stocky muscle could easily tip the scale at close to 1600 pounds. (Note the build of the horses in your "better" battle scene painting--look at the blubber on those butts! Think of a human weightlifter or the guys who do discus and shotput at the Olympics)

Take a look at this web site: http://percheronhorse.org/  You will notice right on the home page that they have Percherons pulling a wagon like draft horses, but also a person riding one jumping over a fence! And compare the horse in the top left photo to the ones in that battle scene you have above...the Percheron is probably the only draft breed with a real good claim to descent from the Destrier, figure it is taller and heavier than it was 500 years ago...

Then look at pages promoting Andalusians and Lusitanos, the other breeds with a pretty clear connection to the Destrier: http://www.ialha.org/new/fig/index.php http://www.kyhorsepark.com/imh/bw/andalu.html

Now, you tell me those two breeds don't have similar ancestors, (horrors! but don't tell them! ) once you consider that over the last 500 years one breed was bred to be a bigger, stronger horse and the other was bred to be more agile and quick...  and then, check out the photos of the Friesians in Commons, and well...

OK, now I just wrote a book. Bye! Montanabw 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the answer! (again). Talking of historians never talking to horse people, have you read any of Ann Hyland's books? A horse-expert and historian!! Very good.  Following on from discussion a long way back up the page somewhere (!) about horse tack, which I partially answered up there yesterday, I've been reading Clark's sections on it.  He writes a very long and detailed explanation about why horseshoes can't be confidently dated to Roman times, but can be dated from the 10th century. I'll have to check Hyland, she covers the Muslim world as well in her books Gwinva 08:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

After I've rambled on over at your talk page, you're probably bored of me, but I need to run through where we're going. (Note how my problems become yours, which is only fair, since you got me into this in the first place!! ). 1. Horse transports. Any good? Any point? I've put in my most obvious references, so I can't see myself taking it significantly further at the moment. 2. what about horse tack, as per discussion at 'Equestrian Equipment', above? Shall I note some of my references or leave it for a while? 3. At the moment we have separated type of horses into riding and war. Bearing in mind the jennet was also used in war, and the rouncey as a riding horse (and also a packhorse on occasion, Hyland notes -must add that in) should we merge them into one section? Also, you've sorted the hackney problem, but perhaps it does need more column inches: Hyland has them used as knight's campaign horses rather than palfreys. Also, a new one...hobby horse (!) from Ireland, ridden by hobelars, used a lot in guerilla warfare such as Bruce's Scots in the Wars of Independence. Hey, you must get hold of Hyland's books. She talks about everything from horseshoes to riding styles, covering Rome, Arabian states, Mongolia, India, Americas, Russia, Orient and Africa as well as Europe. She's a horse trainer by profession. Gwinva 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Horse breeding
I was going to add the following to the breeding section:
 * In England, a common source of warhorses were the wild moorland ponies, which were rounded up annually by horse-breeders, including the Cistercians, for use as campaign riding horses, or light cavalry; one such breed was the Fell pony, which had some Frisian ancestry.

However, it perhaps contradicts your comment about , which suggests the Friesian was later? Hyland's ref above is for the thirteenth century. Gwinva 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

More yakking here
I think it may work to merge the war and riding horse sections, need to configure the headings carefully, but yeah, I noticed that too. I think that the article is close to a "done" status...we are talking about HORSES in the middle ages here, and although horses needed tack and horses WERE transport, those actually are separate articles in and of themselves. If they get created, we can add "Main" tags here to link. You could also eyeball the pages on saddle and stirrup and see if any good medieval material and links could be added the the history sections there. Arguably, a better history section could also be created on the (already rather long) page bit (horse).

I'll root around with horseshoe stuff. Not surprising there is a debate over the Roman invention of the horseshoe...There is a 2500 year discrepancy amongst scholars as to the date the horse was domesticated and if it was first ridden or driven (though every horseman on the planet KNOWS in their gut that the horse was ridden before it was driven and thus the earlier date is probably correct). I'll see what I can dig up.

