The Cavalry Saddel 1889

In this article we take a look at the 1889 cavalry saddle, starting by explaining what traditional saddles are and looking at the predecessor models. We will then look at the advantages and disadvantages and how the 1889 army saddle came about. The improvements that the saddle brought with it are discussed, and it is also placed in relation to the previous saddles. The army saddle is described in more detail in the article.

 

 

The trestle saddle – part of the traditional saddle family

Before the saddle was introduced in 1889, two saddle models were available to the Prussian cavalry from 1808 to 1889. The first was the Hungarian trestle saddle, which was available to the dragoons, hussars and Uhlans. On the other hand, there was the German saddle, which was used by the cuirassiers. These two, as well as the army saddle that followed, belong to the group of traditional saddles, as do the western and travelling saddles today.

 

The advantages and disadvantages of this saddle family

The advantages of the Trachten saddles lay in their particularly wide contact surface, which allowed a very favourable distribution of pressure on the horse’s back. This made it possible for the rider to attach additional loads to the saddle block in addition to his own weight. Furthermore, the high chamber between the bars and gullets allowed favourable ventilation between the seat of the saddle and the horse’s back when the horse was exposed to prolonged strain.

In addition, the high chamber prevented strong pressure on the withers and spinous processes of the vertebrae. The light cavalry used the Hungarian buck saddle, which had a particularly high and wide chamber. The disadvantage, however, was that the rider sat so high that he could hardly influence the horse’s back with his weight. Pictures for a saddle like this you can find here and here.

Another disadvantage was that saddling the Hungarian model ready to ride with all the necessary equipment required a large number of time-consuming steps. So there were repeated attempts to develop a user-friendly army saddle.

Since the end of the 18th century, there have been repeated attempts within the armies of Europe to combine not only the advantages of the aforementioned Trachten saddle based on the Hungarian Bocks saddle but also the English flatbed saddle.

The aim was to make the saddle

1. for military cross-country riding
2. light sporting activities (e.g. show jumping)

for military cross-country riding.

 

The competition for the cavalry saddle in 1889

To introduce a new saddle, the Prussian War Ministry initiated a competition in 1887, which was successful, as the army saddle 89 was introduced with the A.K.O. of 19 December 1889.

The basis for this success was the saddle model submitted under the number 1859, which was awarded first prize. The winner received 6000 marks and the saddle was introduced into the troop two years later. The saddle flaps as well as the gullet were made of hardwood, whereby the rear gullet was reinforced with metal.

This saddle led to an overall standardisation of riding equipment, which represented a further step on the way to uniform cavalry. There was also further standardisation by means of the other riding equipment, which will be discussed elsewhere on this page.

 

Advantages of the new army saddle

This was a robust and at the same time lightweight combination of a traditional saddle and an English flatbed saddle, which was also fairly easy to handle. There was a seat strap between the front and rear pommels, which was made of transparent leather or rawhide. This was deeply curved towards the horse’s back, so that the rider had a close connection to the horse’s back via his buttocks. This meant that the necessary weight support could be optimally transferred to the horse’s back. The design of the seat was thus borrowed from the English flatbed saddle.

The high front and rear pommels, which were derived from the Hungarian Bocks saddle, also ensured good ventilation. To ensure that the saddle clothing and equipment could be quickly and easily attached to the saddle, suitable staples and rings were attached to the saddle flaps and pommels. The seat strap of the arm saddle was pulled down very low so that a favourable weight support on the horse’s back was possible. The front and rear pommels were much lower than those of the buck saddle. Furthermore, the wide saddle flaps covered the parts of the saddle that lay under the rider’s thighs.

Underneath the traditional costumes were traditional costume cushions made of either felt or padded linen. Both had the characteristic that they could be replaced relatively quickly for cleaning purposes. The saddle tree was fairly easy to dismantle so that it could be optimally maintained. The leather parts of the saddle clothing consisted of the saddle seat, leather cap and the saddle tree: Saddle seat, leather cap and the sweat flap with knee rolls.

