U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:47 PM
 
14,120 posts, read 12,938,476 times
Reputation: 6562

Advertisements

P.S. The more I look into all this ( as I've said I don't know much about that part of the world, and how developed/advanced were the nations Mongols have conquered before they advanced towards Russia,) but I suspect that as in case of say Arabic conquest of Persia, the less developed conquerors acquire/take advantage of their victims' accomplishments. And the reason they are so successful in their conquest is precisely that - it's easier to channel the resources into the militant culture, and it's easier to attack, destroy and plunder than to be sedentary and actually to CREATE and husband.

If China/Japan ( or whatever other civilizations were there, conquered by Mongols) were developed enough to have iron goods - that's the where Mongols ( or rather their nobility most likely) would have got the iron stirrups and other protective gear. Even though originally they had stirrups made of wood or bones and their protective gear was made of animal skins.

Another thing I finally realize now, is the reason behind the whole "Tatar" thing - (or rather why the people identified as "Tatars" in Russia) look so vastly different. ( Some look very mongoloid, and some have this Indo-Iranian ( or should I say Persian? look.)

Of course if Mongols ( who originally look mongoloid) have took over the big swaths of territories with local population, ( former Persian lands including,) this would explain the mixture, that Russians identify by the broad definition of "Tatars."

Last edited by erasure; 01-08-2019 at 02:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2019, 02:23 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
74,537 posts, read 66,170,563 times
Reputation: 71113
Well, as to who had metal-working first, it depends on how we define "Euros". The evidence is that bronze-working came to China through the Indo-Europeans in Western China, the Yue-Zhi (proto-Tocharians at that time). These are a branch of the same migration from the Russian steppes eastward, that resulted in peopling the Altai and western Mongolia. So it's possible that the Mongols learned bronze-working roughly around the same time the Chinese did. At that point, they could have made bronze stirrups. But wood ones will do just fine, in any case.

The question now, is: at what point did those Inner Asian Indo-Euros figure out bronze-working? It seems that they caught onto bronze-making at more or less the same time as Mesopotamia. The difference was, that the Indo-Euros moving eastward were a nomadic culture, while Mesopotamia was a sedentary one. So the Indo-Euros communicated aspects of their culture (horse-riding, chariots, bronze-making, among many other aspects of culture Central Asians still practice today) to the peoples they encountered along the way, and eventually--to China and of course, Mongolia. According to archaeologists, Indo-European people were the first to populate western Mongolia after the Ice Age. It's entirely conceivable that they shared their metal-smithing technology with the proto-Mongols. China acquired bronze-making 1000 years later, or so.

.Bronze Age Central Asia - Oxford Handbooks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
20,019 posts, read 13,448,077 times
Reputation: 14715
[quote=erasure;54086791]
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
All those doubts of yours are mistaken presumptions.

The Mongols horses were bred for endurance. Endurance makes a superior war horse.



They were not "bred." "Breeding" involves the careful selection process. More advanced civilizations were involved in such process, but Mogols were nomads. They just took what was there.



"A 1918 census of Mongolian animals found 1,500,000 horses.[15] The origins of the Mongolian breed are hard to determine. Nomads of the central Asian steppes have been documented as riding horses since 2000 BC. Tests have shown, that among all horse breeds, Mongol horses feature the largest genetic variety, followed by the Tuwinian horses. This indicates that it is a very archaic breed suffering little human-induced selection."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_horse



What "that time?"


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...at_Berezuy.jpg


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_i_Glebe.jpeg



"The stirrup was invented in China in the first few centuries AD and spread westward through the nomadic peoples of Central Eurasia.[3][4] The use of paired stirrups is credited to the Chinese Jin Dynasty and came to Europe during the Middle Ages."




Middle ages - that's 5th to 15th century; Temujin ( better known as Ghengis Khan) - that's 1200ies.

(So that you would know.)
Historically, you're right. The Mongols in Temujin's day probably didn't practice selective breeding as an entire culture. But the Mongols were a huge and very diverse group. While they began on the steppes, many of them didn't always live on the steppes forever. At least half of them chose to take over China and become Emperors and create cities.

