NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/equestri/6356

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 7.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!news.larc.nasa.gov!alpha.larc.nasa.gov!patty
From: [e-mail] (Patty Howell)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: Re: History of Dressage v2.01
Date: 21 Dec 1992 21:58:36 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alpha.larc.nasa.gov


 I start my Christmas vacation tomorrow 8^) Everyone have a good one!

DEFEND ATTACK PART II: [meant to be humorous - I can take constructive
criticism....:-) ]

>1. You obviously don't know any French. The word for horse is cheval.
>Cavalerie means cavalry. I was suggesting that people overlook the
>obvious things(like titles) when they are looking for "evidence" to
>support their position.

 The title in English that I quoted comes from the english subtitle
 in the translation I have, not a 1992 French-English dictionary.
 Where did the word 'calvalry' ORIGINATE if not from some derivative
 of 'horse?' Of course, you could argue that the translator wasn't
 right....but he goes to great lengths to clarify points that could
 be 'translation' related. The title isn't one of them.

>2. Yes, I do think kings went into battle, especially in the Middle [...]

 Yea, nobility went into battle.....they sat on their horses atop a
 hill within good viewing distance and watched the infantry fight -
 just like the officers in any army. Where it was SAFE. :-)

 This whole argument about dressage and the military started because
 there is this conception that the high airs were taught for battle
 which is completely ridiculous. It is well known (among educated
 horsemen) that not all horses can do every air - each horse
 becomes 'specialized' in its leaps. They do this because they
 first teach a horse a levade, and then watch how he jumps out of it.
 (simplistic explanation, but short.) It is a matter of the conformation
 of the particular horse. Pohdajsky says you might wait 6 (or so ?)
 years before you found a horse capable of a capriole.
 What do you think they did, say,'Hey Joe, we need a horse up here
 that can do a capriole. Bring up Charger.' ????

>3. No, you missed the point. The principles of dressage were developed
>by and for military men. It is true that the schools were founded [...]

 I think that this is something we will have to agree to disagree on.
 From the reading I have done, they were doing it because
 'Europe emerged from the middle ages hungering for beauty and knowledge.'
 This was perfectly in keeping with the times. Renaissance
 painters, renaissance architecture, renaissance horsemanship.....
 all were governed by beauty and artistry taken to the extreme
 (taken to the gaudy in many cases). Littauer's book _The Development
 of Modern Riding_ does a very good job of representing this.

>4. Re "interest and marvel"...simply that anyone would bother to enter
>all that. Frankly, I wouldn't have bothered. It's all available in books
[...]

 It is this kind of attitude that stagnates horsemanship. You might
 as well say why ride horses anymore anyway....it's all been done
 before. Or why write a horsemanship book....everything has already
 been discussed. Why have this net? Every ground manners problem
 someone posts is discussed in some book somewhere. Just look it up.
 People write because they feel they have something to contribute.

>5. Yes, Xenophon wrote many other books including Anabasis(a military
>excursion into Persia, now modern day Iran), "The General of Horse"
>and others. It is true that some of them were non-military but they were
>about hunting, training hunting dogs and the agrarian life of a country[...]

 So Xenophon can be a country gentlemen and dog trainer but his
 association with horses is purely militaristic? That is exactly
 my point - Xenophon was many things - horseman, essayist .....

(BTW, I am much more impressed with Xenophon's text than with Morgan's
 extra chapters and notes. Morgan clearly knows more about ancient Greece
 than he does about training horses. I am by no means ridiculing
 Morgan. One would hope he knew more about his chosen profession than
 about horses. )

>6. According to page 71 of the aforementioned translation, Xenophon
>wrote his book on horsemanship to provide guidance for his sons who [...]

 Certainly by page 71, we're into Morgan's chapter on 'The Greek
 Riding Horse', aren't we? Not the translation of Xenophon's text.
 I'll have to go home and look on page 71, but as I recall
 it doesn't say 'sons' it says 'the younger of my friends.' It's on
 the first page of Chapter 1 and also in the notes. Not that this
 is a big point, but just so nothing is misleading......

>7. I think you mistake Xenophon's meaning when he says that collection
>is for parades and not battle. To a military man, such as Xenophon, a
>parade consists of marshalling and maneuvering troops for display or[...]

 I view 'parade' as a display to impress an audience. (and I always have)
 My point was that Xenophon describes collection, opening AND closing
 that description, with words to the effect of 'in case you are an
 admirer of such.' It is clear that he did not mean that every horse
 be trained in collection. For the purposes of training a horse to
 be useful (whether in battle or elsewhere), collection was not necessary,
 just an added extra if you wanted a horse that could impress the
 populace and be 'joyful in his prancing gaits.'

 We equate dressage with the schooling of a horse in collection. Xenophon
 did not insist on collection for the war horse (I wouldn't even go so
 far as to say he even 'advocated' collection - it was clearly for
 display, not handiness in battle). Emphasis on the difference between
 DISPLAY vs BATTLE. This is where the 'collected horse' and the
 'military horse' part company (even if it's the same horse). Xenophon
 would never have gone galloping over hills and streams in collection.

>8. I still maintain that the argument over whether modern dressage
>originated in royal courts or the military is meaningless. [...]

 I agree...this discussion is meaningless.
 Dressage isn't the only way to train a rider how not to fall off.
 It certainly isn't the shortest way (it took years to learn the
 art of dressage, even with the advantage of learning on an already
 schooled horse), nor is it the best way. Podhajsky and many others
 maintain that a rider should be a good 'all around' rider BEFORE
 learning to school a horse in dressage. Dressage is even defined
 as the art of training the horse, not the rider anyway.

 I have tried in this series re history of dressage to give a
 complete, accurate, and  THOUGHTFUL description of what was
 happening in the world of dressage. There will always be those who
 will disagree and that is fine. Each reader must decide (as any
 reader of any text) what makes sense and what doesn't.

 It is true that anyone that is truly interested would go get a
 book, and they should. Maybe this discussion has inspired some
 to do just that!
 All I'm trying to say is 'here is what I've learned...I hope it gives
 someone a few new insights.' (and to clarify things in my own mind, as
 I wrote when I first posted it).  Clearly I have no hidden agenda to
 mislead anyone! I feel like everything I have written I truly
 do understand, and I can back up my opinions with appropriate
 references. On this particular issue (dressage evolving from the
 military), what I have written is in complete accord with
 Pohdajsky, Steinbrecht, Newcastle, Littauer,..... clearly this issue
 is discussed in the dressage world at large, and will not be
 solved by John nor I.

Merry Christmas,

patty