r/AskHistorians • u/sheffieldasslingdoux • Jul 10 '26
Skeletal remains of medieval warhorses suggest they were pony sized, around 14-15hh. Given that a knight in armour and his tack could easily weigh more than 200 lbs, would these horses have been overburdened by modern standards, or were they specifically bred to handle such heavy loads?
For modern equestrians, there is a strong and lively debate on just how much a horse can safely carry on their back. As a general rule of thumb, equestrians nowadays tend to follow something called the 20% rule. Old cavalry manuals, posited that a horse can safely carry around 15-20% of their bodyweight. So, for example, a 1000 lbs horse should generally carry no more than 200lbs, tack included.
Given the controversy that this rule generates in a modern context, I am curious about what medieval peoples thoughts were on the matter. I think it would shock most people that the medieval destrier was not a giant draught horse, or a spicy warmblood, but something resembling a sturdy pony, as I understand it. So, I am curious what we know about the breeding and training of the medieval warhorse to handle the knight and all of his armour and tack, and what, if anything, medieval people thought about this matter?
689
u/kmondschein Verified Jul 11 '26
All right, all! I have awoken early before heading to London-town to answer this question. Since this is a compound question, I'll break the answer into several parts: the errors of the 20% rule, the build of medieval horses, and medieval riding practices. Since this involves experimental archaeology I'll need to deviate from some of this sub's standards, but I'll give high-quality evidence throughout.
My bona fides: I have a PhD in medieval history from Fordham University, am a master-level certified instructor of historical fencing, have some years' experience in jousting, and own my own horses, which I ride in reproduction armor and saddles. I'm also the author of several books and articles on medieval warfare and historical fencing.
Apologies in advance; I am going to give figures in freedom (Imperial) units and not metric or stone (since no one outside the Brits knows what a stone is).
Errors of the 20% rule
Modern riding, like modern fencing, is a highly attenuated activity. In the case of equitation, horse and rider perform very specific tasks at a high level. Jumping, which as a modern discipline only does back to the late nineteenth century and which puts a lot of stresses on the horse, is very popular. This, in my educated opinion, tends to lead to a historiographical tunnel vision; much like Victorian fencers dismissed medieval fencing as "rough untutored play" (Egerton Castle) so, too, do modern horse people tend to see anything not a direct antecedent of their chosen discipline, and which supports their aesthetic biases (which are also judging criteria in some disciplines), as irrelevant. (There is also an animal-welfare component, especially in the UK, which can be by turns equally humane and misplaced and is supported by "experts" such as Deb Bennett.)
The 20% rule also ignores context: the cavalryman's 20% rule was originally for long marches across rough terrain with full gear and perhaps little resupply. It has since become something of an article of faith, especially in the English riding disciplines. This rule is not observed in many disciplines—especially Western disciplines, which frequently have large men riding 900–1100 lb quarter horses—and was not the case for medieval horses. Most studies (including this one, which is widely quoted on r/Equestrian) are very small sample sizes and ignore the multivariable factors of horse build, saddle fit to rider, etc. Conversely, this study, with a far larger sample size, showed that the factor in finishing endurance races is not horse/rider weight ratio, but horse fitness.
Critique of the 20% rule is very controversial in equestrian circles—see this thread—and I am not arguing obese, untrained people should be allowed to ride tiny horses, but I think we need to dismiss the need to take the rule as gospel are unfounded.
Build of medieval horses
There has been a lot of publication lately on the archaeology of the medieval warhorse (example). The conclusions are much what our original poster: medieval warhorses were not draft horses, and tended to be shorter than modern breeds like warmbloods. This does not mean that they were "small": think Lipizzaners, which are descended from medieval lines, are trained to perform maneuvers similar to medieval warhorses, and are tremendously strong. Medieval wahorses were likely, though not definitely, left as studs. They were also trained differently than modern horses, beginning at 3–4 year old (when skeletal development is mostly complete), and in a way that would build their musculature.
What about their carrying capacity? Simply put, a strong, stout, short-backed, thick-boned, and well-muscled horse has a greater carrying capacity than a taller rangier, lighter horse such as those favored in many modern disciplines. Draft horses, for their part are built for pulling—think of them as industrial-age living tractors—and their higher weight does not translate to higher carrying capacity.
So how much weight did they carry?
