Horse Breed

[mosbyranger8]

Forgive me if this has been covered (i did not find anything conclusive with searching) but....

Were there breeds of horses that were clearly used, and clearly not used, during the Civil war? What about between sides, North and South? I understand a lot a men brought there own horses to use. What breeds were common/uncommon/non-exsistant during that time period in America?

Links to other threads/websites welcome.

Thank you,

Brett Cherry
43rd Virginia Cav

[T.Kern]

Re: Horse Breed

Forgive me if this has been covered (i did not find anything conclusive with searching) but....

Were there breeds of horses that were clearly used, and clearly not used, during the Civil war? What about between sides, North and South? I understand a lot a men brought there own horses to use. What breeds were common/uncommon/non-exsistant during that time period in America?

Links to other threads/websites welcome.

Thank you,

Brett Cherry
43rd Virginia Cav

yes, this has been covered a lot...but to sum it up for the most part. Blooded horses(TB, Arabs), quarter pacers, plantation or roadster horses, Morgan and cunucks for the feds, and a lot of just plain mongrels. Don't forget a lot of mules too. Plenty of others less common as well.

What wasn't used, because they weren't breeds then, to name a few were saddlebreds, foundation quarter horses, and paints. Though I'm sure some looked like what ever...and I'm sure I left some out too.

Todd Kern

[volcav]

Re: Horse Breed

While there were no American Breed registries, that I'm aware of, until after the war, there were specific recognized types of horses that were later organized into breeds. Most if not all American Breeds of horse can trace some of their lineage back to a little horse in Vermont named Figure who was owned by a school teacher named Justin Morgan in the 1780's or 1790's. Figure is believed to have been either full or part Naraganset Pacer. The Naraganset Pacer disappeared all together in the mid-1800's.

Morgan type horses were around and I've seen it documented by the Pony Express Museum that they were used by the Pony Express (pre-Civil War).

Saddlebred type horses were around but they were called American horses or Saddle Horses or Kentucky Saddle Horses, or Missouri Saddle Horses. These American Horses go back to Colonial times and were Narraganset Pacer and Thoroughbred mixes. They became the foundation stock for the gaited breeds we have today. They were bred for riding all day in comfort.

Canadian Stock horse types were imported for the Union and Confederate cavalries during the war. The Canadian Stock horse was basically a Canadian version of the Morgan.

Standarbred types were around too with a heavy Narraganset pacer influence. Selective breeding for different traits resulted in the different breeds.

Though not used as cavalry mounts, Draft horses called Norman Horses were imported in the 1850's. The Norman horses are the predecessors to the Percherons.

Thoroughbreds were available and probably some Arab types like the Spanish Barb of the South West that became foundation stock for the American Mustang.

The type of horse that is the modern quarter horse was not bred during the mid-1800's. I'm referring to the wide bodied horses being bred today. Those horses are actually a 1900's evolution of selective breeding for ranch work first and then competition later. These horses were heavily influenced by the U.S. Army Cavalry Remount breeding program of the early 1900's. Horse breeders were allowed to use Army studs to improve their herds and the Army got the cream of the crop. That's a very condensed idea of the program. The studs in the Army Remount Program inventory were mostly Thoroughbreds with Morgans coming in a distant second and Arabs in third place I believe.

The horses of the 1800's were generally not as wide bodied as the horses of today. That's why an original Mac doesn't fit a modern quarter horse very well in most cases. Horses in general, like people in general tended to be smaller and thinner back then than people or horses of today. You will find that an original Mac fits breeds like the Saddlebred, Standardbred, some strains of Morgans, Arabs, and some strains of Mustang better than Quarter Horses, Paints (Quarter Horse crop outs with chrome), and other modern wide bodied breeds of horse. Of course it is common knowledge that the Army only used solid color horses. I'm sure someone out there can find one or two references to spotted horses or pintos but they were not the regulation standard.

I'm not knocking Quarter Horses. They are a good all around breed. Horses just weren't being bred like that in the 1800's.

[Outrider]

Re: Horse Breed

I have yet to see in all -MY- years of cavalry reenacting , any real evidence that a "modern" QH is any less correct than a "modern" Tennesee Walker, Morgan or even Thoroughbreds . Like most breeds, there are different "types" within that breed. The foundation QH is a modern type but there are many ( and I have owned several) that are "old style" i.e. narrower body, higher withered, smaller overall. I dont have to go far around here to see a QH that fits that type and - this is just MHO -that the "period" type is not about breed but more about body type. The old styled QH looks very much ( to my eyes at least) like a somewhat smaller thoroughbred.

Clearly, the modern "bulldog' type QH is incorrect but I have seen an awful lot of horses in pics with confirmation that looks very familiar- at least to me- and have never seen one that labels the horse in question as a thoroughbred, "plantation Walker" etc.