FYI, the daVinci sketches are in fact very akin to the modern Andalusian, stallions get "cresty" necks like that...and don't let the rest of the breeding stuff freak you out. The 13th century is about when people started getting serious about tracking written pedigrees, the Spanish Andalusian can be tracked back that far. If you said something like "Friesian-bred horses," that will make it just vague enough to cover any dispute over when the official "breed" got started. Montanabw 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ok. I've added the moorland pony bit in, with vague Friesian reference. Rejigged the page a bit to lump all types together; see what you think, and change as necessary. I know what you mean about horse transoprts getting off topic: I've copied the Horse transports stuff to Medieval horse transports, for somewhere to put it.  Someone at Medieval warfare might want it, or it could be moved and expanded into an all-era horse topic. Who knows, I might even expand it (!).  I've looked at the various tack pages as suggested: the history is a bit thin in places, so I might busy myself adding in references as appropriate.  Perhaps we just need some 'see also' links here.  There's also quite a bit of stuff about it on the cavalry, and medieval warfare pages, which probably needs making consistent.  I can feel another article coming on... Just what am I doing here??!! (grin).Gwinva 21:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me, I tweaked the Hackney link, the heavy, full-sized hackney carriage horse is more comparable to the medieval hackney -- at least in build, than is the hackney pony, which is sort of the chihuahua (in temperament) of the pony world. ;-) Montanabw 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Lithuanian horse: Hyland calls them simply 'Lithuanian draught' which I assume is the same as the 'Lithuanian Heavy Draught I linked.? Gwinva 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC) See also, 'Hobbies' in sandbox above. Add to horse types? BTW, someone else changed the hackney link to hackney pony.Gwinva 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving the horse transports stuff worked: the page has been expanded already, and nominated for DYK!! It's also been moved to Horse transports in the Middle Ages. Gwinva 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move
I moved the article from medieval horses to horses in the Middle Ages. It's a very impressive article, but the title really didn't fit the topic since the use of "medieval" in this case almost seem to imply that horses back then were an entirely different species, or that they're referred to as some kind of artform. I think the current title fits the article better.

Keep up the good work!