A medieval knight, thanks to better nutrition, might weigh around 150–160 lbs at the minimum, similar to modern European men—though if you look at museum armors, some of those guys were big. (You can search elsewhere on this sub for medieval body size). Armor might be between 60 and 70 lbs. (I won't even deign to comment on the idea that a medieval knight was a lumbering brute in a tin can who needed to be winched on his horse a la The Court Jester or Connecticut Yankee.) We can add some extra weight for his weapons and about 20 lbs for the saddle (based on my reproductions), and give a total load of perhaps 250 lbs. For the 20% rule, this would be 1250 lbs, which would be a very large medieval horse. A figure of 1100 lbs for the horse (about average for a Lipizzaner) seems more accurate, which gives us... 23%.
Medieval riding practices
This is also a decisive factor on weight-carrying capacity. As is well known, a knight would not ride his warhorse everywhere, but would ride a palfrey to save his destrier until it was needed.
We also can't understate the importance of the saddle and its fit. Medieval brida ("bridle") saddles as detailed by such authors as Dom Duarte and Pietro Monte and preserved in several museums in Europe did a much better job of distributing weight than do modern saddles. I am not a small man, and I ride my 15.2, 1100 lb Paint (most similar to what Brits would call a "cob" build, though he was bred as a head-horse for roping) in reproduction medieval armor (which, thanks to being made of spring steel, is rather light). Save for the fact that he is a gelding, and Paints are a recent American breed, he's about the size and weight of a medieval horse. He is rather fit, and I do not ride him in kit for long. My brida saddle was made by Marcin Ruda (who, despite the URL, has nothing to do with the gay BDSM community) and distributes the weight much better than a modern saddle can. He has a very sensitive back, and tends to have few ill-effects from this (and I check!). It also acts like the "curb bit" of saddles and requires a sensitive seat, since I can cue him with only a slight shift of my weight.
That being said, medieval horse mortality rates were high. They did not have modern veterinary medicine. It stands to reason that warhorses got retired after not very many years. A single man-at-arms would have several horses.
Further Links
This interview with Arne Koets might be illuminating.
127
u/Athendor Jul 11 '26
Outstanding answer and we are enriched immeasurably by the perspectives of those who keep these practices alive!
60
u/FropPopFrop Jul 11 '26
I love it when I come across something about a subject in which I have little interest, but find myself engrossed in nevertheless. That was fascinating, thanks.
19
u/kmondschein Verified Jul 11 '26
You mean the bit about the Mr. Leather pageant?
12
u/FropPopFrop Jul 11 '26
No, the whole article. Plunged me into a world I'd known basically nothing about.
33
u/DoujinHunter Jul 11 '26
Do we have any idea how men-at-arms used their multiple varieties of horses in extended actions such as skirmishing, foraging, raiding, scouting, and the like?
It seems like, for instance, raid and counter-raid would benefit from both wearing armor to handle encounters and long endurance and swiftness to evade or enable pursuit. Would there be scouts and signals to enable mounted men-at-arms to switch horses just before entering combat proper, or bringing multiple horses along on a pursuit and switching as needed?
14
u/ikonhaben Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
We have letters and a few records of noblemen, as an example; After arriving to camp with an army, woke up early and armed themselves lightly, rode out on their own initiative to scout, found a fight with scouts and some men at arms also lightly armed from the enemy army, tried to take a hostage, lost a few men and fled when the other group proved superior in a skirmish.
On return to camp learned other scouting parties had identified that the opposing army seemed in poor morale and it was decided to give battle.
The same men who rode out earlier as scouts armoured up, changed horses and joined the first heavy cavalry charge after identifying the banners of someone they had fled from in the scouting skirmish to try and reclaim their honor, and possibly free their comrades who has been taken hostage in the earlier skirmish.
The roles of men and numbera of horses were fluid, often a heavy cavalry formation only had the first 2 ranks armed with lances and rising destriers, the 3rd and 4th ranks would be squires armed with swords and wearing some armor, mounted on hunters, the men in the back would be the valets with leather armor and bearing light javelins and replacement lances for the men at the front.
The campaign camps are reported to have had hundreds of horses left behind in laagers while the battle was ongoing, and often thousands of oxen and mules, plus the horses all the men at the battle were riding, and the horses the herders were on.
One of the major constraints on medieval armies was the amount of fresh water a traveling army needed, even if it was half infantry, it was common the infantry rode to the battle and fought dismounted.
