|
|
Post by horseguy on Jan 31, 2017 13:36:24 GMT
The US Cavalry had what was called a "watering bridle" that consisted of simple reins and a loose ring snaffle bit that had two snap clips that allowed it to be attached to the standard issue halter.  The halter had two metal square "rings" on it where the cheeks and the nose band met, similar to most halters today. The snaps were attached to these square "rings" to make an effective bridle.  Most of what Cavalrymen did other than battle and training for battle was done in this watering bridle. Young Army horses were started in a rig like this and the standard issue double bridle was introduced later in a horse's training. I have read that many Army trainers used a second snap on snaffle bit as an interim step to the double bridle. |
|
|
|
Post by Jlynn on Jan 31, 2017 17:29:00 GMT
That's cool - but wouldn't that put the bit way up in the horse's mouth?
|
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Jan 31, 2017 19:27:01 GMT
That's cool - but wouldn't that put the bit way up in the horse's mouth? Not if the crown piece is adjusted to lower the bit. Remember that these men rode in battle with a weapon in one hand. The bit was not as important as other means of control. The double bridle was necessary for close order formations, which were more preparatory for battle. In polo, a game George Patton called, "the closest thing to war" (and he was good at both), it's seat and legs most of the time. I think the Army was more concerned about the combined weight of a Cavalryman's equipment than the specific precise use of one or the other pieces of equipment. |
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Feb 1, 2017 13:39:19 GMT
That's cool - but wouldn't that put the bit way up in the horse's mouth? Not if the crown piece is adjusted to lower the bit. Remember that these men rode in battle with a weapon in one hand. The bit was not as important as other means of control. The double bridle was necessary for close order formations, which were more preparatory for battle. In polo, a game George Patton called, "the closest thing to war" (and he was good at both), it's seat and legs most of the time. I think the Army was more concerned about the combined weight of a Cavalryman's equipment than the specific precise use of one or the other pieces of equipment. While the army was concerned with combined weight, that is not really a consideration for today's rider. Effective communication, quality, lifespan, use etc all play a part in choosing appropriate gear. The army had a fantastic method for producing horses and riders, but their gear was utilitarian at best. |
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Feb 1, 2017 17:14:57 GMT
"Utilitarian at best", a worthy goal. For example, the standard issue reins were so thick that they resisted a saber cut.
No American except special rare forces operatives rides today in circumstances like a mounted cavalry cavalryman. As needs change, equipment changes. I would say however that we are in an era of "equipment for equipment's sake" in many disciplines. The high use of trendy figure eight nosebands is not at all comparable to why the Army selected the equipment they did. I personally do not care what people do with their money, like the $300 titanium stirrup irons, except for the fact that I wish they had spent that money on riding lessons. That is because in many ways the horses pay the price for these trends. Poor riding combined with unnecessarily restrictive equipment ruins horses. Simple was and remains better for the horse.
|
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Feb 1, 2017 19:37:35 GMT
"Utilitarian at best", a worthy goal. For example, the standard issue reins were so thick that they resisted a saber cut. No American except special rare forces operatives rides today in circumstances like a mounted cavalry cavalryman. As needs change, equipment changes. I would say however that we are in an era of "equipment for equipment's sake" in many disciplines. The high use of trendy figure eight nosebands is not at all comparable to why the Army selected the equipment they did. I personally do not care what people do with their money, like the $300 titanium stirrup irons, except for the fact that I wish they had spent that money on riding lessons. That is because in many ways the horses pay the price for these trends. Poor riding combined with unnecessarily restrictive equipment ruins horses. Simple was and remains better for the horse. Agreed. I would NOT, however, want to try to cut cows or rope in an army saddle. I don't need to worry about saber cuts. I'm not buying equipment just to have equipment. I buy equipment to be used, and it's purpose oriented. I'm minimalist when it comes to equipment. I don't use nosebands, cavessons etc. Not part of my program. I understand how they are used and misused. I keep things as simple as possible for what my activities are. By no means am I knocking the army for being utilitarian. The equipment was purpose driven. I've cleaned and repaired several antique bridles, saddles and breastplates. I'm well aware of construction and quality of leather. The conditions of the pieces I restored were less than ideal, yet they had a surprising amount of life left. I respect what they did and why they did it. The equipment would not be suitable for what I enjoy doing. |
|
