Spurs and whips and jumping, oh my!

[Deathwatch050]

Hello guys.

I was talking to some friends today who ride horses, and they were talking about their local riding club. Now, I don't know much about horseriding at all, but something struck me as strange:

My friends said that unless you start using spurs and whips, some horses become lazy and refuse to do anything. Granted, they said most are energetic enough that if you do use whips or spurs the horse goes crazy and becomes impossible to control. This in mind, think back to the Huns and the Mongols. If my memory serves me correctly, they didn't have spurs, or whips, or even saddles. But these guys had such a bond with their horses, they could make them gallop using only their knees and fire a bow with a very high degree of accuracy at the same time. Furthermore, IIRC the horses of the Mongols at least would let their riders open a cut in their neck and drink their blood for sustenance when water or food became scarce without kicking their riders' brains out.

Now, obviously, there are differences in that the horses my friends are riding are not tough little asian ponies. Moreover, is it just the style they've been taught to rear a horse in that affects how the horses trust their riders? Also, showjumping on weekends is obviously going to be different for the horse than living with the rider every day and even getting into combat with him/her.

So there's my question. Is it just the way horses are brought up nowadays that affects how trusting they are? Is there really any need for spurs or whips or is it just "the lazy way out" in terms of getting the horse to do anything?

Thanks guys,

-Deathwatch

[QuintusSertorius]

Its probably in the training. Don't forget "war training" for an ancient/medieval horse was about charging home into a mass of men and kicking out. Whereas later on "war training" was not reacting to explosions and gunfire.

[Deathwatch050]

I figured it was in the training, but what about non-war related things, like controlling the horse without whips or spurs? The Mongols did it better than now, and they didn't have those things. :S

-Deathwatch

[QuintusSertorius]

I figured it was in the training, but what about non-war related things, like controlling the horse without whips or spurs? The Mongols did it better than now, and they didn't have those things. :S

-Deathwatch

Didn't they live with their horses, though, rather than just visit them at regular intervals?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Didn't they live with their horses, though, rather than just visit them at regular intervals?

Exactly.

To ancient horse cultures, the horse was a man's closest friend and ally, warriors spent a lot more time with their horses than with their wives (and they would sell the wife first if they got into debt!) Now, sadly, the horse is a commodity, treated with little more love and respect than a temperamental old motorbike.

[Rahwana]

To ancient horse cultures, the horse was a man's closest friend and ally, warriors spent a lot more time with their horses than with their wives (and they would sell the wife first if they got into debt!)

plus if they don't have wife, they can....

[william weedzor]

Mongolian horses were prime descendats of proto-horse,which mean they have still to much common with donkey/onager etc.That mean very high pain suppresion,so the whip was quite pointless in any way.Also these horses were somehow winterized,so their fur add to the protection against whip.

And in the end,same as other cross-bread animals they tend to have variety of neural dissorders.Such things make them pretty agressive and hyperactive bastards,combined with naturally stubborn behaviour (another gift from donkey),horse like this once properly pissed will hunt you even without rider.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

plus if they don't have wife, they can....

[Paltmull]

EDIT: delete this post please. It was a bit too tasteless.

[Deathwatch050]

Yeah, I figured it might be something more to do with when they were visiting them, or living with them, and for how long. Any discussion on the seeming lack of respect (compared to the ancients) to horses in today's cultures?

[The Celtic Viking]

plus if they don't have wife, they can....

... hang out with their friends a lot more? Leave the toilet seat up? Stay up as late as they want at night? Come on, man, don't leave us hanging like that; finish your sentence!

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

And in the end,same as other cross-bread animals they tend to have variety of neural dissorders.Such things make them pretty agressive and hyperactive bastards,combined with naturally stubborn behaviour (another gift from donkey),horse like this once properly pissed will hunt you even without rider.

That would freak me out if I were one of the enemy. Kill the rider and I'd think 'Job done!' But if the riderless horse came after me for revenge I'd be seriously demoralised....

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

plus if they don't have wife, they can....

Ride to neighbouring village, buy or capture one of their women.

See, horses were much more useful. Lose a woman, you could ride your horse across the steppe and get yourself a new lusty wench. Lose a horse, you can't ride your woman to the next village to buy or steal a new horse, can you? Well you can try, but you won't get very far. Plus women moan and complain more than camels when you try and use them for transportation - trust me, I've tried.