I am not suggesting anyone is wrong here, just that on this particular subject, all I have ever heard is personal opinions and conjecture and I would suggest that much of the bias against QH's is a result of so many "cowboy yahoos" at the big shows riding very clearly modern type horses. I very recently heard someone who is supposed to "know his **** about period horses say something like...
" QH's are farby...there were plantations all over the south and so they rode mostly plantation walkers and other gaited horses".....ummm really? And what would someone base THAT generalization on. I would love to know.

I would totally agree that original saddles are narrower overall etc. but would also suggest that one cannot judge wether a horse is "periodcorrect" or not based on that alone. too many reports of sore backs, broke down horses while on campaign for that. For me and again this is just MY OWN opinion at least some of those were probably a result of ill fitting saddles and I personally have seen and know off authentic minded reenactors that use correct trees on their mounts with a poor saddle fit being the result. IMHO we just dont put enough miles on in a typical scenario for th inevitable result to show up.

I guess what I took so long to say is that IMHO any modern beed is no more-or less- correct than any other with the exception of the specific types and colors aready mentioned so many times before. but this is a very old arguement and one that will continue, I expect, as long as there are cavalry reenactors.

BTW my main reenacting mount is a morgan walker cross but I also own a Qh that I beleive is a "period" type and I would defy anyone who isnt extemely familar with both breeds to distinguish him from a "period" thoroughbred type.

And thats all I have to say about that...and thank God for it!

[volcav]

Re: Horse Breed

I have yet to see in all -MY- years of cavalry reenacting , any real evidence that a "modern" QH is any less correct than a "modern" Tennesee Walker, Morgan or even Thoroughbreds . Like most breeds, there are different "types" within that breed. The foundation QH is a modern type but there are many ( and I have owned several) that are "old style" i.e. narrower body, higher withered, smaller overall. I dont have to go far around here to see a QH that fits that type and - this is just MHO -that the "period" type is not about breed but more about body type. The old styled QH looks very much ( to my eyes at least) like a somewhat smaller thoroughbred.

Clearly, the modern "bulldog' type QH is incorrect but I have seen an awful lot of horses in pics with confirmation that looks very familiar- at least to me- and have never seen one that labels the horse in question as a thoroughbred, "plantation Walker" etc.

I am not suggesting anyone is wrong here, just that on this particular subject, all I have ever heard is personal opinions and conjecture and I would suggest that much of the bias against QH's is a result of so many "cowboy yahoos" at the big shows riding very clearly modern type horses. I very recently heard someone who is supposed to "know his **** about period horses say something like...
" QH's are farby...there were plantations all over the south and so they rode mostly plantation walkers and other gaited horses".....ummm really? And what would someone base THAT generalization on. I would love to know.

I would totally agree that original saddles are narrower overall etc. but would also suggest that one cannot judge wether a horse is "periodcorrect" or not based on that alone. too many reports of sore backs, broke down horses while on campaign for that. For me and again this is just MY OWN opinion at least some of those were probably a result of ill fitting saddles and I personally have seen and know off authentic minded reenactors that use correct trees on their mounts with a poor saddle fit being the result. IMHO we just dont put enough miles on in a typical scenario for th inevitable result to show up.

I guess what I took so long to say is that IMHO any modern beed is no more-or less- correct than any other with the exception of the specific types and colors aready mentioned so many times before. but this is a very old arguement and one that will continue, I expect, as long as there are cavalry reenactors.

BTW my main reenacting mount is a morgan walker cross but I also own a Qh that I beleive is a "period" type and I would defy anyone who isnt extemely familar with both breeds to distinguish him from a "period" thoroughbred type.

And thats all I have to say about that...and thank God for it!

:)I will agree that body type has more to do with period correctness than breed and that there were plenty of straight going horses as opposed to gaited horses in the 1800's. Since the question was about breeds of horses I posted what I've learned over twenty plus years of studying the different American breeds and where they came from. Breed Association websites is a good place to start if anyone is interested. It is my belief that one is more likely to find a "closer to period" body type horse in some breeds than others. But I've seen wide bodied Saddlebreds and Standardbreds too.

The narrower trees aren't limited to Mac's. Every 1800's and early 1900's original saddle I've ever seen had a tree that would be too narrow for most modern horses regardless of breed. That leads me to believe that most horses in the 1800's were narrower than horses today. I really wish we could discuss this over a cold beverage.

[csabugler]

Re: Horse Breed

Jerry, I'd like to see what you have on the Norman /percheron deal. I've got a good sized perch/twh cross.
And by the way, I'm open to that discussion with a cold one! :D

Woodrow is about 1250 lbs, sure-footed and solid as granite.Well, except for that scared of guns thing.... But I don't think he would have survived long on the rations the army could provide in the field. IMHO, he would have been culled for mounted service for that reason, maybe sent to the teamsters. I must agree that lighter built horses were prefered.

And I have to wonder, if Brett is placing his Mac in the center of the back, mightn't the girth be darn close to squeezing the base of the horses ribs?

