Tweet
Re: Horse Breed
I hate myself for having been drawn into this no-win contest, but I feel obliged to offer at least a necessarily truncated response, after which I am bowing out of the discussion. First, permit me to say that I have the utmost respect for Hank and Linda Trent; they are perhaps the foremost authorities on mid-19th century husbandry in the hobby and they're aces in my book! I offer the following for informational purposes only; it is not my intent to question anyone's opinion or interpretation of the historical record. Volumes have been written on this subject, and we will not settle any of the issues here. READ. And then read some more...
"History," said Bonaparte, "is a set of lies agreed upon." And ironically enough, I doubt very seriously whether the Little Corporal actually uttered this pithy comment, so there ya go. History is subjective by definition, as it is the nature of events as seen through the reporter's filter--and every human being has biases, whether conscious or subconscious.
This subject has been masticated to death on the pre-crash incarnation of this forum and another now (mercifully) defunct cavalry forum, so this really does become somewhat tedious. It always seems to devolve into a p*ssing match in which some folks are determined to justify the use of their favorite breed, rather than a forthright attempt to determine the nature of the typical troop horse. So sad.
My reference library is entirely packed away, so I can't even begin to present all the requisite data even if I had the time to do so (and I do not). So please bear with me as I attempt to offer just a few nuggets for your thoughtful consideration:
The volume of contemporary literature on the subject is indeed massive, but it is not necessarily reliable simply by virtue of being published during the period. And while period sources might refer to a particular bloodline or "stock," cross-breeding was ubiquitous and they are not referring to "breeds" in the modern connotation of the term. For example, unlike the Thoroughbred, the original antecedents of the Morgan horse are dubious at best, and I can even recall reading an article in a New England agricultural journal in which the author notes the rising values of "Morgan stock" (again, I believe the use of the term "stock" justifies rather broad application) and actually encourages farmers who have horses for sale that possess Morgan-like characteristics (stocky build w/thick crest, wavy mane/tail, etc) to call them "Morgan horses" to realize a better selling price! Jeez, that doesn't screw up that bloodline thang a'tall! I can't emphasize this enough: In the mid-19th century, horse breeding was a free-for-all. So you'll be better served by getting that breed idea out of your head.
Now, about the Thoroughbred. The development of the TB in England is well-documented and the first TB recorded to have been imported into the American colonies was "Bulle Rock," a stallion, who arrived in Virginia in 1730. In the early years of the following decade a TB mare named "Bonny Lass" also found a new home in the colonies. The earliest attempt to methodically record TB bloodlines in this country I am aware of was John Stuart Skinner's American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine, which was instituted in 1829 for the express purpose of preventing the introduction of spurious pedigrees into the TB fold and generally promoting the improvement of the breed. It was enormously influential during the period with which we are concerned. It appeared in numerous editions throughout the antebellum period.
By the 1860s, the TB was held in such high regard that a gentleman attempting to raise a company of cavalry for service with the 17th Pennsylvania regiment based his credentials for command solely upon the fact that he was the owner of "Black Warrior," a celebrated gladiator of the turf. And in an article on "Morgans as Army Horses," Captain Frazier Boutelle said, "I love the thoroughbred, I like to say 'thoroughbred.' It leaves a good taste in my mouth." In his gargantuan tome, the Military Dictionary, Colonel Henry L. Scott (Inspector General of the US Army) noted: "The thoroughbred horse enters into every other breed, and adds or often gives to it its only value. For a superior charger, hunter, or saddle horse, three parts or one-half should be of pure blood; but for the horse of all work, less will answer. The road horse, according to the work required of him should, like the hunter, possess different degrees of blood." [emphasis is Scott's]. The definitive works on the American Thoroughbred horse were penned by Alexander Mackay-Smith, and I highly recommend them to you.
The "quarter pather" originated in colonial times. It was a cross of the local descendants of the Andalusian horses brought to the New World by the Spanish (called the "Chickasaw horse" by the Native Americans) and the Thoroughbred. The Quarter Horse (as defined by the modern breed organization) was the result of a breeding program carried on by the King Ranch, and the modern conformation very likely bears little resemblance (and no verifiable blood association) to the colonial quarter pather--they are not the same animal, just share a similar designation. The "quarter nags" referred to would be the descendants of the quarter pather, and not the antecedents of the modern Quarter Horse. Consult Robert Denhardt's excellent works for more data on this subject.
The Keeneland library is indeed an superb resource, and don't overlook the National Sporting Library in Middleburg, Virginia--it is nothing short of phenomenal. The Marion duPont Scott Collection in the Special Collections holdings at the University of Virginia is also a veritable gold mine of equestrian literature.
READ.
And even if you choose to discount the American Turf Register's bona fides, the fact that no other breed had been formally established as such by the Civil War years renders these arguments about the appropriate employment of modern breeds in reenacting moot. Select your mount (his physical attributes, at any rate) based on reliable period documentation--ie, photographic evidence. How can you go wrong? Who cares what breed it is??? And please disregard generals' mounts out of hand. You are not a general, bunkie. Find yourself a scruffy little "easy keeper" of a solid darkish color with little or no white on it's legs, good feet, a round trot and an easy-going disposition, and you'll be just fine. Oh, and be sure a McClellan, Jenifer, or other appropriate period saddle will fit your chosen Rosinante...
I leave you to it.