[jirisys]

plus if they don't have wife, they can....

~Jirisys ()

[william weedzor]

That would freak me out if I were one of the enemy. Kill the rider and I'd think 'Job done!' But if the riderless horse came after me for revenge I'd be seriously demoralised....

I believe that was every day issue for infantry.And some horse propelled weapons as scythed chariots were propably better without riders.I mean you will never ride you cart into same serious shit as the poor frightened animals.

[Rahwana]

... hang out with their friends a lot more? Leave the toilet seat up? Stay up as late as they want at night? Come on, man, don't leave us hanging like that; finish your sentence!

I meant they can ride to nearby enemy camp and capture a girl, or if they had money they can buy a woman on nearby slave market, a blonde german one.

BTW, speaking about the horse culture, even until now, at Central asian steppe, bride kidnapping is still accepted as a norm. And it exempt you from paying the bride price

[G. Septimus]

plus if they don't have wife, they can....

[Cute Wolf]

Exactly.

To ancient horse cultures, the horse was a man's closest friend and ally, warriors spent a lot more time with their horses than with their wives (and they would sell the wife first if they got into debt!)

plus if they don't have wife, they can....

can I have this sig?

[fallen851]

Wow. I wish I had seen this thread earlier.

I am the proud owner of two Arabian horses, and I do not own a whip, crop or spurs. And I can tell you they are certainly not necessary for training. Most people want horse ownership and horse training to be fast and easy, but it isn't. Some people simply beat their horse into submission, but that isn't horse ownership. If you have a dog, and you just lock it up all the time to avoid behaviors, do you really own a dog in the sense of having a companion? No, you don't. Training is always best done with reinforcement, and not only does this train quicker than any type of punishment (it is always easier to learn when someone tells you what to do, instead of what not to do), it develops a relationship, rather than making the animal fear you.

A lot of the issue here is that your friends probably ride quarter horses, who are fat, dumb, slow and lazy, they were bred to be that way. Basically they are nice to ride around on real slow, someone I know says riding hers is like riding a couch. These are what the cowboys rode, and are nothing like "real" horses, such as anicent breeds like Arabians. In fact, most people are afriad of "real" horses. Arabians are well known for their tempers, and many people hate them because they think they are "uncontrollable" and they can be difficult to train. They want the easy way, so they buy a quarter horse and get a whip, and the quarter horse only does it because if it doesn't it gets hurt. If you try to whip certain Arabs, you'll be lucky to live to tell the tale. However, once you develop a real relationship with an Arabian, you have a very powerful and loving friend. One that is smarter, faster, can jump higher and is more intelligent than any quarter horse.

I would be willing to bet money that when your friends fall off their horse, their horse runs back to the barn in fear. When I fall off, my horse comes back and makes sure I am okay. This is because riding isn't work (as is can be for lazy quarter horses, who weren't bred for every kind of riding that people like to subject them too), it is fun for both of us, and we are a team.

Your friends should find a breed that suits the kind of riding they want to do. But that means they might have to do some work with the horse, instead of just whipping it. And as you know, our society today, unlike in previous times, is about all doing things the quick and easy way.

[Duguntz]

Wooow, fat dump and lazy. Arabians have no stamina what so ever. I'd take two of 'em with my stander bread, my painthorse is mixed mustang and quarterhorse, and I tell you there's no horse more enthousiastic to work than this lad. Now on the subject. No whips are need to train a horse, nor spur. It takes time, effort and dedication. However, to answer to Fallen, "breaking" them, as we say in the middle, proove much faster, though much less efficient in the development of a good horse. unfortunatly, people that pay trainers (i trained horses back in Canada) are not willing to pay for month of work, and want to see a saddle on their horse the same day. with a salary of a day, we work a day. throw a saddle on his back, let him jump a bit, show him that anyway you're gonna stay on... and hop, after an hour you can put a saddle... but that's not training. it's breaking. The mongols, to take your example, were living with their horse. I mean. they had nothing else to do from their day thanm gather food and train their horse. so time wasn't an issue...

[Drunk Clown]

Wow. I wish I had seen this thread earlier.

