Talk:Rouncey

Accuracy of article

This article is completely made of whole cloth. It's someone's imagination. The word 'rouncy' was just a term that meant 'nag', in Old English - and that's precisely how Chaucer used it. Yes, the article has it right when they say that was a call to war in England in 1327 that specifically told the knights to bring rounceys. That call to war was issued by Edward III, who had just ascended to the throne after the assassination of his father. What he was saying with this call to war was not, as this article attempts to claim, "bring fast pursuit horses." What he was saying was "bring nags, I don't expect this to be much of a fight." Well, he was wrong - the war he was calling them to fight would, in later years, be known as The Hundred Years' War. What's worse is the article attempts to claim that the 'rouncey' is a general-purpose horse. There's no such thing - never has been. No domesticated horse has ever been bred as a "general purpose" animal, all horses throughout history were always bred with a specific purpose in mind. Someone has translated roleplaying game information into a wikipedia article, this is so far from reality it's not even funny. Xaa 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must disagree with you. I know nothing about roleplaying games, and I sincerely doubt my sources are likely to be misled by them, either: Michael Prestwich, Lecturer, University of Durham, Ann Hyland, consultant on equestrianism to the Oxford English Dictionary ("rouncy: horse of almost all work (except hauling carts). Of moderate size, moderate value and moderately bred. Used as a warhorse by a man-at-arms, as well as by servants, and also used as a pack animal" from The Warhorse ISBN 0-7509-0746-0), and Christopher Gravett, Senior Curator at the Royal Armouries. As to Edward III in 1327, it had nothing to do with the Hundred Years' War: try the war against the Scots. And no, nothing to do with 'not being much of a fight', but the change in warfare from mounted to foot (particularly in the Scottish Wars): ie. knights dismounted to fight; horses used only for pursuit (and perhaps a bit of skirmishing) afterwards, so a nice general-purpose rouncey just the thing. As to there being no such thing as a 'general purpose' horse, I have no idea: I come from a medievalist's viewpoint. I shall seek enlightenment from my horse 'colleague' at these pages. Gwinva 14:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree, then. Webster's Revised Unabridged defines 'rouncey' as a nag ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rouncy ), and Chaucer used the term in his writing to mean 'nag,' as did other sources of the day. I find it quite suprising that the experts you have cited disagree with the usage that the people of the day used, but I can already see that it would just boil down to me and you waving our sources at each other, I can't see as how anything would be resolved. You see, either my sources are wrong and I have to toss out my dictionaries and the other books I'm looking at, or yours are, and we have to toss them out. Either way, there's no way to determine which is which without actually researching the subject, and that's just not going to work - WP only allows citations, not research. So, we'd end up just fighting over it. And as I said on the talk:palfrey page, I'm getting too old to fight over a free encyclopedia. *laugh* Xaa

I understand where you're coming from, as I went round in circles at first too, trying to pin down a meaning. In the end, I went for the specialists rather than the generalists ie. reputable historians (in military history and medieval horses) rather than dictionaries or general horse histories. Perhaps the article should show more of the debate. BTW, did Chaucer use it to mean 'nag', or have some modernday commentators assumed he did? Since Hyland got a lot of her data from studying accounts, we must presume some rounceys (at least) weren't too 'naggy'. And would you want to ride a nag into battle? Gwinva 16:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You ask "Did Chaucer use it to mean 'nag', or have some modern day commentators assumed he did?' The answer to your question, unfortunately, can't be used in the article, because by definition, it is original research and disallowed on Wikipedia. However, here is your answer:

Chaucer's description of the shipman is of someone who is just barely above being actually poor, wearing old clothes that are faded by the sun. It's a rather long description, but here's the important bits:

A SHIPMAN was ther, wonynge fer by weste; 
For aught I woot, he was of Dertemouthe. 
He rood upon a rouncy, as he kouthe, 
In a gowne of faldyng to the knee. 