But that was a long, long time ago, when very few, if any, cultures practiced widespread selective breeding. But without a doubt, there were some Mongol tribes on the steppes that did practice gelding and selective breeding with their horses.

it wasn't restricted to only horses, either. The Mongols certainly did the same with their sheep and dogs. And probably, their camels.

Selective breeding has always gone on in nomadic peoples, but only in small tribes/families/individuals who saw traits in their domesticated animals they wanted to replicate. It isn't very hard to figure breeding out for humans, so it's been going on forever.

But not in any larger society. The smaller and more remote tribes are where it was first practiced.

We will never know just how many Mongols of Temujin's day did it. But I'm pretty sure Temujin used the tribes that did as his best cavalry of all. And since Temujin remained nomadic himself all his life, for all we know, he may have been pretty good at gelding a horse himself. The skill could have bolstered his reputation, as only the best men at the job were chosen to do it.

When a really good colt's life is at stake, no one wants to kill it and waste it's potential as a war horse. But it's true that the Mongols preferred pregnant mares as war horses. The geldings were probably reserved for the Generals, scouts, and the advance troops, where the male endurance and speed factors really counted.

Stallions are poor war horses unless a cavalry unit has nothing but stallions, kept well away from any mares. Very few stallions will concentrate on war when mares are around, but there are always some that have been so accustomed to war that they learned how to pay attention to the warfare they were emerged in.

But when a wild tribe numbering in the high thousands, all cavalry, went to war, it can be presumed most of them just rode what was available, especially when they could drive wild, unbroken horses with them while on the move. On the move, stallions do most of the herding, so all men need to do is drive the stud, and the horse drives his band of mares.

There are examples of other pre-Western European tribes that do exist that are well documented who practiced selective breeding.

A very good example is the Nez Perce tribe in the U.S. They were the only native American tribe to practice selective breeding in their horses, and the tribe became famous in their world for them.

Every plains tribe west of the Mississippi came to know the Nez Perce, the tribe that bred the Appaloosa horse, long before the first white man ever saw one of those spotted little horses.

The going rate of trade among the tribes for an Appaloosa, the horse the Nez Perce developed in the isolation of the Wallowa Valley region of Oregon & Washington, was 10 to 1.

10 horses any other tribe possessed for 1 Appaloosa. Then Nez Perce never traded their stallions, and very seldom their mares unless they had too many to own. The mares they traded were fertile but not pregnant, and the male horses were all gelded before they were traded.

The reason why the rate was 10 to 1 were fitting with the Indian tribe's way of life. On the plains, where mustangs were widely available, the feral horses became pretty fit through natural selection over time, so they were fine for the nomadic Indians.

But when they needed a war horse, a horse that could outrun a mustang, had such a quiet disposition they didn't panic in a fight and could be caught by a warrior who found himself afoot in a fight, could out-last a mustang on a forced march with enough distance to make a stop safe, and a horse with sounder hooves and better eyesight than a mustang, then the trade was worth it.

Another bonus for the Indians was, when an Appaloosa was finally run to death or killed in battle, it was tastier than a mustang when eaten.

For the Nez Perce, the distinctive spotted coat on their horses was the best advertising possible.

No other horses looked like them, and no others possessed their traits. The horses' spots made them visible and distinctive from great distance.

So when a band of Northern Comanche (for example) spotted more than one Appaloosa in a band coming from miles away, they knew the Nez Perce were arriving for trade.

The Nez Perce were also very fierce fighters themselves, very much like the Swiss. But like the Swiss, they knew the advantages of neutrality and trade.

So if a bunch of Comanche kids spotted the band of horses from afar and decided to steal them for street cred as young wanna-be war chiefs, the Nez Perce would ride into their camp to talk to their Chief.

If the kids didn't surrender the stolen horses, the Nez Perce had 2 ways of getting their trading stock back. The first was to simply cut that band off forever. No more horses for them.

Then the Nez Perce would return later and kill the stolen horses with spots before leaving if possible, leaving the chief afoot and the kids with hell to pay.

The second way was to leave, then come back in force the next time, usually a year later, and kill the entire band.

They could do it because they had the best war horses, and once forced into it, the Nez Perce were ferocious killers. They only left a few survivors, who always told the tale to others.
Sometimes, to reinforce the point, they would drive all the horses they took from the tribe they killed into the next tribe they came across. It helped spread the word not to mess with the Nez Perce.