I am the proud owner of two Arabian horses, and I do not own a whip, crop or spurs. And I can tell you they are certainly not necessary for training. Most people want horse ownership and horse training to be fast and easy, but it isn't. Some people simply beat their horse into submission, but that isn't horse ownership. If you have a dog, and you just lock it up all the time to avoid behaviors, do you really own a dog in the sense of having a companion? No, you don't. Training is always best done with reinforcement, and not only does this train quicker than any type of punishment (it is always easier to learn when someone tells you what to do, instead of what not to do), it develops a relationship, rather than making the animal fear you.

A lot of the issue here is that your friends probably ride quarter horses, who are fat, dumb, slow and lazy, they were bred to be that way. Basically they are nice to ride around on real slow, someone I know says riding hers is like riding a couch. These are what the cowboys rode, and are nothing like "real" horses, such as anicent breeds like Arabians. In fact, most people are afriad of "real" horses. Arabians are well known for their tempers, and many people hate them because they think they are "uncontrollable" and they can be difficult to train. They want the easy way, so they buy a quarter horse and get a whip, and the quarter horse only does it because if it doesn't it gets hurt. If you try to whip certain Arabs, you'll be lucky to live to tell the tale. However, once you develop a real relationship with an Arabian, you have a very powerful and loving friend. One that is smarter, faster, can jump higher and is more intelligent than any quarter horse.

I would be willing to bet money that when your friends fall off their horse, their horse runs back to the barn in fear. When I fall off, my horse comes back and makes sure I am okay. This is because riding isn't work (as is can be for lazy quarter horses, who weren't bred for every kind of riding that people like to subject them too), it is fun for both of us, and we are a team.

Your friends should find a breed that suits the kind of riding they want to do. But that means they might have to do some work with the horse, instead of just whipping it. And as you know, our society today, unlike in previous times, is about all doing things the quick and easy way.

Well, wouldn't say dumb. Different personalities... yes.

You can breed both horses with eachother, so they aren't even different species.

Now a whip isn't meant as a punishment; it's meant as a tool to correct/direct the horse. And no correcting and punishing isn't the same. If a whip is used to inflict pain (punishment) it's animal cruelty and you can be arrested for that.

Plus I don't think mongolians would give their horses kisses and hugs etc. They made clear who's the boss, unlike "animal lovers". Sure, they probably loved their horses, but they would give them affection after they had done what they are expected to do.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I am the proud owner of two Arabian horses

Do your two Arabians get jealous of each other? Like cats, when one's sitting on your lap and being stroked, the other one gets jealous....

What does a jealous horse do to get your attention?

[Atraphoenix]

horse kick?

[vartan]

My great-grandfather was a cavalryman. He was able to ride suspended along one side of the horse, so as to appear to potential spectating enemies as a lone wild horse riding in the distance. He could also throw a grenade a very long distance (in fact, the longest in his battalion, if that's the right word). Of course, he was not shooting a bow, but accuracy was a must. I'm no horse-rider, I'm one of the city folk. But from the familial history I know, I'm sure horse-rider bond plays a factor in the military performance of the cavalryman. How large or small of a factor that bond is, I do not know.

[fallen851]

Well, wouldn't say dumb. Different personalities... yes....

You can breed both horses with eachother, so they aren't even different species.

Now a whip isn't meant as a punishment; it's meant as a tool to correct/direct the horse. And no correcting and punishing isn't the same. If a whip is used to inflict pain (punishment) it's animal cruelty and you can be arrested for that.

Plus I don't think mongolians would give their horses kisses and hugs etc. They made clear who's the boss, unlike "animal lovers". Sure, they probably loved their horses, but they would give them affection after they had done what they are expected to do.

This is garbage. Some people I ride with use their crops as a corrective tool, instead of hitting the horse, they simply make noise with it in the air to direct the horse. Still, the noise scares the horse, and it isn't necessary. You could use a gun just as well as a corrective tool and shoot the air too... Or you can just use your leg, and put gentle pressure on the side of the horse, effective "closing the door" so the horse knows not to go that way. Put both legs in, and the horse goes straight, release the leg on the side you want the horse to go while looking (or putting gentle pressure on the reins if necessary).

The point is people who buy crops and whips intend punish or scare their the horse, they are not just to help them understand where you want them to go. I've never rode with a crop, don't need to, and I don't think it is a sign of skill, I can keep both hands on the reins and it is just easier to control the horse for me. But people buy them to look tough.

