User talk:Gwinva/Archive 1

Common Ridings

the riding of the marches commermorates the riding of the burgh lands, an important and dangerous job many years ago, the casting of the colours in selkirk's market square commermorates the fallen of flodden, i have mainly made the site from my own personal knowledge so please feel free to change or challenge any of it. i started the site after spending most of my time arguing that gaelic shouldn't go on the wiki sites for towns that do not and have never spoken gaelic, so if you agree with me there, support is most welcome retro_junkies 10:38, 15 March 2007

Messages for Gwinva...

Hi, I have sign your entry on WP:NOVELS and took a look at the Nigel Tranter pages, who as it happens I have a passing interest in as well. Very nice start. Thanks for your input on these. Just a thought on the 3 list articles could they be renamed to include the work "set" or somthing like it as the current article name suggests that they (the novels that is) were written during these preiods which is planely incorrect. Thanks look forward to seeing you about the project and the Nigel Tranter articles more. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename articles reponse

No problem, any more help or a second opinion let me know. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An Invite to join Novels WikiProject

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels". We make no length distinction so all narrative prose fiction is of interest. This includes Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. Articles about the works themselves and the forms and genres.

As you have shown an interest in Nigel Tranter we thought you might like to take an interest in this well established WikiProject.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Gwina, Welcome as a Wikipedia editor. I had a question about your recent new article, Saint Theneva (a good looking stub, by the way). Wikipedia naming conventions for saints prefers the use of "Name" for article titles, as opposed to "Saint Name." If it is alright with you, I would like to go ahead and put in a request for the article to be moved to the page Theneva (currently a redirect page). Just let me know. If you would like more info about working with saints articles, come by and visit the Saints WikiProject. Thanks, and again, Welcome. -- Pastordavid 17:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply, I've put in a requested move. -- Pastordavid 21:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello hello

Ah, thank you! You see, now I just feel like I look as if I was attention-seeking... ;-) Angmering 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Foyle's War

Hey Gwinva, I've been seeing that you've been improving the Foyle's War pages, and I must say, great job thus far! Anyway, it is such a great show, and I am onto the Series 2 DVDs now.. To the point, did you want to partner up in improving those pages? I usually like to create episodic pages, though I am not quite good at adding actual summaries.. Also, do you know anything about the whole airdate thing for Series 5? A user (not registered) has said that Series 5 has aired in other countries previously (this is the actual edit), but I could not find a source.. Anyway, I would not mind at all if you did not wish to do this, just an idea :) .. Have a nice day! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Foyle's War 5 was transmitted in some European countries (Denmark, Sweden and, I think, Finland) in September 2006 and New Zealand in February 2007. The exact Danish & NZ airdates are recorded at foyleswar.com. Florrie 09:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gwinva, okay, well, you start off what you think would need to be done. Also, I have not read any spoilers for later seasons IIRC, so it's all good.. I will start creating the episode pages if that's okay.. Also, I will be adding the original airdates for Series 5 in a moment, from the site Florrie gave.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as of now, there are episode articles for 1x01-2x04. I will be adding 3x01-5x02 in the coming days.. Also, a bit off topic, I am onto the Series 2 finale of Foyle's War (The Funk Hole). Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just finished The Funk Hole and Series 3 this weekend.. Anyway, in my opinion, Series 3 is the best series so far of FW.. :P I cannot wait until PBS airs FW4 and 5 this summer on PBS :P .. Also, check out my edits to the FW episode list page :) .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey also, what would you think of a Foyle's War WikiProject? You can reply with comments here. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 06:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Horses in Warfare

Checked out the sandbox, lots of good work in there. I strongly recommend adding the references right into the test as footnotes as you go...for this article we have to sooner or later, and I pretty much learned the hard way that sooner is better.

For an example of an article footnoted up the wazoo even more than the sections I worked on most in Horses in Warfare, check out Arabian horse or Equine nutrition. The best way to look at the breed types is to describe the body build of palfreys, destriers, etc... Don't even TRY to link to modern breeds, thereing lies both edit wars and insanity! <grin> The "Spanish" horse was indeed recognized as the finest, the Andalusian horse as a breed didn't have a stud book until the 1300's but the prototype was older. You can look at the Iberian horse article too ... the Moorish invasions had brought Arabian horse and Barb blood to Europe, adding lightness and agility to native stock. (There probably were earlier infusions too, there are references to light horses brought to Rome via Carthage, and of the Romans getting fine horses from Spain, but this article is on horses and warfare, not the development of horse breeds, so no need to get too anal about the issue).

If you go way back to the domestication of the horse and the Horse#The_.22Four_Foundations.22_theory wild prototypes (described better in the horse article than the domestication article, IMHO), there is the "four foundations" theory of horse breed development, essentially that there were four wild prototypes of early Equus Caballus, each adapted to the environment it lived in. The "forest horse" of Europe was the precursor to the warmblood, the "oriental horse" was the precursor to the Arabian, Barb and Turkoman horses, the "Steppe horse" was essentially the Tarpan, and the "draft" prototype appears to have been an ancestor of both the shetland pony and the draft horse (probably looked something like a Norwegian Fjord Horse). Point is, the people of Europe obtained horses of these different types as they traveled and traded, and by the middle ages had access to all four type from which to mix and match.

