Post by Derek Clark on Jan 4, 2011 15:53:23 GMT 1
Right, so I managed the first 30 odd pages before nodding off last night and also read pages 57 and 58. I agree, it seems like a good read and I shall look forward to finishing it! ;D
On pages 57/58, the author is aiming to make a particular point which I would largely agree with, but he really has got history a bit back to front, unfortunately.
High School riding has nothing to do with military requirements. It's above and beyond what any military horse has to do although it is sometimes practiced by military instructors as a natural progression of their own interests and development - the need to be "one step ahead" of the recruits. This is clearly stated in many books about military riding and classical training.
This is really missing the point. The ability to control a horse precisely depends on the rider's ability to control the horse's posture. In particular, the attitude of the head and neck and thereby the position of the spine and four legs. Without meaning to be rude, most riders have little or no idea how to do this a) effectively or b) without resorting to force. As a result, they assume that any time a horse is in an elevated posture that force or constraint must have been used to achieve it.
The author then goes on to say that, at the time of the creation of the cavalry by Napoleon "The French abandoned High School and adopted an easily learned method of riding on loose reins". While it's certainly true that the cavalry could not possibly have taught it's recruits to ride to High School level in only the 30 or so days training allowed, the "easily learned method" (which I often call 'military riding') actually involves much more tension in the reins than high School riding ever does, even though the reins may be 'longer'. Like the majority of modern commentators, the author is making the assumption that a horse in an elevated posture must be 'held' there, when in fact the reverse is true if the rider has sufficient skill and education.
Budiansky goes on to quote the Comte d"Aure (the 'inventor' of the military riding method) as saying " It is with this so unscientific riding that our armies made the tour of Europe", with the implication that it proves the superiority of the method. What he doesn't mention is that the same Comte d'Aure was educated originally at the School of Versailles (the acknowledged 'home' of High School riding), was later an instructor there, was also considered more or less the only man being capable of taking over the recently formed cavalry school in Saumur around 1830 and who on his retirement from the post in about 1849 said "In militarising the instructors of the cavalry school, the art (of riding) could only suffer - and this is what has happened." That puts rather a different complexion on it, wouldn't you agree?
His reference to a 'less scientific method' also needs some explanation. At that time, "educated" riding - riding based on rational theory, in other words - was known as 'scientific' riding, a translation of 'equitation savante'. D"Aure, who was an instinctively talented rider who excelled across country and was a great fan of hunting having spent much time in England, championed a form of riding that was based on instinct rather than education. This has developed over centuries into the modern day 'oppositional' method of using the aids now regarded as the 'official' way of riding in Germany and producing the sort of overly physical riding we often see in modern day competitive dressage. I, for one, don't view that as a positive development from the horse's perspective!
This is a mixture of the author's opinions together with some technical innaccuracies. Firstly, the second half of the 19th century was dominated by the rise of Francois Baucher, regarded as a genius in French classical riding development. He put forward explanations of how he was able to train very average horses to High School in a very short period of time compared to those old masters who had gone before him with the pick of the herd. Naturally that didn't make him the most popular act in town and to this day he tends to be either glorified or vilified by people on either side of the debate.
When a horse is standing in 'natural balance' he has about 60% of his weight supported by his forelegs. This was proven by several repeatable experiments performed by General Morris, Baucher and others around that time. When a rider is added, the imbalance shifts even further to the forehand.
Baucher demonstrated that by asking the horse to elevate his own head and neck, the imbalance could be reduced and almost eliminated, thus not only eliminating the effect of the rider's weight, but also adjusting the balance of the horse towards a 50/50 front/hind split thus enabling much greater maneuverability.
The problem is that followers of d'Aure, who had by now become adept at riding with their horse 'on the bit' (i.e. with tension in the reins) couldn't imagine how a horse could go with a raised neck without that causing hollowing of the back - something that is easily achieved provided there is NO tension in the reins.
On page 58 the author states that "to suggest that there is something about dressage that is unnatural is to risk a torrent of abuse from its devotees". I have to say that if he is talking about what is seen so often in modern competition dressage, I would be inclined to agree that there is a good deal about it that is unnatural.
Good dressage, however, is entirely about bringing out all the natural grace and beauty that nature has bestowed on the individual horse in question, so his assertion that "the enshrinement of the High School as the ideal continues to do great mischief to our understanding of the natural movements of the horse" is more an indication of the author's extreme lack of understanding of what High School riding is actually about.
To be fair, Budiansky does point out in the preface that he knows nothing about High School, so I'm not having a pop at him. But, I think it is useful in the wider context for any reader to have the rest of the background available before deciding whether to take his opinions and judgements for incontrovertible fact.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox now, lol! ;D As I said earlier, I do think it's an interesting book and I'm going to finish it off in the next few evenings.
Best wishes,
Derek
On pages 57/58, the author is aiming to make a particular point which I would largely agree with, but he really has got history a bit back to front, unfortunately.