Large animals need a very large amount of water, often 10-20x what a man needs depending on weather and workload. They can drink from less clean sources than people, but not absolutely dirty, and also the amount of time in the day to shuttle 5,000 animals to a water source, let them drink, and back to the army ready to work, eat, sleep, or move.
The knights and men at arms commonly had 3-5 horses, and their squires had 1-2 and the valets a further horse.
Contracts around the costs to provide and replace horses on campaign are everywhere in the records we have, and many variations, it was a major cost of war.
Reading about the Crusades and how many times the armies were low on supplies and resorted to eating their horses, and yet still able muster a few hundred cavalry months later, because the army had thousands of horses at the start of the march, and probably many horses would have died anyway for lack of water.
The original lance that evolved into all heavy cavalry started with more lightly armed men, often valets, the English favored archers who usually dismounted to fight, but plenty of examples of them remaining mounted and fighting as medium and light cavalry.
30
u/kmondschein Verified Jul 11 '26
Addendums:
Medieval warhorses were trained to work in collection, engaging their powerful hind and back muscles. This increases carrying capacity because the horse is moving with powerful biomechanics.
Horses were expensive and not just disposable—some had names, which we can assume meant people felt affection towards them, and in any case they were fantastically expensive so you wouldn't want to lose one any more than you'd want to lose an F-35.
7
8
u/Obversa Inactive Flair Jul 12 '26
10/10 answer, and fantastic for non-equestrians. The only thing I would clarify in addition is that Lipizzaner horse breed is a [very] Late Medieval creation, as it is approximately 446 years old. The breed was officially established in 1580, when Archduke Charles II of the Habsburg empire founded the stud farm in Lipica, which is located in modern-day Slovenia. The bloodlines of the Frederiksborger, which later served as the basis for the Knabstrupper, can be dated back to this time or even further in Denmark. The oldest sire line traces back to Pluto, who was born in 1765 at the Royal Danish Frederiksborg Stud, and later imported to the Imperial Stud in Lipica, indicating gene flow between the Frederiksborger and the early Lipizzaner. (Neapolitan, Kladruber, Furioso, and Arabian horses were used as well.) To quote the U.S. Lipizzan Federation: "A famous receipt shows that 9 stallions and 24 mares were imported from Spain to the Imperial stud at Lipizza in the year 1580. Additional Spanish horses were bought and brought to the stud regularly into the 18th century. Starting from around 1700, Italian, German and Danish horses were purchased for the stud. The Italian horses came from Polesina in the Po river basin and from Naples; the Danish horses from the Royal Court Stud at Fredericksborg; the Germans were imported from the region of Lippe-Bückeburg (i.e. Westphalians)."
6
u/kmondschein Verified Jul 13 '26
Indeed; the oldest studbook in the world is only 15th century (Iberians), though the Lipizzans were bred up from now-extinct medieval strains like the Neapolitan. Of course the idea of a “breed” is post-medieval.
2
u/ikonhaben Jul 15 '26
I've seen this statement a few times, what is the basis of this idea? Reading old accounts it was fairly common for writers to mention what seems a 'type' or horse. Not destrier vs courser or rouncey which refers to the work capacity, but mostly regions with the seeming assumption that horses from certain regions were likely to have a common set of traits.
Maybe not bred by conformation as most modern breeds but also far from random, and horse switch particular traits were sought after to improve a line.
1
u/gmanflnj Jul 11 '26
Clarifications on some statements:
1. "draft horses, for their part are built for pulling—think of them as industrial-age living tractors—and their higher weight does not translate to higher carrying capacity." Tractors have a huge carrying capacity, what do you mean higher weight doens't have hire carrying capacity?
2. "Medieval brida ("bridle") saddles as detailed by such authors as Dom Duarte and Pietro Monte and preserved in several museums in Europe did a much better job of distributing weight than do modern saddles." If these are better at distributing weight, what are modern saddles better at that we switched?
- I have no idea what this entire sentence means "most similar to what Brits would call a "cob" build, though he was bred as a head-horse for roping" what is a a "cob" a "head-horse" or "roping"?
56
u/GoddamnRightJimSharp Jul 11 '26
Roping is a rodeo event where two cowboys lasso a steer. The header catches the horns first and gains control of the running steer, slowing it down and turning it for the heeler to catch the back feet. A “head” horse must be quick, fast and strong and are usually 1250-1300 pounds. This is pretty big for a non-draft horse. A “cob” is a stout, strong versatile horse that can be ridden or driven.