As for the women's section, check out the history of the sidesaddle, which gives you some basics. There is also a lot of nonsense out there and too little solid material. (God knows I had junk to clear out of the section of the Cowboy article on Cowgirls!) Fortunately, we always have Joan of Arc <grin> -- but for the horse in warfare article, remember the focus there is on the animal not so much who rode it. Montanabw 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, there is sort of a link to the "humours" in that hot and cold blood related to disposition but it isn't quite direct. Essentially, the "hot-blooded" breeds are the light, agile, fiery horses like Arabians, Barbs and Thoroughbreds. "Cold-blooded" breeds are draft horses -- indeed the phlegmatic (calm) versus the choleric (hot - I think?) disposition. "Warmblood" today has two meanings, one being a reference to any cross between hot blood and cold blood breeds, the more modern useage is a specific term of art referring to breeds used in sport horse events like Oldenburgs, Trakhners, Hanoverians, etc...hope this helps. Montanabw 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that even today, worldwide, taken as a whole, a 14.2 to 16 hand horse is still a perfectly average size for a riding horse. The big 16.2 to 17.2 warmblood is a staple of the modern Olympics and show jumping/dressage world, but it is hardly a universal type. And many horses are a bit under the technical 14.2 hand cutoff between horses and ponies...the truth is, any horse over about 13 hands can carry an adult rider (though tall people look a bit ridiculous on one that short) -- just look at the horses being ridden in artwork of ancient Greece -- you can see the riders' legs curled around their barrels, they couldn't have been over 14 hands in some cases! Just an aside. Montanabw 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, note recent edit on article by Wandal...this is the asshole we are up against! Has all the social skills of Atilla the Hun, but usually he can be counted on to shatter anything that looks like an assumption. Footnote up the wazoo and he usually goes away. An absolute thorn in my side by his obnoxious manner, even if he is correct. Montanabw 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind answering questions; you are the one who is digging up footnotes and references, that's tough work!

But to answer some of your questions, Read this article: http://www.florilegium.org/files/ANIMALS/warhorse-size-art.html ""A Refutation of the Myth of the Giant Medieval Warhorse" by Siobhan ni Seaghdha, OP" It may be very useful to you overall, and possibly a good reference for some of your work. In short, that author says a rouncy is simply a riding horse. As I am not super familiar with the term, it may or may not be a synonym for "palfrey." http://www.netserf.org/Glossary/r.cfm says a Rouncy is an "ordinary" horse. Other sources state that Palfreys are fine-blooded horses. I suppose that in this contest, if we compared horses to cars, a Rouncy is sort of like a Toyota Camry, a Palfrey is like a Lexus, and a Destrier is a SUV!

In any case, it clearly isn't a destrier, or war horse. Thus, in analysing your sources, keep in mind that the "worth" of a horse has a lot to do with who is doing the evaluation...a shetland pony would be "worthless" to a knight, but a big destrier would be worthless to a coal miner!

Also, keep in mind what this article says about a "stocky" horse, as opposed to a tall or heavy horse. Height alone, or even weight, doesn't necessarily correlate to things like saddle fit...Some horses are built in their midsection, where the saddle goes, like apples (flat on top) and others like pears (narrow on top, fat below). For example, a small Arabian or Morgan nonetheless has a very wide, flat back. Some friends of mine tried my wide Arabian tree saddle on their 15.3-16 hand, very stocky, draft-type Norwegian Fjords and it was wide enough to fit them! (though was too short in the length of the tree, so it looked a bit silly, but it didn't pinch.) A saddle that fits a 16 hand Thoroughbred or Saddlebred is often too narrow for an Arabian and pinches their backs. Saddles designed for ponies sometimes are wide enough to fit full-sized horses because ponies are so round (though again, they are so short that they look silly). I currently have a "cow horse" type Arabian with a rotund little belly who measures out to almost a warmblood-width saddle. Her back is like the top of a table, yet she isn't even 14.3 ... Montanabw 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fun, isn't it? With the prevalence of the Destrier dropping by the 17th century, it was because warfare itself changed: note the Horses in Warfare article itself -- the longbow or gunpowder (pick your theory) made rider armour obsolete, and with it the destrier. Horses in warfare therefore went back to being light calvary, officer's chargers (note painting of Napoleon), infantry horses, pack horses, but indeed the biggest horses would no longer be of any use for attack.