Coghill translates this as "stallion cob", but this is objectionable to some because Chaucer already uses the term elsewhere in the text, it's clear he meant something else. Most of the Chaucer translators I have read translate it as "nag" or "farmer's horse", and cite other works of around Chaucer's day which use the term similarly.

In reference to the Wife of Bath's horse, which you mentioned above, she is depicted as being highly unusual for her day. She rides astride like the knight rather than side-saddle as the other females (and as was considered appropriate for women of the day), she wears clothing that is clearly depicted as being outlandish, and in much of her other mannerisms she is very outgoing and mannish. It is clear to most translators that Chaucer intended her more as a caricature rather than as an actual person. Some have asserted, however, that Chaucer's description was of a type of person who did exist - the medieval equivalent of a feminist. Either way, however, she is clearly depicted as being unusual.

Unfortunately, all of this qualifies as "original research," and as such cannot be used in the article. That's why I said it would basically boil down to me waving my sources at you, and you doing likewise. All of my sources say "rouncy=nag." All of yours say differently. There isn't a clear way to resolve the issue. Xaa 16:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. But, riding astride is not that remarkable: Sidesaddle invented 13th C, but not universally adopted until 19th century (something to do with invention of the 'horn') (see Gies and Gies, Daily Life in Medieval Times p 273) Check out pictures of women on horseback. (One at Horses in the Middle Ages). (I am not knocking you: I'm genuinely interested in debate; I hardly consider myself an expert in this, just trying to make some sense of it).Gwinva 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The English term "sidesaddle" is somewhat misleading. You don't need a special saddle to ride side-saddle - you don't even need a saddle. Just a calm mount with a gentle stride. Interestingly, calmness and a gentle stride were the key elements of the Palfrey, and the reason it was the preferred ride of women and the elderly. There are many illustrations of medieval women riding sidesaddle, but very few of them doing otherwise, and all of them are depicting unusual situations (war, typically). As far as the illo you have indicated, it's just not representative of women in the middle ages. The very description of the image shows it's a picture of a woman warrior, which was about as rare as hen's teeth in the middle ages and THAT is a point NO historian is going to argue about. ;-) Saying that illustration is typical of women in the middle ages is kind of like pointing to a painting of Joan of Arc and saying "See? Women wore pants in the middle ages!" It ignores how unusual Joan actually was (and ignores the largest reason she was burned at the stake, which was for wearing pants. ;-) ) Women rode sidesaddle in the middle ages. They had to, otherwise their dresses would ride up their legs, and back in the middle ages, even a woman's ankle was considered scandalous to view. Xaa 17:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts: I'm reminded of my first visit to a Ren-Faire, where they were giving free horse rides around a paddock. A gal I knew back then tried to ride astride wearing her period gown. The results were, shall we say, quite memorable. She didn't *intend* for everyone to see that biker tat on her leg, nor did she intend for everyone to take pictures of it. But, we did. Then we ran like hell. Ah, memories... Xaa 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Values of rounceys

Something else for the melting pot:

• From Edward I's accounts: Destriers £40-£80; Rouncies varied from 30 marks down to £2 (where a mark is ⅔ a pound ie. 13s. 4d.) (Hyland The Warhorse p 29)

To put in context:

• 1302/3 Prince of Wales bought 3 bascinets for £1 (Hyland p 30)
• Stott (peasant workhorse) between 1250-1400 average price, 5s. 7d. carthorse 9s 4d (John Clark, The Medieval Horse and its Equipment, p 27)
• 1312 Edward II's haketons 10s each; Edward III's plate gauntlets 6s 8d (Prestwich, Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages, p 25)
• 1292 level of wealth required for a knight £40 (Prestwich, p 77)
• army pay under Edward II: armed infantry 4d per day; half-armed 3d, rest 2s; (Prestwich, p 134)
• 1347 longbow cost 1s 3d (Prestwich, p 140)

Just from a quick look. I'll hunt out the palfrey costs, also. Gwinva 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

