Montfauçon, however, believed it to be really a horseshoe, and adds, ‘the shoe is small; whence it is conjectured the animal it belonged to was of a diminutive size.’ And in reply to the objection that the Franks did not shoe their horses, he replies: ‘Perhaps only the greatest persons had their horses shod in those times; and afterwards, probably when the practice of shoeing was more general, the Franks only shod their cavalry occasionally, as in frost, for example, in the ninth century.’
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Horse_shoes_and_horse_shoeing_page126.jpeg/200px-Horse_shoes_and_horse_shoeing_page126.jpeg)
In the accompanying copy of this restored, but doubtful, shoe (fig. 5), it will be seen that there was but a slender instalment to base such an outline upon, Montfauçon says, in explanation of the drawing: ‘The horse-shoe of Childeric has been there represented entire, although only a portion of it
téressante d'Oberflacht, ont rencontré un équipement complet de cheval sans fer . . . . . le fer de Childeric Ier, ainsi que les squelettes de chevaux francs trouvés en Allemagne, prouve que cette race était petite, ce qui est confirmé par Tacite:
Equi (eorum) non forma conspicui.
...........
Namur, rapporteur des fouilles de Dalheim, dit: ‘Il parait étabiì que les chevaux gaulois des premiers siècles de l'ère chrétienne élaient de petits chevaux de selle, demi-sauvages, à petits sabots durs et rétrécis, comme le sont encore aujourd'hui les chevaux demi-sauvages éléves dans l'Ukraine et dans les steppes qui avoisinent la mer Caspienne.’—Le Tombeau de Childeric Ier. Paris, 1862.