With the demise of the armoured knight, big, heavy horses would still be useful with "modern" (i.e. gunpowder era) warfare to pull heavy loads...moving artillery into place, hauling cannons, supplies, and such. But even then, a large middleweight team of horses with some stamina and agility would be preferable to a slow-moving farm horse, and hence I suspect (though can't cite to evidence) that the great horse sort of bifurcated by selective breeding into the heavy but agile carriage horse breeds like the Friesian and the Dutch Harness Horse, while others were selectively bred to be the slower farm horse draft breeds of today. The modern farm draft horse can pull great weights slowly...like a plow, or a sled full of rocks. A farm horse can't move real fast, but like a tractor, they can pull a lot of weight. A horse used to haul around things in war would have to be big and on the heavy side, but with long legs -- they wouldn't have to pull huge amounts of weight, but would have to be able to move quickly to get things where they needed to be when they needed to be there. Am I making sense? Montanabw 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Destrier needs the most help. Then, maybe see if there are articles on Palfreys and Rounceys, either fix them or create them, and then make lots of wikilinks between all three AND wikilink Horses in warfare to them. Then, how about putting your suggested additions to Horses in Warfare into the talk page, and we both can tweak at them there and incorporate them into the article itself. (Some material in there is OK as is, I hope) A separate medieval horses article may not be needed, but let's see how long the section in Horses in Warfare gets first. After all, the war horses in the ancient world section is pretty significant too. (In other articles, like Horse, the work was done in the main article and then broken out with a wikilink when it got really long...). Don't sweat the stuff on feeding and such in the main article, though it could be fun in the Destrier article. Hope this helps. Montanabw 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Horse breeding article?

Flag on the talk page the concerns you have with the horse breeding article, it's been on my general cleanup project list for a while, but there are so many areas that need work, I'd appreciate a note there as to what problems it is having vis a vis your horses in warfare research. Montanabw 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right!

You are right, we need a separate article on medieval horses! The sandbox is wonderful -- and huge! I think what I will do is grab the briefest summary of materials from what you put there, insert them into the main article, then create a "Main" link to a new article which I shall title something like "Medieval horses" or something (still thinking about it) and plop all your sandbox stuff from horses in warfare into it. I really like the work you have been doing. I started to edit, rearrange and play around with it a bit, but I think it's time to make it into a real article all its own and edit from there! Wow! I am impressed with what you have done! Montanabw 05:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Gaits

Deb Bennett's Book Conquerers: Roots of New World Horsemanship (cited in Horses in Warfare) is a good source on this, if you can find a library copy, she has good material (I don't agree with everything she says, but her info on the Spanish, on European history, and on the four foundations theory is particularly good.)

<<Rounceys, palfreys, jennets and hackneys could be amblers or trotters (ok so far, although one book I have here says ambling is a natural gait and they had to be trained to trot, which runs counter to what the Wikipedia articles say)>>

Depends on the breed. The trot is a natural two-beat gait that covers a lot of ground without tiring the horse, you see wild horses doing it, but it is rather rough to ride (if you don't know how) and can be quite tiring for even an experienced rider, especially one loaded with gear. (anything not tied down firmly will bounce all over the place!)

Ambling horses were preferred in medieval times...the "amble" refers to a number of different gaits, but regardless of the details of the footfall patterns, all of them are four beat gaits that are much smoother to ride than a trot, and for horses naturally bred to them, no more tiring than a trot.

Today most horses trot naturally but have to be trained to do the "ambling" gaits -- ans some can't do them at all! However, some gaited breeds, like the Tennessee Walker and the Paso Fino, don't really trot very easily and I have seen some that don't trot at all. So, historically, which type of horse -- a trotter or an ambler -- was in the majority probably depends on where you lived.

A few horses pace, not that many. In comfort to the rider, the pace is more comfortable than a trot, but less comfortable than the amble.

According to Bennett, people whose horses trotted were those who culturally did most of their horseback riding at a gallop -- the desert Bedouin, for example...they'd ride camels (camels pace, a little more comfortable than a trot) to battle, then switch to their horses to run like hell in a raid or attack!

There is a modern equivalent: Think of people who race motorcycles ... they haul their motorcycle on a trailer to the meet, while they are in air-conditioned comfort of the tow vehicle, then they unload the trailer and get on the motorbike to race...you sure wouldn't race the towing vehicle, but if you rode the motorbike all the way to the race, you'd be too tired to compete! <grin>

<<The destrier and courser were both runners ('courser' comes from Latin cursus, or 'run'). What sort of gait would that be? >>

A gallop, basically. If slow, a canter. As noted above, according to Bennett, most horses that ran (galloped) for a living probably also trotted rather than ambled, though some horses can do both.

<<Sources suggest warhorses didn't trot (hard to do in armour), so what pace would they keep when not running? ie. not actually charging. I remember reading in a non-academic book a comment about destriers being kept to a slow walk so they didn't tire>>

A horse can walk faster than a person can (horses walk at about 4 mph, people at 2-3 mph), so that's not a huge issue, but my guess (and this is a guess but based on Bennett and on modern descendants such as the Friesian, Andalusian and Lipizzaner, who all trot) is that they could trot, and probably did so when not in armour. We know that knights would ride a light horse, (usually one that ambled, apparently) to the battle site, then armour up, mount the charger, and travel a relatively short distance to the actual fight.

From the staging area to the battle, if trotting bounced around the armor too much and the horse didn't amble (and the modern descendants aren't built to amble), they would probably walk or canter -- the canter is a slower, trained version of the gallop. It's somewhat tiring to the horse, they can't sustain it for more than a few miles at a stretch without a rest, but is not as tiring as a full-blown gallop.