All the warrior tribes soon figured out it was far better to welcome them than fight them. And they were very welcomed by the fiercest tribes.

So what usually happened was the Comanche chief properly punished the young offenders, gave up a penalty of extra horses in a trade, and the band never repeated the stupid offense again.

In time, the Nez Perce traded horses from their homeland all the way to the Mississippi. And all the way south to the deserts of the southwest. But they never traded slaves. Only horses and fine finished goods. Not to say the Nez Perce didn't take a few slaves now and then themselves; most tribes did on occasion.

If a tribe wanted family connections with the Nez Perce, a child given to the tribe in marriage was never allowed a family visit in the Wallow Valley. The child could come on a trading mission to visit their parents back in their home, but not the Nez Perce's homeland.

Now if this all happened on the steppes of the American west, what is there to prevent a similar thing happening on the steppes of Mongolia? There's a lot of duplication in all early cultures.

Selective breeding is no different from weaving wool. Once sheep are domesticated, every tribe that ever grew a sheep figured out how to weave their wool. Only the methods and weaving patterns differ- a wool blanket is a wool blanket.

Once humans figured out a lack of testicles prevented pregnancy, and applied it to other humans, why do you think they stopped there? Eunuchs are as ancient as the Mongols are.

The Mongolians may not have recorded their selective breeding, but they practiced it. They developed a horse that fit their own needs and culture, so it differs from the Appaloosa, but not by much.

A good war horse is a good war horse only for the terrain the war happens in.

Western Europeans never needed the qualities that are critical in the steppes. So, in their ignorance and arrogance, thought the Mongols were riding scrawny little horses that amounted to dog food. That's only natural when a human uses a horse for plowing or carrying big loads, like big white guys all wearing armor, and when cavalry is only used as a mobile infantry that most often dismounted and fought on foot after a charge or two. Western European tactics for western European terrain.

The Mongol horses did probably have greater genetic diversity than the Nez Perce horses, but not by much.
The Nez Perce were dependent on Spanish genetic horse preferences, but the Mongols weren't. And the Mongols were a much, much larger tribe than the Nez Perce, so it's only natural their breeding preferences differed among themselves.

But don't buy into the selective breeding didn't exist.
That's the same western arrogance that drove Rome to its knees a few times, along with all of Eastern Europe.

And even that wasn't enough to shake the western European arrogance forever; the Crusaders had to re-learn the lesson the Mongols first taught all over again in the deserts of the Middle East before it finally sunk in, many centuries later.

Historians are the most arrogant bunch of all when it comes to stuff like this, I've noticed.

If you want to know about livestock, it's best to go talk to someone who grows them for a living first. It's best to take their word for it, too.

The scholars usually don't know squat about it, and they're always making culturally arrogant presumptions to fill in their gaps.

Scholars read for their living. Horsemen breed horses for their living. Always have, always will be like that.

Archaic genetics only displays how well natural selection works. Life on the steppes is the same for humans as horses- only the fittest survive. So the Mongols are as different genetically as their horses, and both sets of genetics are ancient, because they've shared the same steppes for thousands of years.

Human breeding only uses the best human-connected traits of natural selection. If human selective breeding has gone on for a thousand years, it's only natural that it becomes a part of natural selection. It's no wonder the Mongolian horses display so many archaic genetics.

The tests say nothing at all about ancient selective breeding. Selective breeding in Europe is almost brand-new historically, but since most early civilizations never created very much in permanent record-keeping, how can it be said the practice started such a short time ago in other places?

The scholar simply drew the wrong conclusions from the testing. They're pretty good at that.

Last edited by banjomike; 01-08-2019 at 04:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
20,019 posts, read 13,448,077 times
Reputation: 14715
[quote=erasure;54086791]
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
All those doubts of yours are mistaken presumptions.

The Mongols horses were bred for endurance. Endurance makes a superior war horse.



They were not "bred." "Breeding" involves the careful selection process. More advanced civilizations were involved in such process, but Mogols were nomads. They just took what was there.



"A 1918 census of Mongolian animals found 1,500,000 horses.[15] The origins of the Mongolian breed are hard to determine. Nomads of the central Asian steppes have been documented as riding horses since 2000 BC. Tests have shown, that among all horse breeds, Mongol horses feature the largest genetic variety, followed by the Tuwinian horses. This indicates that it is a very archaic breed suffering little human-induced selection."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_horse



What "that time?"