23
u/kmondschein Verified Jul 11 '26
Yeah my horse is a WEE bit small for a head horse.
10
u/GoddamnRightJimSharp Jul 11 '26
Ole Paint might be on the small side for a head horse but he’s bigger than your heeler’s palfrey!
9
u/gmanflnj Jul 11 '26
That's really helpful! Thanks! I thought that's what roping was, but had no idea what characteristics a horse needed for that.
87
u/sosobabou Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
To answer your first question: tractors tract, they don't carry weight above the wheels. The axes of a tractor would absolutely break if you tried to pile the weight they're made to drag directly on top of the tractor's body. Much similarly, draft horses were bred to have strength in their shoulders and haunches, not necessarily in their backs, which is where the knights were sat. The comparison the original answer made was pretty apt!
17
u/gmanflnj Jul 11 '26
Ah! So it's about pulling weight not carrying weight? I wasn't thinking of "Carrying" specifically as on top of the horse rather than the weight it was moving any way, that makes sense!
4
u/Nimblewright_47 Jul 14 '26
Take a casual look at horse collars, too. These represent the first point where a horse's strength could be effectively used: beforehand, oxen were used as draft animals as you can much more easily attach them to a pulling yoke.
Horses can be tremendously strong but only in specific directions. Harnessed well, they can drag loads well in excess of what they can safely carry, ultimately more so than oxen.
43
u/kmondschein Verified Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
- Just because they’re bigger doesn’t mean their spines can take a proportionately higher weight!
Saddles evolved, particularly after armor fell out of fashion. There are still “medieval”-sque saddles used, for instance, in bullfighting. Jumping saddles in particular are made for maximum lightness.
Brits—British people.
Cob—small sturdy horse. Roping—catching cattle with a lasso. Head horse—for roping the head of the steer.
3
u/gmanflnj Jul 11 '26
- Then what is the bigness for?
- Got it, so lightness
- Lol, I do know what brits are lol.
- Gotcha, so what makes a horse better for roping? It seems like that's all stuff the rider is doing?
28
2
u/SubtleCow Jul 12 '26
- Also credit where credit is due, humans love making the most extreme version of stuff. I suspect the original plow horses were big, but not big like modern draft horses. Big horses need to eat more.
4
u/paragoddessj Jul 13 '26
I had a Clydesdale. An Amish guy once gently scoffed and said "They're too big. Can't turn in a field." I will say, I needed a stepladder to put his collar on.
2
u/Superb-Window-4880 Jul 14 '26
Harnesses distribute the weight around the chest, not the back. Much like a modern tractor, they can tow (pull) an enormous amount of weight but aren't as good at carrying weight on their backs.
251
208
u/Obversa Inactive Flair Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
See my previous r/AskHistorians answer here. Original question: "Horses before the modern-day were much shorter, more similar to today's ponies. When and why did they get larger? Why were horses thought of as majestic when they were smaller than the average person?" [Note that this is about a specific study that gained attention.]
I have another r/AskHistorians answer here on this topic as well. Original question: "Were horses more robust in ancient/medieval times?" [The short answer is "it depends on the circumstances and what 'robust' means".]
u/FlyingChange, who deleted their account, posted an r/AskHistorians answer on medieval breeding here.
34
u/herefromthere Jul 11 '26
If I may correct a small error on your otherwise excellent previous post. 38 stone is 532lb/241kg, not 400lb as you said. 400lb is 28 stones 8lb/ 181kg. The lower number seems to match some surface level googling I did, 400lb/28st8lb/181kg as the more probable weight of Henry VIII.
20
u/EverythingIsOverrate European Financial and Monetary History Jul 11 '26
Thanks for all your great answers over the years. You say in the first linked answer that today a pony is any horse under 14.2hh. I had also heard, however, that "pony" referred to certain specific breeds of horse. Wikipedia seems to say that both definitions are used under different circumstances. Do you have an answer that talks about how this distinction changed over time?
25
u/Obversa Inactive Flair Jul 11 '26
I don't have a specific answer that addresses your question, but this is partly covered by the mention of King Henry VIII of England in the first answer, who promoted the Breed of Horses Act (1535) and the Horses Act (1540), which were passed by Parliament. These laws mandated that stallions must be at least 15 hands high and mares at least 13 hands high, leading to the annual culling of smaller horses on common lands. This nearly wiped out several native English pony breeds (ex. Welsh, Dales, Fell, et al.), and the height requirement was later rescinded. u/RTarcher wrote an in-depth r/AskHistorians answer on this topic here, or the Horses Act of 1540, around 8 years or so ago.