You can see this sort of thing at horse race meets...the outriders and some race officials are also mounted on horses, and have to go back and forth a lot between races, during the post parade, etc., and usually canter to do so ... then you sometimes see them standing around taking a short rest when the actual race is on the track, unless there is big trouble, then they gallop onto the track to help a thrown rider, catch a loose horse, etc...

You can also look at endurance riding. The longest races are 100 miles, the winners come in at about 12 hours. Mostly they trot, with short walks for rest and short stretches of canter or a light gallop when the terrain is particularly favorable. A horse walks at 4 mph, trots at about 8-10 mph, canters at 12-15 mph, and gallops faster, depending on the horse (modern thoroughbreds are clocked at 35-40 mph, I think the world record for Quarter Horses in a short sprint was over 50 mph)

So, some of this is my theory, some is how I read the work of Deb Bennett and others. Hope this helps! Montanabw 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

yakity Yak

You wrote: "My questions and edits seem to take up much of your time at the moment; it does not go unappreciated."

AH! But you don't know the lengths to which I will go to avoid having to do footnotes! heh, heh, heh... Montanabw 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, for similar reasons, I can't figure out why I wound up editing an article about feral cats or why I spend time on military stuff... Wikipedia, it's not just a hobby, it's an addiction! Montanabw 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See replies on the Medieval horses page. The daVinci sketches I've seen look very much like a modern Andalusian or a Dressage-bred warmblood. The descriptions are of a well-built horse with powerful conformation. I think the biggest barrier on all this stuff is the imprecision of words like "large" or "small." I really liked the reference to the Lithuanian Draught. That is really helpful! By the way, I measured the "skinny" filly last night. Weight tape says she's 900 pounds, she's also got a bit more weight coming off of winter where she has been sitting around a lot. So, basically there's a 60-80 pound difference between two full-grown mares of the same breed and same height on the same basic diet at the same location. Both mares are quite refined Arabians, "palfrey"-like horses (though they both trot, not amble). Add an inch of height and totally different breeding for lots of bulk and muscle, that could amount to a 150-200 pound difference, easily. Think of the weight range for, say people who are all 5'9" tall. You can have both a 110 lb emaciated supermodel and a 220 pound professional wrestler! Same height, twice the weight. <grin> Montanabw 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Horseshoes

Here is the best online article I have found so far on the history of horseshoes:

http://www.horseshoes.com/advice/invtshoe/winvhrs.htm

Some really interesting stuff on iron in general. Also explains why it's so hard to figure out when horseshoes were invented -- people recycled!

Long story short, your sources are probably not too far off. We probably can credit horseshoes to being widely used in the Middle Ages, even if invented earlier. Looks from this article (and it is well-sourced) that the horseshoe was probably NOT in Europe, at least much, as late as 480 AD, but that the Koran (c. 610 AD) mentions horses' hooves striking fire from rocks, and trust me, barefoot horses can't do that, it requires metal shoes.

So basically the answer is that MAYBE the late Roman period had horseshoes, there is pretty good evidence that horseshoes were around in the Carolingian period c 700-800, but the most solid evidence is a specific reference in AD 910. I'm also going to park this info on the Horseshoe talk page, someone there was asking. Montanabw 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied to your last missive on my talk page Montanabw 17:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Saddles

You will find this saddle company web site of mild interest to your research: http://www.wintec.net.au/easyChangeGulletSystem/index.html

The point is that, when figuring out the horses who wore medieval tack, size of horse and the width of their backs are not necessarily related. It's all about how their ribcage is built, and the height of their withers. my smallish 14.2-15 h Arabians all take the two WIDEST sizes in this brand of saddle, while a big, 17-hand Thoroughbred may take the medium or narrow sizes. I know a 16 hand quarter horse who wears a narrower saddle than any of my horses, and this horse looks flat-out fat to any observer. However, many Warmbloods do need even wider saddles than Arabians or Morgans. The skeletal studies are the most valuable, when they are out there. I agree, I gotta get some of Hyland's books... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Page move --damn!

Well, that will teach me to put up an article for GA, we got ourselves a self-appointed wikipedia format fanatic. Sigh. Sorry about that, I chewed on the guy for moving the page, and I changed the disambiguation template to a see also template. But I won't move it back for a while, we DID have this discussion, after all. Not that hard to move back, what do you think? Should we? Montanabw 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I can move it back if you want me to. I suppose it's 6 one way and half-dozen the other... I liked your arguments for "medieval" things... is there a Middle Ages project chat board where we could put up the question for whatever guidelines or consensus there is out there? Montanabw 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We cannot over-cite! I'll look at the stuff you parked. Sometimes you can leave it in the article if you cite it early on. Don't be in too big a hurry to change the article, they give us a little time. Montanabw 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, we can mostly ignore Peter Isotalo. Most of what he says is just stupid nitpicking. The other guy was probably correct, though a few non-cites don't kill GA, I should know, I've had two articles pass with them in. And we are not over-killing cites. Later we may consolidate a few if needed, but for now, lodr knows how people fight about the facts! Montanabw 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Horse transports in the Middle Ages, 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.

