Horse Breed

[csabugler]

Re: Horse Breed

There was a post somewhere on the site a while back with a news article about a pair of Arabs in like 1858. The facts escape me. But it was a documented story, and it was news, Which plays both sides of that arguement. Yes they were here, but it appears at least in some cases, that their presence was news worthy. Which could be interpreted to mean they were rare.
Or not.

[moarkcav]

Re: Horse Breed

Arabians are no harder to handle than any other breed. That is a myth. I have owned, bred, and trained Arabians for the better part of my 30 years on this earth. My first horse when I turned 6 was a 6 year old Arab gelding. There are horses of all breeds who do not get ridden enough and act nuts when they show up to an event.

Chris Talburt

[Outrider]

Re: Horse Breed

Since gaited horse were brought up on this thread, I dug around and found in my closet a book with what I think has relevant info in it.

Some of you may have already read this book . if not, I HIGHLY recommend doing so since it is ,after all, a PERIOD SCOURCE. It is entitled - HORSES, MULES, AND PONIES and how to keep them- wrote by Henry William Herbert and published in 1859 by the Orange Judd co. New York.

This is not a dealing with the military so much but is a contemporary "handbook' for horemen and covers everything from breeding to training to vet medicine of the time and is packed , IMHO, with very good info for anyone truly wanting an example of how horses were handled in the period and what , at least in this authors opinion, constitutes a "good horse".
The author only mentions a few specific breeds, and the mixing of those breeds, as being relevent to readers of the book . Those being mainly English Thoroughbreds, Arabs and "oriental' horses ( this to include barbs, andulusians etc.) Canadians, ( this one seems to cover a wide spectrum of types under that heading), Vermont horses ( maybe someone else knows what that is . I dont) and various ponies, mainly, the british types ,but also including Mexican Mustangs, (his term) and 'indian ponies." He gives a very specific description of a "body type" that makes the best all around riding horse, yet never mentions any preference for one breed over another, only the confirmation is important and given his description I would suggest it could fit any number of what we now know as established breeds. If anyone would like to see that, I can type it out, but I am slooow and it is looong so I will need to come back later to copy that passage from the book. What I am most interested in is that he NEVER even mentions any gaited horses until well into the book and only then in a passing way and not in a particularly flattering way either. Here that is from page 279 in the the chapter- How to ride a horse.

" The Pace, or Amble, is a gait which is not recognizedin the art of equitation , and which demands no special attention here, in as much as particular instructions with regard to it are not required after what has been said on the general subjects of the "seat" and "hands" etc.
While pacing horses are in active demand for the saddles of middle-aged beginners(underline mine), and although the gait has sole and questionable advantage of being "as easy as a rocking chair," it may not be amiss to say that the sidling movement and boring mouth of this class of horses, and the necessarily swagging seat of thier riders, exclude the gait from [I]manege'.

to an accomplished horsemen, pacing is either painfully swinging or painfully dull. So long as his horse moves in a direct line he can preserve a safe, elegant,andcomfortable seat, no matter how high the action; but when to the foward movement there is added a swaying from side to side, such a seat is impossible; and, indeed, all works on horsemanship, only teach the means for correcting this gait as a vice. Still as many readers of this work may have reason , on account of timidityor physical weakness, to prfer pacing horses, their attention is called to the superior advantages of that particular variety of the gait called "racking".
A true pacermoves both feet of each side at the same time , and his action is neither so safe nor so pleasant as that of the racker, whose feet are set down one after the other in regular one -two-three-four time."

To Me, he seems to be saying if you have to ride a gaited horse ride a racking horse. Thats not exactly ringing praise.

I only went through the trouble of typing this because that is the ONLY reference to "racking" I, at least, have ever seen from the actual period we are supposed to portray. Not only for this reason but also because of an almost total lack of ANY reference to a gaited horse ,wether it be military or civilian, has always lead me to believe that gaited horses are WAY over represented in reenacting today. Sure they were around and sure they were probably more poular in certain states or even regions, but I have yet to see any documentable evidence that they were a common mount for any trooper be it North or South. I have can never recall seeing a photo of a period horse that even looks anything like a gaited horse but have seen paintings that seem to depict such.

For my money, chances are very good that the best overall PEC representation of a period cavalry hoprse one can ride is probably some type of thoroughbred cross, morgan cross or some other "mutt" along those lines.

Having said all this I want to say that when I see a cav reenactor in the field , Whether or not I consider his inpression"authentic" or not has VERY little to do with his horse. I dont begrudge what horse a MAN chooses to ride but rather the overall quality or "look' of his impression, the accuracy of his tack, choice of weapons -or lack thereof-
and overall military bearing. The horse issue is just to wide open for me to judge what is correct and I dont believe any one else really know either for sure. But I do think we can know what is overdone or not PEC enough for the authentic side. And as I stated previously I am guilty as well as for most of my cavary days I rode a Morgan/walker cross. gaited....sort of.