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...at_Berezuy.jpg


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_i_Glebe.jpeg



"The stirrup was invented in China in the first few centuries AD and spread westward through the nomadic peoples of Central Eurasia.[3][4] The use of paired stirrups is credited to the Chinese Jin Dynasty and came to Europe during the Middle Ages."




Middle ages - that's 5th to 15th century; Temujin ( better known as Ghengis Khan) - that's 1200ies.

(So that you would know.)
Yup. The Greeks and Romans never used stirrups. But they did invent their own versions of the saddle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
20,019 posts, read 13,448,077 times
Reputation: 14715
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Mongolia was never "Soviet" - they were never part of the Soviet Union.


Your bro is full of it, along with his mythical "old Russian cavalry saddles"
Ok- whatever you say.

I wasn't there, so I'm taking his word for everything he saw and learned. He was there for about 2 months, all spent on the steppes, staying with the locals all the way.

All I know about Russian cavalry saddles is his word that they are ever worse than a McClellan saddle. That was the American standard cavalry saddle, and I have ridden on a McClellan a twice. Once from curiosity, and the second from necessity.

Given the choice between 10 mies on a McClellan and going barebacked, I'll take the second if possible. If you ever rode a horse for 10 miles on one, you would too.

But my bro's estimation of the Russian cavalry saddle was verified later to me by a mutual friend who went on the same expedition.
He rode a Russian saddle for 5 days, developed blisters on both cheeks so big that he had to ride more than 3/4 of the way in the back of the truck for fear of infection.

He burned his saddle in the campfire so he had the best excuse to get in the truck. When his blisters healed, he bought a Mongolian saddle at a stop and rode the last 2 days on horseback. All the others who quit the riding rode in the truck too, but they didn't burn their saddles. This guy isn't a cowboy, but he's a well experienced rider, for sure.

I'm taking his word, though, just like my brother. He says he has videos, but I haven't seen them.

My bro got the word in advance from the gal who organized it all; she always brings her own saddle, and recommended that to him. So he took her word for it. This was her 20th trip.

The trip was organized by a lady who specializes in these horseback tours in Mongolia as a tour guide.

I can't remember her name, but she and her husband operate out of Bozeman, Montana, so if you care to look her up, I'm pretty sure they advertise. She and her husband take turns guiding the tours.

And since my bro came back about 30 pounds lighter and a hell of a lot more wind-burned, and brought a well-used silk Mongol riding coat with him that fit, (he said it cost him his chinks to get it) and bunch of other Mongolian stuff that wasn't bought on Ebay.

Since my brother doesn't lie about big stuff, and since I know about half of the other folks who went with him, I'll take his word that what he said was all true.

You're always welcome to come and take up the question with him if you want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 09:12 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
74,537 posts, read 66,170,563 times
Reputation: 71113
Quote:
Mongolia was never "Soviet" - they were never part of the Soviet Union.
The Mongols have a very different opinion on that. They definitely were a satellite state of the SU. Russia banned their traditional script, so that they could no longer read their own history books. Almost overnight, their libraries became useless, especially to the younger generation given schoolbooks in Cyrillic. Since 1991, there's been a revival of it. The Cyrillic script was introduced in the early to mid 1940's, at which time the traditional script was suppressed. Mongolia was, indeed, Sovietized.

Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 01-08-2019 at 09:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
20,019 posts, read 13,448,077 times
Reputation: 14715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
The Mongols have a very different opinion on that. They definitely were a satellite state of the SU. Russia banned their traditional script, so that they could no longer read their own history books. Almost overnight, their libraries became useless, especially to the younger generation given schoolbooks in Cyrillic. Since 1991, there's been a revival of it. The Cyrillic script was introduced in the early to mid 1940's, at which time the traditional script was suppressed. Mongolia was, indeed, Sovietized.
Yup. According to my brother again, he said the Russians semi-forced a life on the Mongolians that they really didn't care to lead.
He was very impressed and puzzled when he saw all the industry that the Russians had created in Mongolia, and couldn't understand why it was all abandoned until some of his hosts explained the history of the relationship between the two nations to him.