After roaming my shelves, it was back to Prestwich (p 34), which shows English 13th C Pipe Roll valuing destriers and palfreys similarly with typical price of 30 marks, plus a number of other exchanges and deals with the English court in the 12th/13th C where Palfreys were given to the king to defray large debts, or to win preference in cases. (eg Earl of Chester who gave the King 2 warhorses and 3 palfreys to win right to an heiress). Hyland (p 14) speaking of France in 1279: ceiling put on horse prices: 60 lt for a palfrey, 15-25 lt for a rouncey (lt=livres tounois, where 4 livre=£1). Gwinva 19:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Hyland (pp24-25) shows two indented rounceys, each valued at 5 marks (and chargers worth 50 marks); 9p26) daily pay under Edward I: 4s banneret, 3s knight; 1s man-at-arms; crossbowmen 3d; archers 2d; carpenter 4d... No way could anyone lower than a man-at-arms afford the rounceys or palfreys mentioned.Gwinva 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In your first cite, it means that a Destrier cost forty to eighty pounds, while a rouncy ran 2 to twenty. Meanwhile, the ceiling (I.E. absolute maximum legal price) put by the king of France again indicates a beast of lesser value - the palfreys weigh in at 60 lire, while rounceys weigh in at a max of 25. Again, in two separate time periods and in two separate nations, a rouncey was a nag.

In reference to palfreys (though this is the wrong page for it, and I hope you don't mind me mentioning it here), your citations show that though there were some that were sold and traded that had value, in general, they were worth about two to three times that of a rouncy - in other words, they were a middling-value horse, not a top-end value horse, as the Palfrey article claims.

In reference to your last comment vis-a-vis salaries, I don't find it in the least surprising that a horse of a quality high enough to be given/sold/traded to a king is a bit pricey for Joe Normal to afford. ;-) Consider: We know that knights rode horses, but by the salaries you quoted in your last comment, above, how could they possibly afford them? At 4 shillings a day, it would take a banneret 200 days to save enough money to afford one, and that assumes he forgoes the small things in life, like food. ;-) Answer: It's not the whole picture. Those prices are from the records of what they cost a king, not a commoner. Moreover, the salary lists don't take into account the income that each noble would have from the servants and vassals beneath them (farmers gave anywhere from half to two thirds of their crop to their lord, sometimes more), merely what the king paid for their services.

Finally, it's worth noting that we can't compare prices across the decades or across national lines. The value of any item changes over time, usually growing more expensive. As a contemporary example, here in the US, an automobile today runs around $20,000 to $30,000. Yet, just twenty years ago, these prices were half that. And just fifty years ago, they were a tenth that. As far as national boundaries go, today, gas is about $3 a gallon. However, in Venezuela, gas runs about $0.15 a gallon. Thus, prices for any commodity or good vary across national lines, and across the decades, today, and the reasons for these variations are fairly well known to most people today. Well, it was the same in the middle ages. Europe was not then and never has been a single, homogeneous nation, Europe is comprised of a miltiplicity of nations who only recently banded together in the E.U. - for the last two thousand years of history prior to now, Europe's history has been dominated by an endless series of wars. And, naturally, inflation has taken it's toll over the centuries, and the availablility of goods has varied from nation to nation and decade to decade. So, as one might expect, the prices for various items in the middle ages varies from decade to decade, and from nation to nation. Christopher Dyer in "Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages" notes that the prices of horses doubled in England between 1210 and 1310. However, comparing his work with that of Frances Gies in "The Knight in History", we get an indication that it may have been even more dramatic than that. The price Dyer quotes as being typical in the 13th century for a trained warhorse of average quality is about eighty pounds. This compares with the price Gies cites for the 12th century of fifty shillings, or two pounds ten shillings, an increase of *thirty-two times* the value.