This saddle was also introduced relatively quickly within the other contingents, of course with corresponding special features that were expressed in the details.

 

The evaluation of the saddle within the sources

As Gelbhaar correctly notes, the German army saddle 89 was a “combination type of English flatbed saddle and traditional saddle” (Gelbhaar, Axel: Mittelalterliches und frühneuzeitliches Reit- und Fahrzubehör, Hildesheim 1997, p. 174). The saddle was optimised for riding with a full pack, although the principle was new. There were other advantages, which Rizzi lists:

 

“Its advantages over the old saddle model were obvious. The construction was extremely simple, the weight was low and the procurement costs were low. It proved to be very durable and allowed the rider to sit comfortably and naturally, and therefore to ride sensitively, as the rider sat closer to the horse. But the new saddle not only had great advantages for the rider, it was also very gentle on the horse, as it prevented the pressure damage that occurred in large numbers with the earlier buck saddle.” (Otto Ritter von Rizzi, Geschichte der bayerischen Reiterei 1871-1914, Munich 1932, p. 96)

 

The introduction of the army saddle also made things easier for horse and rider: the saddle cover and upper girth could now be dispensed with in field service. As a result, the saddle cover was only put on for parades and thus took on the function of a parade cover. Rizzi also commented on this:

 

“Saddle pads were a rather unsuitable piece of equipment for field service. In warm weather they made the rider and the horse very warm, in the rain they soaked up water, which increased their weight.” (Rizzi, Reiterei, p. 95)

 

A comparison of the cavalry saddle

The elimination of the saddle made it lighter and easier to saddle.

If the weights of the respective saddles are compared, the army saddle 89 stands out due to its lightness:

1. The 89 saddle weighed 9 kg
2. The German cuirassier saddle weighed 9.85 kg
3. The Hungarian Bocksattel weighed 7.21 kg, although the saddle cover (1.68 kg) and the upper girth (1 kg) must also be added, resulting in a total weight of approx. 9.89 kg.

(see also Roth, Wilhelm/Lex, Rudolf: Handbuch der Militär-Gesundheitspflege, Dritter Band, Berlin 1877, pp. 136-140).

As with all items of equipment, the situation at the outbreak of war was such that not all troop units were equipped with them. Until the outbreak of the First World War, only the cavalry regiments were equipped with this saddle model. In contrast, only a few field artillery regiments were equipped with this saddle model. The entire train, i.e. the supply units, continued to use the old Hungarian Bocks saddles (in Bavaria the Danish Bocks saddles).

This model was also mainly the model used by the crews; the officers had a different type, which was, however, based on this one.

 

Conclusion

Overall, this saddle was the prerequisite for the introduction of standardised equipment for horse and rider. The criteria on which this model was based, such as lightness, easy handling, durability and consideration of the rider’s needs, prevailed. This saddle was used almost unchanged until the end of the Second World War, in the form of the army saddle 25, and produced by the millions.

These models are still favoured by trail riders today.

 

Sources

Printed Sources:

Gelbhaar, Axel: Mittelalterliches und frühneuzeitliches Reit- und Fahrzubehör, Hildesheim 1997

von Rizzi, Otto Ritter: Geschichte der bayerischen Reiterei 1871-1914, München 1932

Roth, Wilhelm/Lex, Rudolf: Handbuch der Militär-Gesundheitspflege, Dritter Band, Berlin 1877

Pietsch, Paul: Formations- und Uniformierungsgeschichte des preußischen Heeres 1808-1910, Berlin 1911, Band 1 und 2.

Kraus, Jürgen: Die Feldgraue Uniformierung des deutschen Heeres 1907-1918, 2. Auflage, Wien o.J., Band 1 und 2.

Lachenmayer, Peter/Klepzig, Wolfgang/Nguyen, Jens: Die Reitvorschriften der deutschen Kavallerie, Wald 2020.

O.N.: Die Vervollkommnung des Reitsattels, in: Kriegstechnische Zeitschrift 7 (1904), S. 82-88.