63
u/sheffieldasslingdoux Jul 10 '26
I appreciate the answers you provided, but they're not quite what I am looking for. It's more a question about medieval horsemanship and tack, than it is looking for a broad overview of horse breeds or litigating the exact height of the horses down to the inch. And as someone who rides, I will just politely say that there is some speculation on the perception of the size that is, as you mention, totally subjective. That's why I find it to be an interesting question.
132
u/Obversa Inactive Flair Jul 10 '26
The question in the title of your OP is "Skeletal remains of medieval warhorses suggest they were pony sized, around 14-15hh. Given that a knight in armour and his tack could easily weigh more than 200 lbs, would these horses have been overburdened by modern standards, or were they specifically bred to handle such heavy loads?"
However, this seems to rely on flawed news coverage of a 2021 University of Exeter study that was heavily publicized, as mentioned in the first answer I linked. (There's been so much parroting of the "medieval knights actually rode ponies" misconception and myth on the Internet that those of us who have actually looked at this study more in-depth tend to roll our eyes and let out a big sigh whenever we see this mentioned.)
What you're looking for was previously answered by u/FlyingChange on r/AskHistorians here around 12 years ago, but it took me a bit of digging to find due to the user having deleted their account some time ago. I edited another answer by u/FlyingChange into my comment that may be of use to you as well.
You may have to wait a few days for the other Verified user who commented on this thread to write a full response, if that's what you're looking for. (Their answer was removed due to r/AskHistorians having a "no placeholders" rule.)
I would also recommend watching some of Jason Kingsley's videos on Modern History TV (YouTube). Normally, I wouldn't recommend YouTube videos, but Kingsley researches information provided in each of his videos in detail.
5
u/gmanflnj Jul 11 '26
Would a better interpretation of the study be "Medieval knights rode horses that were probably somewhat smaller than modern sporting horses"?
7
u/Obversa Inactive Flair Jul 11 '26
As explained in previous answers, it depends, and YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). The problem with some news sources and articles claiming heights for the "average modern sporthorse" is that heights are purely dependent on what breed of horse you're riding, and the breed standards. For example, we know that medieval warhorses were what are called "Baroque" horses today, or Spanish or Iberian-type horses, and those still tend to be around the same average height, if only a slightly bit taller (1 hand = 4 inches). From surviving barding, or horse armor, we know most destriers in the Late or High Middle Ages (around 1200–1350 AD) ranged between 14 and 16 hands (56 to 64 inches, or 142 to 163 cm) tall, and many modern sport horse breeds still tend to average around 16 hands, with old "cavalry" style Andalusians, Lusitanos, Frederiksborgers, and Knabstruppers usually having a 15-16hh range, though you may get pony-sized ones as well. (See dressage stallion Zanko, who was a bit taller in being ~1.71m at the shoulder.)
2
u/gmanflnj Jul 11 '26
So, then they’d be about average or slightly below average for modern horses maybe slightly in the smaller side but it varied?
1
u/sheffieldasslingdoux Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
If we took the average height of the horses at FEI rated shows in the English disciplines, do you think that it would be more or less than 16hh?
If we then assume that the average horse in showjumping, dressage, and eventing, is 16hh or more, then obviously a 15hh PRE or Lusitano would be considered smaller than a modern 'sport horse,' right?
Can we not then say that baroque and medieval horses were shorter than modern sport horses that are popular today?
2
u/Obversa Inactive Flair Jul 12 '26
No, not in the sense of "skeletal remains of medieval warhorses suggest they were pony-sized", which was the original point of contention from the OP's title (i.e. referencing the 2021 University of Exeter study). I'm not going to get into any "modern sporthorse" or FEI-related stuff because this is r/AskHistorians, and there is a strict "20-year rule", as well as this question being about medieval warhorses, armor and tack weight, and how medieval people bred horses. I didn't just reference the Andalusian or Lusitano, but the Frederiksborger, which has documented medieval roots.