--Carabinieri 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Endurance of horses

Over long journeys, we can only look to historical records, as you have, and compare them to what modern people do and take our best guess. Here's some other situations that may provide guidance:

There were extensive studies done in the early 20th century by the US Cavalry. This is really interesting: http://europauniversitypress.co.uk/journal Read in particular, "Results of Five endurance tests." The article in general is very pro-Arabian, (which is OK with me! <grin>) but the data speaks for itself and was very specific as to distance, weight carried, etc.

While in the 20th century, these horses were probably fed better than their medieval counterparts, they weren't fed THAT much and grain doesn't change a whole lot!

Note too that, just like comparing human sprinters to marathon runners, smaller, slimmer horses (like Arabs or Barbs, bloodstock for the palfrey, and probably for many rounceys and coursers, as well as the hobby) are better for distance, and bigger, heavily muscled horses (like the modern Andalusian or the medieval Destrier -- or even the modern American Quarter Horse) are better for short, fast spurts of speed.

A couple other helpful examples: Appaloosa -- read about the flight of the Nez Perce Indians, mostly women and children, led by Chief Joseph. They had horses, baggage, and were being chased by the army for about 1,200 miles. But they did stop a lot, the trek lasted several months. see also: http://www.fs.fed.us/npnht/index.shtml The modern Appaloosa organization does a reenactment ride each year, covering the route 100 miles at a time, over (I think) a five day period, but it's open to basically any idiot with a horse. (Though I think the horses have to be Appaloosas, it's a promotional thing) To give you a sense of it: http://www.fs.fed.us/npnht/trailride/

So long story short, a modern fat lazy person riding their "pasture potato" horse can still do 20 miles a day for a week without killing themselves. (After day one, they might beg to differ, but no one has died yet!)

Pony Express -- also a more recent event, traveling from Missouri to California. They literally ran their horses most of the way, and to do so needed to change horses every 15 miles or so, riders changed off every 100 miles. They went almost 2000 miles in an average of 10 days. http://www.ponyexpress.org/history.htm There are also a bunch of reenactment rides out there, usually set at about 25 miles a day for several days.

A horse is definitely less tired if running loose or being led that if carrying a rider. So people, when they could, definitely would ride one horse to the battle and fight on another. (Or, in the case of the Bedouin, they'd ride a camel to the battle, then switch to their horse!)

Leading a horse wouldn't slow you down much. It would take more time to move a whole bunch of people and horses, though, because you have supply issues. If the army gets ahead of their baggage train and resupply, they can be in trouble! (See Battle of the Little Bighorn )

The other issue in moving a large group is feeding the animals. With a bigger group, you have to either pack more feed, or spead the animals out over a wider area to graze at night.

On cattle drives in the 1800s, the cowboys would herd a string of horses along with the cattle and then trade off on different animals periodically. In modern times, when chasing cows out of the high country all day, (not that unlike battle for the horse, lots of turns and spurts of speed over rough terrain) cowboys will go through one to three horses a day, depending on how much running around they have to do.

Horses have better vision at night than people, so nighttime fighting would be more limited by the capacity of humans than horses, though of course, not even horses see as well at night as during the day-- they aren't cats!

Hope this helps! Montanabw 16:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back from your wikibreak! Horses in the Middle Ages has been quiet, relatively little action, whew!

I though you'd be interested in this, given your earlier question about how far people could travel on horseback. This September, a group is sponsoring an endurance ride over the entire length of the Santa Fe trail, a total of 515 miles in 13 days, with the idea that everyone will cover 50 to 55 miles a day, traveling 10 of the 13 days. They allow people to trade off horses each day, but any given day they must stay on the same horse for the entire 50 miles. They also have a category for "super teams" of four riders with no more than 10 horses between them who will also compete. Equus magazine had a short article on it and their web site is www.sfhorserace.com This pace would be impossible for an army or large group of people to cover, but probably close to doable, even in the Middle Ages, on fast messenger-type horses (Arabian type or early proto-Thoroughbred type) that were well fed, in good condition and the rider -- also well-fed and well-conditioned -- being given a fresh horse each day. The Persian empire had some type of messenger service like this, and the Romans also must have had some type of couriers. Be interesting to know the distances and times they traveled. Interesting, anyway. Montanabw 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Archery

Hi! Hope this doesn't look like butting in or eavesdropping! Basically, I noticed in User_talk:Montanabw, when you were talking about war horses, you said that longbow arrows couldn't penetrate plate or chain armour. That's kind of what academics used to think, until they started talking to archers, found the deformed skeletons of ancient archers, found the remains of bows in the Mary Rose, etc. Now, it's pretty well established (although it hasn't yet filtered into all textbooks and documentaries!) that longbowmen used bows with pulling power around 200 lbs, not the 90 lbs that people used to show they couldn't penetrate armour. Basically, these bows were immense! At one point, every man in England had to spend a day a week practising archery, and those who were good at it did nothing else. They could pull really, really big bows, with incredibly thick staves. These could punch holes in armour. I hope this helps inform your deliberations on war horses! Skittle 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Horses in the Middle Ages GA

As I haven't contributed significantly to the article, I have no problems passing it for the GA nomination. The lead section looks good now; there are still a few page number missing in the notes, but I trust that will be taken care of. Good work! Lampman 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

YAY! I'll babysit it now. Won't make any substantive changes if I can help it! Montanabw 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on Quintain

Thanks for the warning on Quintain. I really thought that one is okay. Plus, since I had popup blocker on, I didn't realize it have that much popups.