The military necessity that created the ideal of the 'high school' of riding is another distorting lens
High School riding has nothing to do with military requirements. It's above and beyond what any military horse has to do although it is sometimes practiced by military instructors as a natural progression of their own interests and development - the need to be "one step ahead" of the recruits. This is clearly stated in many books about military riding and classical training.
The 'prancing' horse pose - chin in, neck tightly arched, feet lifting high - became an idea admired not only for its military utility but for its supposed 'brilliance' as well
This is really missing the point. The ability to control a horse precisely depends on the rider's ability to control the horse's posture. In particular, the attitude of the head and neck and thereby the position of the spine and four legs. Without meaning to be rude, most riders have little or no idea how to do this a) effectively or b) without resorting to force. As a result, they assume that any time a horse is in an elevated posture that force or constraint must have been used to achieve it.
The author then goes on to say that, at the time of the creation of the cavalry by Napoleon "The French abandoned High School and adopted an easily learned method of riding on loose reins". While it's certainly true that the cavalry could not possibly have taught it's recruits to ride to High School level in only the 30 or so days training allowed, the "easily learned method" (which I often call 'military riding') actually involves much more tension in the reins than high School riding ever does, even though the reins may be 'longer'. Like the majority of modern commentators, the author is making the assumption that a horse in an elevated posture must be 'held' there, when in fact the reverse is true if the rider has sufficient skill and education.
Budiansky goes on to quote the Comte d"Aure (the 'inventor' of the military riding method) as saying " It is with this so unscientific riding that our armies made the tour of Europe", with the implication that it proves the superiority of the method. What he doesn't mention is that the same Comte d'Aure was educated originally at the School of Versailles (the acknowledged 'home' of High School riding), was later an instructor there, was also considered more or less the only man being capable of taking over the recently formed cavalry school in Saumur around 1830 and who on his retirement from the post in about 1849 said "In militarising the instructors of the cavalry school, the art (of riding) could only suffer - and this is what has happened." That puts rather a different complexion on it, wouldn't you agree?
His reference to a 'less scientific method' also needs some explanation. At that time, "educated" riding - riding based on rational theory, in other words - was known as 'scientific' riding, a translation of 'equitation savante'. D"Aure, who was an instinctively talented rider who excelled across country and was a great fan of hunting having spent much time in England, championed a form of riding that was based on instinct rather than education. This has developed over centuries into the modern day 'oppositional' method of using the aids now regarded as the 'official' way of riding in Germany and producing the sort of overly physical riding we often see in modern day competitive dressage. I, for one, don't view that as a positive development from the horse's perspective!
By the second half of the 19th century a romantic revival had brought back the haute ecole, along with all sorts of theories about the natural balance of the horse to justify it, the common notion being that a horse is naturally balanced when its weight is evenly distributed over all four feet...
This is a mixture of the author's opinions together with some technical innaccuracies. Firstly, the second half of the 19th century was dominated by the rise of Francois Baucher, regarded as a genius in French classical riding development. He put forward explanations of how he was able to train very average horses to High School in a very short period of time compared to those old masters who had gone before him with the pick of the herd. Naturally that didn't make him the most popular act in town and to this day he tends to be either glorified or vilified by people on either side of the debate.
When a horse is standing in 'natural balance' he has about 60% of his weight supported by his forelegs. This was proven by several repeatable experiments performed by General Morris, Baucher and others around that time. When a rider is added, the imbalance shifts even further to the forehand.
Baucher demonstrated that by asking the horse to elevate his own head and neck, the imbalance could be reduced and almost eliminated, thus not only eliminating the effect of the rider's weight, but also adjusting the balance of the horse towards a 50/50 front/hind split thus enabling much greater maneuverability.
The problem is that followers of d'Aure, who had by now become adept at riding with their horse 'on the bit' (i.e. with tension in the reins) couldn't imagine how a horse could go with a raised neck without that causing hollowing of the back - something that is easily achieved provided there is NO tension in the reins.
On page 58 the author states that "to suggest that there is something about dressage that is unnatural is to risk a torrent of abuse from its devotees". I have to say that if he is talking about what is seen so often in modern competition dressage, I would be inclined to agree that there is a good deal about it that is unnatural.
Good dressage, however, is entirely about bringing out all the natural grace and beauty that nature has bestowed on the individual horse in question, so his assertion that "the enshrinement of the High School as the ideal continues to do great mischief to our understanding of the natural movements of the horse" is more an indication of the author's extreme lack of understanding of what High School riding is actually about.
To be fair, Budiansky does point out in the preface that he knows nothing about High School, so I'm not having a pop at him. But, I think it is useful in the wider context for any reader to have the rest of the background available before deciding whether to take his opinions and judgements for incontrovertible fact.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox now, lol! ;D As I said earlier, I do think it's an interesting book and I'm going to finish it off in the next few evenings.
Best wishes,
Derek