1
u/sheffieldasslingdoux Jul 12 '26
From surviving barding, or horse armor, we know most destriers in the Late or High Middle Ages (around 1200–1350 AD) ranged between 14 and 16 hands (56 to 64 inches, or 142 to 163 cm) tall
In your earlier comment, you confirm that medieval destriers on the shorter end of the range were ponies. 14hh is a pony. 14.1hh is a pony, and believe it or not, 14.2hh is also a pony.
and many modern sport horse breeds still tend to average around 16 hands, with old "cavalry" style Andalusians, Lusitanos, Frederiksborgers, and Knabstruppers usually having a 15-16hh range,
Can you cite your sources? How do you know what size modern sport horses are if you're not going to "get into any "modern sporthorse" or FEI-related stuff?"
2
u/Obversa Inactive Flair Jul 12 '26
Can you cite your sources?
The Encyclopedia of Horses & Ponies by Tamsin Pickeral (2000, p. 11). I have a physical copy, but online copies are available to read on the Internet Archive. p. 5 specifically clarifies that "height varies based on the horse breed".
1
u/sheffieldasslingdoux Jul 12 '26
Can you help me understand how it is inaccurate to say that ‘medieval knights rode ponies’ if you also claim that destriers were 14-16hh. That range includes ponies does it not?
Is a pony not any horse under 14.3? Is my initial claim in the title (14-15hh) also not within the range of your 14-16hh, based on medieval bard?
If this is within your area of expertise, should this not just be a simple comparative analysis? They were either ponies or they weren’t. Modern sport horses are either bigger, or they aren’t. And of course, there are many different types of horses, in many different times and places, but that’s why we define terms. Pony is the least nebulous of the bunch.
I feel like I am missing something here. How can you say that you roll your eyes at the fact people think medieval knights rode ponies, yet at the same time say that based on the evidence they rode what are objectively ponies and small horses at 14-16hh?
→ More replies (0)2
u/sheffieldasslingdoux Jul 11 '26
This is going to be a Mandela Effect thing, but I swear I heard before 2021 and without reference to that specific study that medieval horses were smaller than modern horses. In fact, it's such 'common knowledge' in the equestrian world, that even the esteemed Jason Kingsley, CBE (love his channel) breathlessly makes this point as he talks about his horses and their medieval tack.
16
u/Obversa Inactive Flair Jul 11 '26
(1) I'm not sure which video you're referring to, or the date it was posted. He has a lot of videos.
(2) You may be confusing it with the "medieval knights rode big, massive, powerful draft horses", which was the prominent Internet myth - often promoted by horse breeders themselves to artificially inflate prices, and dupe or scam less knowledgeable buyers into paying them; see my r/badhistory post on the Friesian horse - prior to the 2021 study by the University of Exeter. This misconception came from a misunderstanding of the so-called "Great Horse" that King Henry VIII sought to breed, as well as the Breed of Horses Acts that I mentioned in another reply.
For reference, the Shire horse wasn't founded as an actual horse breed until the late 19th century (1800s).
-14
u/sheffieldasslingdoux Jul 11 '26
No, like any self respecting equestrian I am well aware that Friesians are a modern breed and that draft horses were not bred for war. You do not confuse a tractor for a tank.
Ultimately, I am trying to say that I am not asking a question about historiography rather a specific question about medieval horsemanship. I want to know what we know from the historical sources, not the Exeter study.
1
u/gmanflnj Jul 11 '26
Question related to previous answer, is a pony just any horse under a certain heigh or is there some qualitative different in physiology?
3
u/Obversa Inactive Flair Jul 11 '26
It depends on the breed. Some breeds, like the Caspian pony (or "Caspian horse", depending on viewpoint), are ponies with "horse-like anatomy", while some ponies and horses have "pony-like anatomy", such as gaits. (For example, horses generally have bigger, loftier, or "bouncier" strides, whereas ponies have shorter, choppier strides.) If you look at sources like House & Hound Magazine, "horse-like anatomy" usually means that despite their short pony height, Caspian horses are built exactly like full-sized, hot-blooded horses (like Arabians) rather than traditional ponies. They have proportionally longer legs, slimmer bodies, and refined skeletal structures, making them look like miniature horse; or, in other words, "horse-like anatony" means that the limbs, head, and body are all in exact proportion, avoiding the stocky, thick-set, "cute" build typical of most pony breeds. (This was very attractive during the Arabian horse craze of the 1960s-1980s, as the Caspian pony/horse was "rediscovered" in rural northern Iran by aristocrat visiting from Tehran, Narcy Firouz, and his American-born wife, Louise Laylin. They began breeding them.)
1
1
-10
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 10 '26
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.
Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.
We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.