In short, while I appreciate you taking the trouble to work up those lists, they aren't terribly useful, because they don't reference each other well, they're all from different time periods and different nations. Prices in the Middle Ages varied from decade to decade and from nation to nation, just as they do today. Also, the salaries listed only account for what the king paid his vassals, and does not account for what his higher-ranking vassals would have been taking in from their own vassals. Xaa 21:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, one era, one place (Edward I, England):

• Destriers £40-£80;
• Rouncies varied from 30 marks down to £2
• 1302/3 Prince of Wales bought 3 bascinets for £1 (Hyland p 30)
• Stott (peasant workhorse) average price, 5s. 7d.(between 1250-1400 ie. included now, lumped together because varied little)
• carthorse 9s 4d
• daily pay: 4s banneret, 3s knight (plus whatever they earnt through land); 1s man-at-arms; crossbowmen 3d; archers 2d; carpenter 4d... (who will have had no other source of income)

ie. these rouncies out of reach of anyone without land, or gift from overlord; best rouncies cost half a standard destrier, which says it's pretty expensive (similar to a courser).

• and of course: English 13th C Pipe Roll valuing destriers and palfreys similarly with typical price of 30 marks. Can't compare with above prices, but here destriers are compared with palfreys. These palfreys couldn't be owned by a poor man. Gwinva 08:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To Xaa

Xaa, you claim that various authorities make assorted statements, but your remarks are completely unverified. You are citing ZERO sources here, if you want to argue, then cite to a BOOK or other verifiable source, with a PAGE NUMBER. You are also violating the wikipedia pillar of Wikipedia:Civility by your tone and attitude.

Look again, particularly in my previous post. I am citing sources. Xaa 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Dictionaries are not always authoritative sources; they may not be complete in defining terms. Just as an example, I have been waging a long-running war over at the chaps article over correct pronounciation of the western garment. The term has been so widely mispronounced (with the pronounciation used for British guys or raw, chafed skin) that many dictionaries list the wrong pronounciation as correct. However the word has a distinct and linguistically verifiable (from the Spanish) correct prounounciation. There's also an editing war in the Mustang article over the Spanish and Mexican origins of the word "Mustang," which Spanish word was the original term and what that term actually meant.

Ummm... I'm sorry, there is no nice way to say this, but... The minute you say "A dictionary is not an authoritative source," you completely lose my respect. Xaa 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You also are not entirely correct about horses. While it is true that horses all have a certain form to function, there always have been horses of vague breeding that serve multiple purposes. Some have even been deliberately bred as such; for example, within the last 150 years, the Morgan horse was deliberately bred and promoted as an "all purpose" horse that could pull a plow, carry a rider, compete in harness racing, and today is seen jumping, trail riding, and in dressage--all very different events.

Justin Morgan's horse was a plough horse. It was later discovered that it's descendants were good for riding, but that's not what it was originally bred to do. Today, the Morgan is considered a multi-purpose breed, but that wasn't why it was bred in the first place, nor why the breed was continued through the 19th century into the 20th century. Xaa 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "nag" is a pretty big catchall term, an insult, rather akin to calling a person a "jerk" or "stupid."

If any horses are reading this and feel offended by my use of the word "nag", I apologize most sincerely. However, I have the feeling that most horses are not reading Wikipedia, and so no offense is possible. Xaa 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In short, palfreys, rounceys and other horses in the middle ages were not "breeds" as we understand them today, rather, they were references to body type or style, which is also probably why some historic sources are a bit inconsistent. To give another example, the Spanish Jennet was a fine-blooded animal, probably the ancestor of breeds like the modern Paso Fino, but apparently in the UK, the term also is used to describe a female donkey--clearly an example of the historic animosity between the English and the Spanish -- nothing like insulting one another's horses. Montanabw 22:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

1) As far as palfreys not being a specific breed, I never said they were.

2) As far as historic sources being inconsistent, I specifically mentioned that in my previous post regarding prices.

3) As far as Paso Finos, well, I apologize to any Paso Finos who are reading my words, no offense was intended. Xaa 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses

I have responded to some of these points at Talk:Palfrey#Trying to make sense of all this. Gwinva 08:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replied there. =) Xaa 13:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Kit:

21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)71.89.250.135 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

faldynghas been misinterpreted as 'sun-faded'; It is a "course woolen coat",(Chaucers Middle English Glossary Dictionary) "...to the knee,". ~Kit, in Tahoe.