Peter Isotalo 09:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied in detail on your talk page, would have appreciated your ASKING before moving the article, or even read the discussion here where we actually discussed the topic already. Will leave it for now, pending further discussion, but this was really irritating. Montanabw 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies if might have seemed rash, but it did look rather obviously odd to me. It was very obvious that you had problems trying to fit "medieval horses" into the lead since you used a rather odd combination of the two "horses in the Medieval period" (not a standard term, really). As for articles called "medieval", you should look around, since there are a lot of articles called "XXX in the Middle Ages". Regional and national history articles, for example, come in both formats, though I sense that there's a tendency to move away from "medieval XXX". As for the discussion above, it didn't seem particularly exhausting nor were the arguments given satisfying as far as I was concerned. For example, "horses" aren't really an abstract form of culture, like art, hunting or clothing.
 * Over all, I don't really see the point of griping to me as if I had spoiled something precious. If you don't like the move you can just revert it without all the annoyed sighing about how annoying it is to experience outside interference (in a wiki no less). The move looked perfectly logical to me, and I'm not fond of the idea of having to ask to edit mere technicalities unless there's obvious controversy involved. If anything, see WP:OWN.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GA comment
With a quick glance over the article, I noticed two citation needed tags. These need to be addressed before the article will be passed. Either add sources to them or move them to the talk page until you find some, or somebody may quick-fail the article. --Nehrams2020 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have done so. Gwinva 19:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason for having so many footnotes? There's plenty of examples of the exact same footnote being repeated several times in one (usually very short) paragraph and sources that are already established early in the article keep popping up over and over. I can't see the reason for this other than to satisfy people who like to sprinkle fact-tags as soon as they see a statement they think is unreferenced (or just new to them) instead of just asking about it at the talkpage. It definitely makes the article less readable and turns it into quite the eyesore. If all those additional notes are added to statements that are largely uncontroversial, it should be considered mere reference padding and be removed.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Often there is. There is no such thing as an "uncontroversial" statement when it comes to either equine topics or military history topics. As for an "eyesore" that's a problem that Wikipedia needs to address--footnotes should be supscripted more than they are, not y problem.  This is a perfectly acceptable level of referencing for a research article. You seem to have the minority position on this Peter, ever talk to Wandalstouring, who demands them in every sentence?   And by the way,  are you reviewing this article for GA status, or just commenting in general?? Montanabw 21:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not the first one to make such a claim about your own favorite topic; that's it's totally unique. With the exception of nationalism and ideology, this tends to be an artifact of too much focus on minute details.
 * I'm far from being the only one annoyed by footnote counting. Check out this and this, for example. A lot of respected and established editors are frustrated with what some have appropriate called "the mad fact-bombers", a category of editors that User:Wandalstouring seems to fit into quite nicely. As for "research articles", I'd like to point out that all articles require research in one form or another. We're still just an encyclopedia, not a collection of academic papers, and I can tell you that I've read more than my share of those that have had far fewer notes. What we're doing is merely supposed to be a summary of established knowledge, not original research.
 * If you want to see examples of fully verifiable, high-quality articles written without a minimum of one footnote per paragraph, see Restoration spectacular and Holkham Hall (both are FAs)
 * Peter Isotalo 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate some suggested FA examples, your condescension is unnecessary. At no point in time have I said this topic is "totally" unique. What it is, however, is controversial in several details, there is a lot of misinformation out there on medieval horses (read, oh Shire horse, for example, or perhaps the edit history in Cavalry, neither of which I have had much to do with) and careful sourcing avoids edit wars later or worse--I worked on an article with insufficient sourcing and had a copyvio slapped on it! Having been burned far more often by insufficient sourcing, until there is consensus on wikipedia, I err on the side of caution when I am working on a potentially strong article...and here, I am not a medievalist, I'm just helping out. I have had EVERY article I have nominated for GA status get it so far, I felt that the hard work of Gwinva deserved similar recognition. If you cannot offer helpful comments, then please just leave things alone.Montanabw 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Every single fact in this article is controversial? I think not. That certain aspects of a topic may be contested doesn't mean the entire article is in danger of being questioned.