BTW, I am mainly researching on martial arts dummy, and I am deciding to incoporate some aspect of medieval dummies in my design. Aside from quintain and pell, did I miss anything else? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

hello

More distance stats

OK, story-writing lady, here's another horses and distance stat: The winner of the Fort Howe 100 mile endurance race, held near Ashland, Montana in June 2006 (translation: rough terrain, semi-mountainous, prairie and forest, hot during the day unless it's pouring cold rain, and in either case, cold as cr** at night) won the race in a time of 10 hours and 24 minutes. Now, the horse wouldn't be expected to go another 100 miles the next day, a horse might do three or four 100 milers a year, tops, plus maybe some 50-milers. Hope this is of interest! Montanabw 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the DW wiki!

Seriously. I suspected there might be one already, but only being a (relatively) recent fan of the program, hadn't found it yet. Much obliged Umrguy42 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Size

More than vaguely interested, it was fascinating to see what they had to say, thanks. I actually have changed my thinking around quite a bit on this matter due to the whole project and some of your research. At root, I believe that most modern horses of almost any breed you can point to are bigger than their ancestors of even 100 years ago, let alone 500 years ago. What strikes me here is figuring out what may have given rise to the "Shire horses (or Percherons, take your pick) are the descendants of the Destrier" thinking--draft horse breeders certainly take it as an element of their faith...why? Are we possibly looking at things like late medieval plate armour that was so elaborate and heavy--but designed entirely for ceremonial purposes--that only a heavy horse could carry it? Don't know.

The Irish Draught is a pretty big horse, but I am personally a person who prefers a riding horse in the 15 hand range, so I find it interesting that the modern "bigger is better" school of horse politics is sort of taking a hit on this. (I don't mind, I am not a fan of the monster 17-hand warmblood) Draughts and Sport horses (and Warmbloods, for that matter) can clearly be identified as a type of horse that became popular with the cavalry of the 18th and 19th centuries, essentially created by crossing thoroughbreds on draft and carriage horses, though it looks like there were also a lot of horses of Arabian horse and Thoroughbred blood back then too. They were all breeds that pretty much spelled the end of the ambling horses, though..speed was what mattered. (One could suggest that the lighter cavalry horse represented the triumph of the rouncey?) FYI, if you ever have a chance to look at an Andalusian, Friesian, or Lipizzaner, these horses could well be the most direct descendants of the destrier. The "cob" as I understand British useage is quite akin to horses like the American Morgan horse, a stout and sturdy riding breed that clearly could pack around a solider and a least some armour.

Well, cool food for thought, thanks for sharing. Montanabw 23:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Our little friend

Weighed in about our little friend's comments. May throw fat on the fire, but this sort pops up from time to time. Don't be bullied by these idiots. They never cite a source and they never offer a constructive edit. They exist to be annoying. Montanabw 21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL about our little friend's mixup of my gender. Had to zing him one more time. Probably will result in another lengthy discussion, but then we can archive the whole thing and get on with life. <giggle> Montanabw 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Way cool reference. Absolutely consistent with other histories I have seen on the Arabian horse of the desert. See Arabian horse (another article I brought up to GA status!), you may find it interesting. Montanabw 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Faurecia

It looks like an ad to me. I was about to Db it myself and checked the history. --Stormbay 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

I fail to see where they're being worked on. Episode articles need to be able to reach the standards of this site. That requires real world information like development and reception notes. That is obviously not happening. To meet the quideline, people working should have had sources ready anyways. We cannot just leave them around, and just hope that one day someone may want to work on them because only a few have the possibility. Unless you have actual sources to back the articles up, please let me revert them. (SeeWP:VPP for the latest discussion). TTN 12:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I never have. It sounds like a British show (not in a negative way, because I'm a big Monty Python's Flying Circus fan), but most British shows are only on BBC. I had a concern, which I noticed on a couple of those other editors talk pages. Matthew made a comment to Ckatz about "are you committed to saving episode pages on Wikipedia?"...is it me, or did that come off slightly like "we'll stage a revolt if we have to". It could just be me. But I've seen a similar thing with the BatmanOnFilm.com people literally saying "if they won't use us as a source, we can all ban together and change all the pages".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed Angie seemed to be trying to form some type of "resistence" too. It's a shame that people feel that have to resort to that. Hopefully, we can get this taskforce up and running and set it up to be fair, but firm in its stance. As for "Yes Minister", I just glanced over it afterwards and saw that it was. An Eighties show (making me a bit too young to have known about it in a first hand way..I only know about Monty Python from my step-father who loved it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. My step-dad isn't that "old", per say. Older than I, but not collecting social security or anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you aren't looking for it, then you aren't spying. What concerns me is that that sort of comment and action is exactly what a CABAL is. Matthew is working in secret (asking to be contacted off Wiki) to develop "tactics", which I guess he plans to use against us? If you "stumble" across more, hold on to them. That's potential Admin Noticeboard stuff, because he's purposefully being deceptive about his actions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On a templates for deletion notice. User:Matthew made the comment: "there's no such thing as in-universe". I thought that was funny. I guess that kind of gives you a clue as to why/how he thinks the way he does.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get some feedback. How do you think this section of my new season format reads? It's only a section, but it was the easiest to go ahead and convert to prose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, it isn't necessary, especially since you are trying to take a break. When I have everything into prose I'll probably bring in everyone to tighten it up, but by then I'll have it on the mainspace. Thanks for the feedback. Bignole 11:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I finally finished the work on the season page. Take a look and tell me what you think (when you have a chance, I know you are busy with the big move and all). It needs a good copyedit for wordiness and word choices, but that's easy to find if the page is implented into the mainspace.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Crediting of the Doctor as John Smith and not Smith.

