|
|
Post by horseguy on Oct 8, 2016 19:15:49 GMT
Col. John J. Boniface enlisted in the US Cavalry in 1892 and quickly attained the rank of Private. Six year later in 1898 he received a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant of Cavalry as America prepared for the Spanish American War. Lt. Boniface served in the Philippines in the 4th Cavalry, first riding native island ponies and eventually he received a Nevada bread 14.2 H stock horse that served him well through the war. He later served in the 7th US Cavalry and several other Army posts before he retired from the Army as a full Colonel.
In 1903 he wrote his book, The Cavalry Horse and His Pack, a manual of horsemanship for young officers and a great read for any horse person looking for simple, basic yet in depth information on equine management, tack and equipment, breeds, conformation and more. Here are a couple of quotes from this young officer that demonstrate a wisdom in horsemanship and cavalry that go well beyond his years.
"In no branch of an army is ignorance or carelessness so costly as in the cavalry arm."
"The commanding officer's difficulty lies in finding effective men to mount his horses rather than the horses for mounting his men."
These quotes reflect an understanding of the value of the horse that today is near impossible as now we no longer need the horse as the cavalryman did. |
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Oct 10, 2016 20:31:28 GMT
One of the important reason I love to read old horse books like this 1903 Army classic from Boniface is that it provides perspective on today's trends, interests and standards. There is a powerful tendency for contemporary riders to think "this is how it's always been" but that is hardly ever true. It's like diamonds. Ask anyone, if you get engaged it requires a diamond ring. That idea is only 69 years old. The reason people think this is - Likewise, riders today think Warmbloods, like diamonds, have always had an important roll. Not true. In fact Boniface refers to the Hanoverians, Westphalians, and all the other warmbloods as "German coachers". That is what there were until the 1980's when, like De Beers, the German breeders launched an aggressive export marketing campaign. Before then they were simple coachers or coach horses. Boniface writes at length that they were unimportant for military service. They were too heavy and slow for modern cavalry missions and not strong enough to pull an artillery piece. These coacher breeders made it their business to get on equestrian association and governing boards around the world so they could lobby for rule changes that favored their breeds, and degraded the role of established sport breeds. Example, Eventing had a five phases before the coacher breeders meddled in the sport. Roads and Tracks was at one time a demanding test of stamina that Thoroughbreds excelled in in eventing. It's now gone. Steeplechase too was eliminated to make way for Warmbloods that just failed at it.
 Boniface repeatedly refers to the slow mind of the German coachers, a trait that further reduces their potential role in military service. He prefers the French Percheron or Percheron crosses for any heavy cavalry or military work. I agree. The Percheron is the quickest mind of the heavy breeds and there is a reason the term "dumbblood" surfaced in the 1980's when the European breed lobbyists started popping up almost everywhere pushing for accommodations for their "beautiful movers" that were not so good and so very much. Since then the breeders have included more TB blood into their old coachers (their system of approval of young breed stock permits this) to raise them out of worthlessness, which since the 80's they have done to a degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Oct 11, 2016 13:59:18 GMT
Boniface in his book discusses how cavalry horses are trained by the European countries and the US. Few countries had an absolute centralized training program through their remount departments except the Germans (who by the way did not obtain their prospects from the north of the country where the big coachers were bred, but rather from the eastern areas where smaller older sturdier breeds were the local horse). Like today, the German training was very individualized, regimented and the curriculum precise. By contrast, many countries like England sent prospects directly to regiments where soldiers trained them in groups, having plenty of time on their hands during peacetime. Most countries used the regimental method, as did the US. We sent cavalry officers to Fort Riley where they learned the national standard of training horses and the Fort Riley graduates took what they learned back top their regiments. The training system employed many troopers riding together with trained horses. They were training a troop of horses more than an individual horse. I used this method for many years, riding prospects in group lessons. It is, I think, a more effective means of teaching and learning for the horse. It uses the herd instinct and the sense of well being as well as,I believe, the sense of success/failure I think horses experience. If I put a class of students to a jump in a line and I am at the back of the line, and my horse fails to jump, the horse knows it has failed and feels the anxiety of being left behind. This is a more valuable lesson than the jump itself. It also takes the focus off the jump and keeps in on the line that the horse is traveling. The best way to train a horse is conveying that the jump is not the focus. The jump is merely an obstacle on the line of travel. I recently saw a facebook video of a refusal at a skinny corner jump on a cross country course. The rider was skilled and the horse capable but there was a refusal. My sense was that the rider was focusing on the jump not the line of travel because the horse was brought to the jump in a non-perpendicular approach. If we bring a horse to a jump at an angled approach, we invite a lateral, almost ricochet, deflection off the line of travel. Older more seasoned horses do not do this deflected refusal but greener horses brought to a jump out in open land, at an angle, tend to deflect laterally because the approach makes it about the jump, not simply about the line of travel.  This picture shows a horse moving laterally on the forehand away from the angled or corner jump. It occurs to me that what I am saying is that training horses in groups using lines of travel is a kind of natural horsemanship, which also leads me to an insight that training horse alone with only a person is unnatural. The Germans at the turn of the last century use the latter method when the majority of other cavalries used the former more natural herd method. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Oct 11, 2016 14:36:49 GMT