 * I have in no way tried to protest the promotion of this article as a GA, but merely suggested an alternative way of referencing. Neither Gwinva nor the article needs a flapper and I am entitled to my opinion, so stop trying to actively discourage it. Again, have a look at WP:OWN.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ''Comment: The link in the post above was directed to the wrong page. It was supposed to refer to the term used by Swift.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We have no intention of discouraging input on this article; it was, in fact, one of the aims of the GA-nomination. And following your suggestion, Montana has consolidated some of the references.  However, the style of referencing is in many ways determined by the subject material.  By no means do we claim that every fact is controversial, or that the topic is itself unique, but this article sprung from a discussion at Talk:Horses in warfare about the inaccuracies and misinformation abounding about medieval horses throughout wikipedia (and, unfortunately, other sources).  I am neither an historian nor a horse-expert, but while researching the medieval horse for a project of my own, I was confronted by contradictions and blatant falsities perpetuated by a constant regurgitating of assumptions.  A reliance on secondary (and tertiary) sources by many writers constantly perpetuates the same mistruths. Having questioned many assumptions and well-accepted 'truths' found in these varied sources, any refutation had to be accompanied by references, otherwise it comes across as yet another speculation.  The major controversies exist in the size and breeding of horses, (which is probably the most heavily referenced section), with even established experts such as Davis perpetuating the 'big horse' argument.  I hope we have presented the debate fairly; the discussion would be worthless without the references (which compare and contrast a number of sources, or build up a clearer picture by consulting a few).  Other statements are surprisingly controversial; you wouldn't believe how many sources I had to check through to get any understanding of what a rouncey was. Even Montana, who I am working with, questioned my statement that many carts were pulled by three horses.  This is not minutiae; a knowledge of the type and size of horse can be gained from the fact it required three horses to pull a two-wheeled hay cart.  Most people's knowledge of medieval horses comes from TV and film (where, for example, you won't see five horses in tandem pulling a carriage) or from seeing modern horses at work, coupled with a few unsourced articles about knights. Unfortunately, everyone then assumes they have it right. I hope this article goes some way towards establishing the current accepted (ie referenced from reputable sources) view.
 * As for your comment that the constant footnoting renders the prose difficult to read, that is unfortunate. Personally, I find Wikipedia's footnote system excellent; much better, in most situations, than the Harvard style.  I even find the blue of the superscript easy to 'blank out' if I am merely reading. I guess this comes down to preference. It would be a shame to lose attested accuracy to perceived 'readability' issues.
 * I hope this clarifies our reasoning for the current format. It does not mean everything is set in stone, cannot be improved, or that your input is unwelcome. Gwinva 11:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not contrasting Harvard referencing with footnotes, but rather the idea that mere ignorance is a valid reason to question a statement. Neither was I suggesting that all footnotes are evil. Personally, I tend to choose a middle ground for Swedish language and medieval cuisine, the two FAs that I've contributed to the most. And just you try calling language an uncontroversial issue... :-)
 * Accuracy is not lost because every other sentence doesn't have a footnote after it. A reliable fact is still a reliable fact and no amount of personal opinion will change that. The issue is rather if there are good reasons to question it. Saying "I didn't know that, so you have to reference it" is not a valid argument in my book, especially not when someone asks for more footnotes by picking out completely random facts, as is frequently done in reviews of both GAs and FAs nowadays.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwinva. Your explanation is better than mine. Indeed, I myself have learned a tremendous amount from this project and can absolutely vouch for the plethora of misinformation that exists out there. Montanabw 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter, just let it go. This is a waste of time.  Montanabw 02:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination
Ok, this debate seems to have gotten a little bit acerbic. I think this is a great article, and I sure hope it passes GA nomination, I'd just like to say a few things: 1. The lead section is a bit short, and doesn't seem to follow WP:LEAD as a "concise overview of the article". 2. There should be seperate 'notes' and 'reference' sections. A seperate reference section is good for anyone looking for further reading. And though the 'a b c d...'-format works well for web sites, when it comes to books, there should really be seperate notes leading to seperate page numbers. 3. While I appreciate the inclusion of Prestwich's Armies and Warfare, I'm missing what is probably the best book written on medieval warhorses in recent years: Andrew Ayton's Knights and Warhorses: Military Service and the English Aristocracy under Edward III. Good Luck! Lampman 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lampman and Gwinva, I'll break out notes and references, though I am a little fuzzy on the difference...if by "references" you essentially mean a bibliography, I get it. As for the notes, there a simpler way to cite page numbers than having to include the whole bibliographical citation each time?  As in "Gies, p. 2" or something?  Got a helpful wikilink to policy on that one?  We stuck the page numbers in embedded comments in case we DID need them, so that won't be horribly hard to do, just painstaking and time-consuming. Montanabw 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Gwinva, I think I'll leave you to look over the intro for now. I am terrible at intros.  Montanabw 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed the footnote style; it seems easier to read. Noticed that a few of refs haven't got page nos: see if you can add any.  I'll fiddle around with the intro later, but right now I've run out of time.Gwinva 12:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant, it's much better now. Without page references the notes are almost worthless, as any reader who wants to consult the ref will have to scour through the whole book. There are still a few missing, but I guess that'll be taken care of. The lead section still needs expansion; an article this size should have at least two paragraphs to comprehensively cover all the main points.

As for the number of footnotes, I personally lean more towards a 'less is more'-approach. But that's a wider discussion, and should in no way influence the passing of this article for GA-status. Lampman 13:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)