[FloridaConscript]

Re: Horse Breed

Two breeds to check out would be a Florida Cracker Horse or Carolina Marsh Tacky. just google them.

[Seamus]

Re: Horse Breed

These images do not specifically address the question, but may provide some useful information:

[csabugler]

Re: Horse Breed

Cool, all dark horses, or sorrells. Greys for the buglers

[English Doc]

Re: Horse Breed

:)I will agree that body type has more to do with period correctness than breed

Every 1800's and early 1900's original saddle I've ever seen had a tree that would be too narrow for most modern horses regardless of breed. That leads me to believe that most horses in the 1800's were narrower than horses today.

I would agree with that statement, and suggest that modern dietary conditions are, in the main, more responsible for this than any other series of conditions, genetics, breeding or otherwise. Just my two pennyworth!

Ken Pettengale
Volunteer Company

[Joni House]

Re: Horse Breed

Gentlemen:
Just to add my two cents worth. The American Saddlebred as it is now called - breed registery was established in the 1880s by John B. Castleman. Castleman rode with John H. Morgan during the war and Morgan's men preferred mount was the Kentucky Saddler and that breed is the direct ancestor of the American Saddlebred Horse. That horse was developed on the farm of R.A. Alexander in Woodford County, Kentucky. The breed was developed for a long gate and endurance. A Kentucky Saddlehorse was the prefered choice of many Civil War genrals - when they could get one. You should go to the American Saddlebred Assoc. website and look up the "General's Horses." They have an excellent article and did a great exhibit in that museum on just that subject. Additionally, if you look in the Pictorial History of the Civil War - The Cavalry, you will see a splendid example of a "Virginia Roadster," which is most certainly a saddle horse.
The Tenn. Walking horse came from a stud named Diamond's Denmark, who was also bred on R.A. Alexnader's Woodburn Farm. His stud was Gaine's Denamark which is considered the foundation sire for the American Saddlebred. That horse was referred to as a Kentucky Saddler.
Now did every cavalry private ride a "fine Kentucky Saddler." Probably not, but the breed should be acceptable as a period correct horse.
My family raises, shows, trains and rides Saddlebreds in our reenacting.
Thanks,
Joni House

[volcav]

Re: Horse Breed

Jerry, I'd like to see what you have on the Norman /percheron deal. I've got a good sized perch/twh cross.
And by the way, I'm open to that discussion with a cold one! :D

Woodrow is about 1250 lbs, sure-footed and solid as granite.Well, except for that scared of guns thing.... But I don't think he would have survived long on the rations the army could provide in the field. IMHO, he would have been culled for mounted service for that reason, maybe sent to the teamsters. I must agree that lighter built horses were prefered.

And I have to wonder, if Brett is placing his Mac in the center of the back, mightn't the girth be darn close to squeezing the base of the horses ribs?

Here's one reference to the Norman/Percheron horses.

http://www.cabincreekcds.com/NormanHorses.htm

[csabugler]

Re: Horse Breed

Thanks Jerry, I'll study on that .

[guad42]

Re: Horse Breed

Though not a cavalryman, I'll put in two cents, maybe three. I grew up with horses, and we still have them. In fact, our Morgan, which both my father and I rode for years is still alive and enjoying relative retirement. He's a fine looking animal, and we used him often on period set films because of his old timey look. You can't go wrong with a good Morgan; for authenticity and a reliable animal. They are great companions.

Personally, and here's where I stand ready for a volley, I'd suggest avoiding Arabs. Though they remain a popular horse today, vehmently defended by Arabian horse owners, I believe they were far less common in the 1860s. Even a Arabian gelding can be a lot to handle, and their short faces and seemingly perpetual flared noses and distinct. Though in an infantry outfit, I often watch the horses of the mounted folks at events, I can always pick out an Arabian in a crowd. IMHO any middleaged Morgan is better than 6 Arabians. Now, I worked with horses in my youth, and I was often surrounded by old timers, cowboys and the like, so my opinion may have been affected by their consistantly poor estimation of Arabians.

Only recently was I told that Appaloosas were an uncommon breed in America in the mid-late 19th century - thus the title of the popular novel and film is somewhat an error, but I am not sure. I can't recall having seen photos of appys from the period. Not sure about Palaminos either, but I tend to think they're a bit hot as well.

Like a much wiser and well informed gentlemen often says on these boards...others mileage might vary.

Regards,

Sam Dolan
1st Texas Inf.

[volcav]

Re: Horse Breed

I'm really enjoying this discussion. I'll through in a couple more comments. I don't think Arabs were very common in the Civil War but I believe they were in the country at the time. My personal opinion of Arabs is that you better know how to ride if you get on one. They are intelligent, they are fast, they are beautiful, they are dangerous to an inexperienced rider. Putting an inexperienced rider on an Arab is like putting a 16 year old with a brand new drivers license behind the wheel of a Corvette. My personal experience with Arabs has not been pleasant.