Hi. I've reverted to using John Smith on both Human Nature (Doctor Who episode) and [[The Family of Blood for the following reasons:

1. We shouldn't cut and paste the credits - cutpastes can be interpreted as copyvios;
2. We should also clarify it for readers as well. Smith, as I have pointed out, can easily refer to the Agent from The Matrix movies as it can to the Doctor's frequent alias.
3. In the case of The Family of Blood, just crediting him as the Doctor removes the thirty minutes he was Smith - and it can appear that the human Smith wasn't in the episode at all.
4. Jeremy Baines was credited as Baines in both sets of credits, but people seem fine with his full name, so why not Smith?

Thanks, Will ^(talk) 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, I'm not blaming you, just telling you why I've being doing it. Will ^(talk) 20:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN

I'm getting really sick of this guy/girl. He/She ruined tens of thousands of hard work by many Wikipedians including myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Angie Y. (talk • contribs)

Take your concerns to User talk:TTN or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass deletion of television articles by TTN, where he/she has the opportunity to reply. Moaning behind his/her back is not constructive. Gwinva 08:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mail armour

Hello,

On the Mail (armour) talk page you provide this quote:

Indeed, experiments undertaken by the Royal Armouries in Leeds have shown that when chain armour is outfitted on a free-flowing dummy, effectively mimicking the human body in motion, as it would be in a military engagement, it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional modern weapon. Sword slashes are deflected, with spear, sword and arrow thrusts effectively stopped by the ring defenses. Even bodkin arrows are unable to penetrate the chain armour in these experiments. When layers of leather, felt or even cloth undergarments are added to the chain armour, the protection is even better. The results of these experiments are confirmed by the injuries recorded on medieval skeletons which have been excavated near battlefields or in medieval cemetries. These skeletons almost exclusively have wounds only to the head or limbs, the torsos remaining protected by armour. Taken from Kelly DeVries, "Medieval Military Surgery", Medieval History Magazine, Vol 1 is 4, December 2003.

The emphasized word has some of us confused. Should it me contemporary weapons? That makes much more sense. And I really want to incorporate the quote into the mail article. Thanks for your help. Mercutio.Wilder 07:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode Notability Issues

Hey I was reading the various discussions on episode policy/guidelines whatever you want to call them, and was wondering, how should we all proceed? I cant really figure out what is, as of now, the consensus as to how to proceed. You were a prominant discussor, and did a lot of page work, so I figured I'd ask you. If you could update me, I'd be much obliged. Thanks. Alcemáe T • C 06:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

TV templates

Gwinva: Hello... thanks for making the television templates. One note... you've been saying that trivia and long summaries should be removed. That's not really what the guidelines call for, so it might be better to rework your statement and say that trivia should be integrated or removed, and that plot summaries should be trimmed. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... I realized that it was a template, rather than a personal page - so I've made the tweaks. Check it out and let me know what you think. thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

List of episodes in Ed, Edd n Eddy

I noticed that you added a tag to one of the pages. You spoke of individual episode articles. That idea has largely been resisted by the community. At one point, I was trying to create these separate pages, only because I wanted to clean up the Wikitables in the season episode pages. The idea was resisted by several editors, so I gave it up. The separate episode articles are now moot, and should be proposed for Afd. I am now vigorously deleting any new links to separate articles. They will always spring up again in the future, as new editors think they are the first to add them. At any rate, I am now deleting any links to separate episode articles with prejudice. It seems that I am the only one who cares any more, except for the drive-by IP editors. Thanks for taking notice. -- Elaich ^talk 06:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I'm keeping tabs on the status of the categories here. If it'll help you or the whole process, feel free to update it. TTN 15:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Hurndall

There were not 10 actors who played the Doctor (in canon episodes)... there were 11. Both Hartnell and Hurndall played the first doctor. That is a fact. it is unencyclopedic to leave Hurndall out of the list.--Dr who1975 14:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN arbitration

This fiasco has gone on far enough! Being civil doesn't work. Angie Y. 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Thanks.