I also agree with the comments about modern nutrition having aneffect on ALL modern breeds of horses making them larger and heavier muscled overall than their period counterparts.

thanks.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Horse Breed

Hallo!

Agreed.

Plus, at the end of the day, we have larger and heavier troopers as well.

But I have a hard time with paso fino gaited cavalry mounts though.

:)

Curt

[Ronnie Tucker]

Re: Horse Breed

surely no one would ride a pacing horse if he could do better . in the south when a horse was called a saddle horse it did not mean that he was broke to ride it meant he had some easy gait ronnie tucker 7th tn cav

[Outrider]

Re: Horse Breed

Ronnie, with all due respect. I disagree. I dont disagree that a smooth gatied horse is ONE interpretaion of the term "saddlehorse" but it is not the only one and I dont believe themost common one. I think the term was used universally in the period to refer to any horse SPECIFICALLY WELL TRAINED to carry a rider. I have seen numerous other references to "saddlehorse" both here , in the south, and elsewhere ,that clearly refer to just that ..a SADDLE horse ( or Hack) as opposed to a driving horse or plow horse. Also , The point was, that I dont believe many at all rode ANY type of gaited horse to battle. Certainly not in the numbers represented among reenactors, and in the period, a 'racking' horse was just another type of "pacer'. They seem to have referred to all gaited horses as pacers.

I also have no love lost for Arabs, but clearly, they were also around. Ive never gotten along with them to well. As far as a "Norman" horse, at least this author is not refering to Percherons as we know them but a"saddle" horse decended from French cavalry mounts, lighter and faster than the draught type. Percherons were also around but in very limited numbers at that time and seemed to be somewhat limited mostly to a certain region that being next to Canada.

I agree about the Pasos but that would be an entertaining sight now wouldnt it? those things just look plain goofy to my eyes. Ha

Im stickin to my conclusion that some sort of cross, lighter and of the correct body "type" is probably most appropriate for a PEC impression of a CW cav trooper or civilian for that matter. I dont expect anyone to agree or disagree just my opnion and doesnt really mean much in the end.

Thanks

[neocelt]

Re: Horse Breed

There is not sufficient space in this medium to adequately address this topic. It has been covered ad infinitum, ad nauseum on this forum in years past (though that probably precedes the Great Crash, and therefore predates many of the posters here). We need not reinvent the wheel. There is an amazingly rich bibliography of period equestrian literature to be mined, and it would behoove the conscientious cavalry interpreter to consider this to be part of his "mission"--it is certainly as important as having a natty jacket.

I will say only that Patrick is absolutely correct on all counts: Gaited horses play havoc on a formation and were not common in the cavalry ranks (please don't regale me with reminiscences about Morgan's men--or whomever--wistfully and romantically recorded decades after the fact). They only constituted an infinitesimal fraction of the equine population in the country at the time at any rate.

And regarding breeds: Unlike today's breed-conscious (if not obsessed) horsemen, mid-nineteenth century equestrians rarely described or thought of horses in these terms. Rather, they were generally concerned with "types" or "classes" of saddle horses ("hunter," "courser," "charger," "hack," etc.)--which is to say, they understood that certain size, conformation and mindset lent itself to a particular application, and they sought to breed and procure horses on that basis. They were concerned with function rather than form.

There was only one--yes ONE--breed registry (or more accurately "stud book") in existence during the Civil War years, and that was the Thoroughbred (or "blood horse," as they were also commonly known), and that was only because of their commodity value as race horses--documentation was critical. Since there were no breed registries, all horses save the TB were "grade" horses by definition, no matter what a breeder chose to call them. And don't forget that horse traders were notorious for spinning a yarn to seal a deal--convincing storytelling was simply part and parcel of their business. Do yourself a favor and ignore everything every breed organization says about the history of their breed--they have a vested interest (or bias) and are not trained historians. Alternatively, courteously ask them to support their claims with verifiable primary documentation. And good luck with that...

A better investment of your time would be to immerse yourself in period equestrian literature and carefully study the thousands of period photographs of cavalry mounts (enlisted men's horses, not officer's chargers), then methodically begin to develop a mental image of what the "typical" Civil War cavalry horse looked like. Now go find yourself a horse that at least approximates this "type." There is a bit more to finding a good cavalry prospect than this, of course, but at least this would be a damned good start.

~Aden
(an equestrian who aspires to be a "horseman")

[volcav]

Re: Horse Breed

Patrick,
Your comment on Norman Horses is right on track and not necessarily contratdictory to the information I posted earlier. The area of Normanday in France was known for excellent horses so it quite probable that a Norman drafthorse and a Norman saddlehorse would both be called Norman horses because they came Normandy. An internet search will turn up hits on both the predecessor to the Percheron and Norman Cavalry horses (that indicates a saddle horse to me) both being referred to as Norman horses. I didn't follow up on the cav horses at the time because I was focused on the drafts.