The expedition landed in the capital's airport. During the drive into town, my bro marveled at all the horses he saw out in the fields that surround the city. He had never seen anything like those numbers so close to a big city's limits before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 10:19 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
20,019 posts, read 13,448,077 times
Reputation: 14715
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133 View Post
But the Scythians disappeared. Someone must have taken them over. I doubt it took that long for someone to invent a stirrup. It is just a piece of metal to hook you feet into. There have been cultures that have metal working for a very long time. I dont even think the Mongols had their own metal working. How can anyone ride a horse with one?

I doubt sucking on horse blood all the time will give you enough fuel to engage in battle. As for their riding, Most civilization were competent enough on horse back. Horses themselves can only take so work. There has to be limits to it. You should be able to formulate strategy and tactics around knowing your enemies limitations.
Actually, the Mongols while on the forced march lived on rodents and yogurt. The yogurt was made from mare's milk, which went into leather pouches and attached to their saddles. The leather added the necessary stuff to curdle the milk, and the motion of the horse churned it into yogurt.

They also carried light long sticks with equally light rope loops attached to the stick. They snared random ground rodents as they went along, and ate them raw.

The mare's blood was just a little kick of raw protein before they went into battle.

None of this was their normal diet. It was the equivalent of battle rations are to modern armies- as lightweight as possible and as mobile as possible. The choices of food came from their culture and times.

The entire army would sleep in their saddles through the night, allowing their horses to graze as they marched. There were always enough men who stayed awake to keep them all headed in the right direction.

Of course, all this was done only on forced marches. The Mongols were more loosely organized than their western counterparts, so most of the time when they were on the move, about 1/4 of the army was out of ranks for a bit while catching new mounts, or just lagging behind to pay some attention to their wives and kids.

But they were all grouped up and ready to go when it counted.

As far as stirrups go:
Riding barebacked on a horse has many advantages, and saddles don't need stirrups to keep the rider secure.
If a child learns how to ride barebacked first, a saddle is just an option for long-term comfort or utility purposes. In some horse cultures, the saddle is more ornamental than utilitarian.

Alexander the Great, for example, never used stirrups, though he used a Greek saddle sometimes, and with the Greek cavalry tactics he used to conquer the world, he probably never thought he needed stirrups, though he may well have come across some enemies who used them.

The Mongols stood in their stirrups while riding more than they sat into their saddles, so for them, the stirrup was a big help. Standing allows the knees to become shock absorbers, and a horse's natural traveling gate is the trot. The trot is much rougher to ride, but it's like jogging to the horse. A gallop and a walk are both much smoother gaits, but a horse can't run half as far as it can trot.

Riding bareback allows the rider to move around on the horse's back and sit the horse where it is the most comfortable to ride at any gait. Normally, a bareback rider rides up closer to the horse's neck on a trot than a saddle will allow, but that's where it is most comfortable to sit on the horse.

Last edited by banjomike; 01-08-2019 at 11:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 11:33 PM
 
5,699 posts, read 5,887,552 times
Reputation: 2542
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
Actually, the Mongols while on the forced march lived on rodents and yogurt. The yogurt was made from mare's milk, which went into leather pouches and attached to their saddles. The leather added the necessary stuff to curdle the milk, and the motion of the horse churned it into yogurt.

They also carried light long sticks with equally light rope loops attached to the stick. They snared random ground rodents as they went along, and ate them raw.

The mare's blood was just a little kick of raw protein before they went into battle.

None of this was their normal diet. It was the equivalent of battle rations are to modern armies- as lightweight as possible and as mobile as possible. The choices of food came from their culture and times.

The entire army would sleep in their saddles through the night, allowing their horses to graze as they marched. There were always enough men who stayed awake to keep them all headed in the right direction.

Of course, all this was done only on forced marches. The Mongols were more loosely organized than their western counterparts, so most of the time when they were on the move, about 1/4 of the army was out of ranks for a bit while catching new mounts, or just lagging behind to pay some attention to their wives and kids.

But they were all grouped up and ready to go when it counted.

As far as stirrups go:
Riding barebacked on a horse has many advantages, and saddles don't need stirrups to keep the rider secure.
If a child learns how to ride barebacked first, a saddle is just an option for long-term comfort or utility purposes. In some horse cultures, the saddle is more ornamental than utilitarian.