Thanks for redirecting all of those HM articles that I didn't do. Just curious, how did you do it? I would just like to see how other people find it works well so that when I do it, I can do it efficiently. Thanks. I  ^{(said) (did)} 07:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand. Did you manually type your edit summary every time? I  ^{(said) (did)} 08:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Never knew that. Should make it easy. Thanks much. I  ^{(said) (did)} 08:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No Problem

Hey, No problem, glad I could be of service. Peace. Spartan-James 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and all that

Oh no problem. Glad to help. I only have something like 450 pages on my watchlist now (most of the horse breed articles, among others). I care the most about the ones I've made some major contributions on.

So you are moving? Moving is never fun, even when it's across town. Hope all is/was/will be going well.

In other news, to bug you with my stuff, I was at a show out here about a month ago where someone had an Andalusian stallion and was showing it in some hunt seat classes. We don't have many Andalusians out here, and fewer yet that show (most seem to be older horses retired from circuses or exhibition teams and the like, not good at showing, but do a great Spanish Walk...) so I've not seen many younger ones up close in real life, and it has been quite a few years since I saw the last one. What struck me about this guy is that he was HUGE! He was only about 6 or 7 years old, I think, but over 17 hands if he was an inch, though slim, hadn't developed the big cresty neck, though his neck had a nice arch and was well-set. He was also a dark bay (many, many Andalusians are gray, especially what makes its way out here), so the judge and I (I was ring person for the show) were debating between ourselves "what IS that horse?" both of us (and the judge was carded, she was no idiot) thinking he was a big warmblood or something, maybe an Irish Draught (there's a fad out here for those at the moment), but shaking our heads because his head shape and way of going was definitely NOT warmblood, and he was too refined to be a Percheron cross (there are a fair number of those around here). So, being as how I wasn't the judge, I asked. His owner just glowed at me for asking, and told me she had just recently imported him from Spain.

My point in this whole rambling tale is that it is pretty clear that most modern horses of any breed are probably somewhat taller on average than their ancestors in the middle ages. (I'm guessing at least a good hand, even for "little" horses like Arabians, probably more for the bigger ones) The only other Andalusians I have seen out here have mostly been older, mature stallions that always seemed to be all neck, but also quite tall (all at least 16 hands) and, well, fat. They looked like fairly agile tanks (One I knew reasonably well was nicknamed "Sherman," in fact). That and partbreds, which were mostly smaller and slimmer, having mostly been crossed on Quarter Horses (a cross now called an Azteca), or Arabians. Yet, historical records suggest they were all originally somewhat smaller, and the way the art of the time had everyone on horses where their feet dangled well below the belly of the horse, well, you can only blame some of that on a bad artist, it was so consistent in art. An Andalusian like this fellow could have easily qualified as a "great horse" back then, but had the oomph to sustain a battle...put that boy in armor and ask for a gallop at a person on foot, they'd run screaming! In the hunter under saddle classes he was in, when the judge called for the hand gallop, he was down the side of the arena in about five strides (OK, that's an exaggeration, but he easily had twice the length of stride of most of the ordinary Quarter Horse-type animals he was up against.)

So just thought I'd share the observation, given that we have done so much to look at the research on what they really had back when, and how that compares to what is out there today. It is so important to remember that the idea that a horse was the size of a "Hunter," all depends on the culture WRITING the book more than the culture they are writing about, I appreciate you putting me onto some good authors. It is a fascinting study.

Oh, FYI, some more distance stats from the Tevis Cup. Remember this is a 100 mile race in California that basically goes practically from below sea level near Death Valley over the top of the Sierra Nevadas, not sure highest elevation, but close to 10,000 feet. In short, it's extreme terrain. "The fastest win at the Western States Trail Ride was 10 hours and 46 minutes. The slowest win took 16 hours and 23 minutes, and the average win time is 13 hours and 36 minutes, or a rate of 7.48 miles per hour." ( http://www.horsechannel.com/english-horse-training/tevis-cup-27817.aspx ) Another pretty good article here, though the bit on "knee action to get over rocks" is inaccurately stated and made me cringe. http://theunion.com/article/20060727/TODAYSFEATURE/107270125 Well, ta ta for now. Montanabw 16:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability -- Ned Scott 07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC for Angie

Currently an RfC is taking place involving Angie Y. (talk · contribs), here. Your opinions are welcome.

Seraphim ^Whipp 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot Length

Hey, I was trying to find a place where it talks about plot summaries should only be so many lines or words per 10 minutes of display time. For some reason, I think it was in one of the many Episode discussions,and you commented on it. I was hoping you remembered where that was. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then just forget this lol. I'm only pretty sure it was during an Episode discussion. I  ^{(said) (did)} 06:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Found it. And, just incase you were interested, it was "no more than ten words per minute of display time". I don't know where that came from, but if it could be found, it might be an interesting thing to bring up in discussions. Hope your moving is going well lol. I  ^{(said) (did)} 06:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the idea is based on a guideline from the films WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Any specific places this is mentioned on a credible guideline that we can point out? That would immensely help our discussions. I  ^{(said) (did)} 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Friends season 1 is up for review

• Talk:List of Friends episodes#Episode article review (Season 1)

I think we're going to need all voices! -- Jack Merridew 11:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. just saw the big airplane notice, so mebbe not. fyi, it's nice on the other side of the world. Jack Merridew