Aden,
I think the breed association are good place for a beginner to start their research but not the place to finish their research. The breed associations of more than one breed claim the mounts of Civil War Generals in their linage. Which one is correct or not is a question better answered with further research but I stand by the associations as place to begin research.

I personally like riding a gaited horse (one with a four beat gait versus a pacer) but I also want the horse to have the three basic gaits of walk, trot, and canter which are used in the military formations. As has been pointed out with body types varying within a breed, so does gait. Not all Morgans do a four beat gait but some do. The same with the Saddlebred. It's the luck of the draw with Mustangs too, some will and some won't. I've read about but have no experience with teaching a horse do a four beat gait. I've actually read about gaited Quarter Horses in the early days of the breed but I think that has been bred out of them for the most part. A Quarter Horse that does a four beat gait would be very rare today from what I've read. Another term used for a gaited horse in the late 1800's, I don't know about mid 1800's, was and still is a single-footer. For an explanation of that please see the following link, http://www.gaitedmorgans.org/
it's explained better there than I can do it.

Just a point of clarification (most of you may already know this but I think it is best to be clear just incase someone doesn't know), just because a horse can do a four beat gait, that doesn't mean he can't do the other basic three. The horse may prefer or have been trained to do the four beat gait and yes that would screw up a formation. So while I personally preferr the "over-drive gear" of a four beat gait, it is not required as an attribute for a military mount because it will mess up a formation of horses just like an out of step private will mess up a marching formation.

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Horse Breed

A better investment of your time would be to immerse yourself in period equestrian literature and carefully study the thousands of period photographs of cavalry mounts (enlisted men's horses, not officer's chargers), then methodically begin to develop a mental image of what the "typical" Civil War cavalry horse looked like. Now go find yourself a horse that at least approximates this "type." There is a bit more to finding a good cavalry prospect than this, of course, but at least this would be a damned good start.

~Aden
(an equestrian who aspires to be a "horseman")

Aden is indeed correct.

Some of my favorites. Sorry, I'm just digging through my computer and don't have all of these referenced. Most are from the LOC collection, but I do remmber the Fed cav in Hardee's, scales, and dark blue trousers photo being from the Senate Collection. They're behind the Capitol Building early in the war while under construction. Check out the carbine slings with buckles to the rear. A definite favorite of mine.

The 1st DE Cav photo is another good shot of a surcingle pressed into service as a breast strap.

These are LOC:

Only photo I've ever seen of a mounted soldier with saber under the leg attached to saddle.

[MuleyGil]

Re: Horse Breed

Ride a mule!!!!! :)

[guad42]

Re: Horse Breed

Yes, never underestimate the value of a good mule. Though I seem to think that "Hard Tack and Coffee" questioned their value to the artillery (?).

Now, horses are expensive, hungry animals, and I can see a person in this hobby trying to do as best they can to make use of their trusted, and perhaps even loved, animal to fit the situation. IMHO, if I were to "jine the Cavalry", I might research the mounts commonly found in the particular regiment or outfit I was representing. This would have varied of course during the war, but sometimes the details are available. If I were to make a purchase specifically for this hobby, I might try to do that.

-Sam Dolan
1st Texas Infantry

[csabugler]

Re: Horse Breed

As previously stated, I'm no expert. But I would suggest, from personal experience, finding one who isn't freaked out by gunfire...

[T.Kern]

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

The saddlebred assoc. uses faulty logic, therefore is wrong in much of their assertions. Namely Traveler, just because some of the bloodline that traveller has went into the formation of saddlebreds does not make him a saddlebred. In fact the pedigree they published shows 7 out of 8 to be blooded horses, which means Thoroughbred!

Next, I have yet to see any first hand account of any general who says they preferred or even want a "Kentucky saddle horse". Most speak of, and praise, blooded horses Now, I have not read everything but I would guess this is a more of that same old folklore and modern hearsay. And your assertion that the roadster is certainly a saddlebred is baseless. It simply looks like a gaunt poorly conformationed horse. It looks like a skinny TB to me and might even be a federal horse as the tack looks federal.
I am not saying they should not be used as they still mostly look like a period horse but not to the extent of the claims you make.
Todd Kern

[T.Kern]

Re: Horse Breed

Chris, It is not evident that that sabre is attached to the saddle. The man is relaxing and I often will put it there just to change where the weight hangs on me. As well as this is how they are directed to ride when trying to be quiet, obviously this is not the case but they would not be unfamiliar with such. Might be on the saddle, might have the belt hanging on the pommel it's unclear . Might not be his horse and be an officer's that he is caring for. hard to tell what is hanging from the rear corner side, kind of looks like a shabrock and a valise? Looks like lots of things attached to these horses ( carbine), as if they were just taking a group to water or at rest waiting for orders...Even looks like a servant in the rear.


Todd Kern

[csabugler]

Re: Horse Breed

Cool pics, no doubt, but all three of them the riders appear to be holding another horse, but I don't see any wagon or gun rigging. What do you suppose that indicates in relation to the saber?