~Aden
I hate myself for having been drawn into this no-win contest, but I feel obliged to offer at least a necessarily truncated response, after which I am bowing out of the discussion. First, permit me to say that I have the utmost respect for Hank and Linda Trent; they are perhaps the foremost authorities on mid-19th century husbandry in the hobby and they're aces in my book! I offer the following for informational purposes only; it is not my intent to question anyone's opinion or interpretation of the historical record. Volumes have been written on this subject, and we will not settle any of the issues here. READ. And then read some more...
"History," said Bonaparte, "is a set of lies agreed upon." And ironically enough, I doubt very seriously whether the Little Corporal actually uttered this pithy comment, so there ya go. History is subjective by definition, as it is the nature of events as seen through the reporter's filter--and every human being has biases, whether conscious or subconscious.
This subject has been masticated to death on the pre-crash incarnation of this forum and another now (mercifully) defunct cavalry forum, so this really does become somewhat tedious. It always seems to devolve into a p*ssing match in which some folks are determined to justify the use of their favorite breed, rather than a forthright attempt to determine the nature of the typical troop horse. So sad.
My reference library is entirely packed away, so I can't even begin to present all the requisite data even if I had the time to do so (and I do not). So please bear with me as I attempt to offer just a few nuggets for your thoughtful consideration:
The volume of contemporary literature on the subject is indeed massive, but it is not necessarily reliable simply by virtue of being published during the period. And while period sources might refer to a particular bloodline or "stock," cross-breeding was ubiquitous and they are not referring to "breeds" in the modern connotation of the term. For example, unlike the Thoroughbred, the original antecedents of the Morgan horse are dubious at best, and I can even recall reading an article in a New England agricultural journal in which the author notes the rising values of "Morgan stock" (again, I believe the use of the term "stock" justifies rather broad application) and actually encourages farmers who have horses for sale that possess Morgan-like characteristics (stocky build w/thick crest, wavy mane/tail, etc) to call them "Morgan horses" to realize a better selling price! Jeez, that doesn't screw up that bloodline thang a'tall! I can't emphasize this enough: In the mid-19th century, horse breeding was a free-for-all. So you'll be better served by getting that breed idea out of your head.
Now, about the Thoroughbred. The development of the TB in England is well-documented and the first TB recorded to have been imported into the American colonies was "Bulle Rock," a stallion, who arrived in Virginia in 1730. In the early years of the following decade a TB mare named "Bonny Lass" also found a new home in the colonies. The earliest attempt to methodically record TB bloodlines in this country I am aware of was John Stuart Skinner's American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine, which was instituted in 1829 for the express purpose of preventing the introduction of spurious pedigrees into the TB fold and generally promoting the improvement of the breed. It was enormously influential during the period with which we are concerned. It appeared in numerous editions throughout the antebellum period.
By the 1860s, the TB was held in such high regard that a gentleman attempting to raise a company of cavalry for service with the 17th Pennsylvania regiment based his credentials for command solely upon the fact that he was the owner of "Black Warrior," a celebrated gladiator of the turf. And in an article on "Morgans as Army Horses," Captain Frazier Boutelle said, "I love the thoroughbred, I like to say 'thoroughbred.' It leaves a good taste in my mouth." In his gargantuan tome, the Military Dictionary, Colonel Henry L. Scott (Inspector General of the US Army) noted: "The thoroughbred horse enters into every other breed, and adds or often gives to it its only value. For a superior charger, hunter, or saddle horse, three parts or one-half should be of pure blood; but for the horse of all work, less will answer. The road horse, according to the work required of him should, like the hunter, possess different degrees of blood." [emphasis is Scott's]. The definitive works on the American Thoroughbred horse were penned by Alexander Mackay-Smith, and I highly recommend them to you.
The "quarter pather" originated in colonial times. It was a cross of the local descendants of the Andalusian horses brought to the New World by the Spanish (called the "Chickasaw horse" by the Native Americans) and the Thoroughbred. The Quarter Horse (as defined by the modern breed organization) was the result of a breeding program carried on by the King Ranch, and the modern conformation very likely bears little resemblance (and no verifiable blood association) to the colonial quarter pather--they are not the same animal, just share a similar designation. The "quarter nags" referred to would be the descendants of the quarter pather, and not the antecedents of the modern Quarter Horse. Consult Robert Denhardt's excellent works for more data on this subject.
The Keeneland library is indeed an superb resource, and don't overlook the National Sporting Library in Middleburg, Virginia--it is nothing short of phenomenal. The Marion duPont Scott Collection in the Special Collections holdings at the University of Virginia is also a veritable gold mine of equestrian literature.
READ.
And even if you choose to discount the American Turf Register's bona fides, the fact that no other breed had been formally established as such by the Civil War years renders these arguments about the appropriate employment of modern breeds in reenacting moot. Select your mount (his physical attributes, at any rate) based on reliable period documentation--ie, photographic evidence. How can you go wrong? Who cares what breed it is??? And please disregard generals' mounts out of hand. You are not a general, bunkie. Find yourself a scruffy little "easy keeper" of a solid darkish color with little or no white on it's legs, good feet, a round trot and an easy-going disposition, and you'll be just fine. Oh, and be sure a McClellan, Jenifer, or other appropriate period saddle will fit your chosen Rosinante...
I leave you to it.
~Aden
Comment