Alexander the Great, for example, never used stirrups, though he used a Greek saddle sometimes, and with the Greek cavalry tactics he used to conquer the world, he probably never thought he needed stirrups, though he may well have come across some enemies who used them.

The Mongols stood in their stirrups while riding more than they sat into their saddles, so for them, the stirrup was a big help. Standing allows the knees to become shock absorbers, and a horse's natural traveling gate is the trot. The trot is much rougher to ride, but it's like jogging to the horse. A gallop and a walk are both much smoother gaits, but a horse can't run half as far as it can trot.

Riding bareback allows the rider to move around on the horse's back and sit the horse where it is the most comfortable to ride at any gait. Normally, a bareback rider rides up closer to the horse's neck on a trot than a saddle will allow, but that's where it is most comfortable to sit on the horse.
Having a stirrup makes just makes things easier whether you need it or not? How do people get on top of a horse without a stirrup?

Do you have proof of Greeks and romans not using stirrups?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2019, 02:11 AM
 
14,120 posts, read 12,938,476 times
Reputation: 6562
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
Ok- whatever you say.

I wasn't there, so I'm taking his word for everything he saw and learned. He was there for about 2 months, all spent on the steppes, staying with the locals all the way.

All I know about Russian cavalry saddles is his word that they are ever worse than a McClellan saddle. That was the American standard cavalry saddle, and I have ridden on a McClellan a twice. Once from curiosity, and the second from necessity.

Given the choice between 10 mies on a McClellan and going barebacked, I'll take the second if possible. If you ever rode a horse for 10 miles on one, you would too.

But my bro's estimation of the Russian cavalry saddle was verified later to me by a mutual friend who went on the same expedition.
He rode a Russian saddle for 5 days, developed blisters on both cheeks so big that he had to ride more than 3/4 of the way in the back of the truck for fear of infection.

He burned his saddle in the campfire so he had the best excuse to get in the truck. When his blisters healed, he bought a Mongolian saddle at a stop and rode the last 2 days on horseback. All the others who quit the riding rode in the truck too, but they didn't burn their saddles. This guy isn't a cowboy, but he's a well experienced rider, for sure.

I'm taking his word, though, just like my brother. He says he has videos, but I haven't seen them.

My bro got the word in advance from the gal who organized it all; she always brings her own saddle, and recommended that to him. So he took her word for it. This was her 20th trip.

The trip was organized by a lady who specializes in these horseback tours in Mongolia as a tour guide.

I can't remember her name, but she and her husband operate out of Bozeman, Montana, so if you care to look her up, I'm pretty sure they advertise. She and her husband take turns guiding the tours.

And since my bro came back about 30 pounds lighter and a hell of a lot more wind-burned, and brought a well-used silk Mongol riding coat with him that fit, (he said it cost him his chinks to get it) and bunch of other Mongolian stuff that wasn't bought on Ebay.

Since my brother doesn't lie about big stuff, and since I know about half of the other folks who went with him, I'll take his word that what he said was all true.

You're always welcome to come and take up the question with him if you want.

I had hard time understanding what you were talking about ( until that point), so I had to look up what "MCClellan saddle" is.



"In April 1855, six years before the start of the Civil War, Captain George B. McClellan sailed to Europe as part of a military commission to study developments in European tactics, weaponry, and logistics. McClellan's focus was the organization of engineer troops and cavalry. After the one-year tour, during which time McClellan observed several battles of the Crimean War, McClellan brought back almost 100 books and manuals. These he read before writing his report, which concluded with his proposed manual for American cavalry adapted from existing Russian cavalry regulations. He also proposed a cavalry saddle that he claimed was a modification of a Hungarian model used in the Prussian service."


So this explained to me a thing or two. So McClellan chose EUROPEAN prototype of the saddle for American army, and if you ( or your brother) used to ride the WESTERN saddle, then yes, you'd have a problem, because riding on it involves a totally different technique.

This is the English military saddle ( I assume) and it's darn close to the Russian military saddle.

https://www.facebook.com/britisharmy...7950523896309/


I am still puzzled that neither you ( or your brother) were aware of the differences and decided to use European saddle without knowing how to use it properly. And this of course explains his injuries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top