And to the comment about me being an animal lover and the horse not knowing who is boss is baloney too. I am the boss because I make the horse do what I want it to do. But I do so with positive reinforcement, not with punishment. The result is, the horse likes to do what I ask it to do and we have a good relationship. Thus I can control where I want to ride by looking (turning my head) in the direction I want to go, the horse goes because it wants to. I can stop the horse by slightly leaning back, the horse stops because it wants to. This is key, because I tell the horse what I want to do, rather than tell it what not to do. Imagine trying to teach a normal intelligent adult human how make a PB&J sandwich by only telling them what not to do and punishing them if they didn't listen (ie don't stand there and do nothing... don't do X or Y). How long would that take?

The horse becomes dependent on waiting for the corrective action, rather than actually knowing what you want it to do.

And how the heck are you going to ride a horse and shoot a bow at the same time if you can't control the horse with your legs? Fail. You can't be whipping the horse and shooting a bow at the same time. Most modern riders have no clue what they are doing.

And finally, the comment that sums up the ignorance in this thread:

Arabians have no stamina what so ever.

Arabians have dominated endurance competitions from the dawn of time:

"Arabians usually have dense, strong bone, and good hoof walls. They are especially noted for their endurance, and the superiority of the breed in Endurance riding competition demonstrates that well-bred Arabians are strong, sound horses with superior stamina. At international FEI-sponsored endurance events, Arabians and half-Arabians are the dominant performers in distance competition."

"Throughout history, Arabian horses spread around the world by both war and trade, used to improve other breeds by adding speed, refinement, endurance, and strong bone. Today, Arabian bloodlines are found in almost every modern breed of riding horse."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_horse

So Dugnutz, you just don't know what you're talking about. They are excellent jumpers, dominate endurance, and are very fast and agile, with strong bones.

[Randal]

This debate already existed in antiquity, interestingly enough.

Xenophon, of course.

A relevant quote about what this particular ancient thought:

There are, indeed, other methods of teaching these arts. (4) Some do so by touching the horse with a switch under the hocks, others employ an attendant to run alongside and strike the horse with a stick under the gaskins. For ourselves, however, far the best method of instruction, (5) as we keep repeating, is to let the horse feel that whatever he does in obedience to the rider's wishes will be followed by some rest and relaxation.

To quote a dictum of Simon, what a horse does under compulsion he does blindly, and his performance is no more beautiful than would be that of a ballet-dancer taught by whip and goad. The performances of horse or man so treated would seem to be displays of clumsy gestures rather than of grace and beauty. What we need is that the horse should of his own accord exhibit his finest airs and paces at set signals.

Elsewhere he does advocate the use of the whip and spur when teaching a horse to jump, though.

With a horse entirely ignorant of leaping, the best way is to take him by the leading rein, which hangs loose, and to get across the trench yourself first, and then to pull tight on the leading-rein, to induce him to leap across. If he refuses, some one with a whip or switch should apply it smartly. The result will be that the horse will clear at a bound, not the distance merely, but a far larger space than requisite; and for the future there will be no need for an actual blow, the mere sight of some one coming up behind will suffice to make him leap.

I find it very interesting to see that debates like these literally live on for thousands of years.

[Delta146]

And finally, the comment that sums up the ignorance in this thread: (snipped quote)

Arabians have dominated endurance competitions from the dawn of time:

So Dugnutz, you just don't know what you're talking about. They are excellent jumpers, dominate endurance, and are very fast and agile, with strong bones.

Your argument is not very convincing when you made a very similar statement about another breed of horse yourself. Making such a criticism regarding one breed, then proceeding to excessively praise another comes across as extremely biased and rude.

Different breeds have different personalities, whether or not they are "dumb" is subjective, and generalizing all horses of that breed as being dumb is going to insult someone at some point.

[Duguntz]

They are excellent jumpers, dominate endurance, and are very fast and agile, with strong bones.

Herm, compare the legs of an arab, then the legs of a standarbread. then tell me who got the strongest bones... ;-) Use wikipedia as example if you want, i use personal experiance. I had arab horses, and I trained star\ndarbread, and in overall, standarbread got the better parts. I'm not saying arabs are bad horses, but you can't work them like you work a quarterhorse, or a mustang (as impure as it might be, as pure mustang are quiet rare)