I think the rider you refer to had every intention of putting the mare on the line she wanted, but the horse's mind was elsewhere, and there was a bit of a disagreement, and the jump came up before there was a resolution to that argument! LOL Earlier, the mare bent her neck and all but ran off the other direction. Thinking of home, I think. These things happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Oct 11, 2016 17:00:29 GMT
I think the rider you refer to had every intention of putting the mare on the line she wanted, but the horse's mind was elsewhere, and there was a bit of a disagreement, and the jump came up before there was a resolution to that argument! LOL Earlier, the mare bent her neck and all but ran off the other direction. Thinking of home, I think. These things happen. Yes they do happen, more than I'd like to remember, however in a cavalry troop or a fox hunt with a herd of horses they happen much less. I like a horse that tells me they are opposed to the jump a few strides out. There is then time for a conversation, but sometimes the conversation takes too long. |
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Oct 24, 2016 23:04:48 GMT
Shoeing is one area of horsemanship I stay out of. I have always believed that if you don't shoe horses, or do anything really, on a regular basis, then you probably are not going to be very good at it. While I have trimmed horses for decades with moderate success, I will not shoe a horse. As a result, I have had a lot of farriers in my life. My favorite are Amish farriers, their shoes stay on and they do not lame up horses with their shoeing. That's my experience.
I found a local farrier who came to shoe a horse last week. Nice young man. Did a respectable job on a broken up foot. He didn't seem to know much about intense shoeing, like for fox hunting though. A hunt horse often has to reach very far under their belly to do things like get up a very steep slope. Additionally, horses, if the footing on the slope is not the best, will tend to leave their fore feet in place to "hold" on the slope as they reach up and under from behind. This can cause problems if the shoes have trailers.
no trailers
short trailers
shoe with trailers added
 longer trailers (my farriers insisted on longer than shown here) If the shoes have long trailers on the front shoes the hind feet can reach up a pull the fore shoe off is a heartbeat. I am not talking about a horse that forages or in any way interferes hind to fore. I am talking about intense movement such as up steep slopes. I have spent many days trying to convince a new farrier that I do not wish to find myself 5 or 6 miles from my trailer with a front shoe half ripped off. Years ago it took returning regularly to replace front shoes ripped off in this manner to convince one good horse shoer to change his position on this. A similar thing is true about side overhang, where the shoe protrudes out 1/8 to 3/16 all the way around the hoof where the shoe and hoof met. I don't know why some shoers like to do this. I can see it for a special condition but not as a rule. In polo when you are riding off another player, that tiny protruding rim will allow the opponent's horse to accidently step alongside your horse's foot and pull a shoe. At least in that situation you are not far from your trailer, but it can make a mess of the hoof. The same is true in some hunts where riders in the Field do not keep a respectful distance. They too can pull one of your horse's shoes by coming alongside and stepping on your horse's hoof if your shoes protrude at all along the sides. My point is that practical horse shoeing that does not permit parts of the shoe to be exposed to being "grabbed" by a horse's foot and pulled off, whether it be your horse's foot or another's, is not common knowledge with farriers around here. I didn't argue because I do not intend to do much intense riding for the next several weeks, so the 1/2 inch of steel trailing out in the breeze behind the hoof probably will be OK for a while. We will revisit the topic later. |
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Oct 25, 2016 12:24:45 GMT
I'm not excited about how any of those shoeing jobs. They look like they are all really long in the toe and under run at the heels.
Often, trailers are put on to support those under run heels and provide structure under where the heels should be.
I don't know why there is the edge showing around the hoof, but that's the way I was taught to center the shoe. I think most keg shoes are designed that way with where the nail holes are set to go into the hoof wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Oct 26, 2016 18:51:47 GMT
I would hope Jimmy would comment on these questions. I admit my shoeing needs are out of date and very specific.
I imagine that cavalrymen were very conscious of protecting their horse's shoes from coming off as a polo player would or more so. I did see a Army training video that showed a cavalryman nailing a shoe on a horse using another shoe as a hammer that was pretty cool. That must have been an emergency shoeing method. The model 1912 UC Cavalry entrenching tool had a steel detachable handle that served as both a picket pin, to tie a horse to the ground, and a hammer for shoeing. US Cavalrymen carried two extra shoes as part of their standard field equipment.
 |
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Oct 26, 2016 20:14:14 GMT
I would hope Jimmy would comment on these questions. I admit my shoeing needs are out of date and very specific.
I imagine that cavalrymen were very conscious of protecting their horse's shoes from coming off as a polo player would or more so. I did see a Army training video that showed a cavalryman nailing a shoe on a horse using another shoe as a hammer that was pretty cool. That must have been an emergency shoeing method. The model 1912 UC Cavalry entrenching tool had a steel detachable handle that served as both a picket pin, to tie a horse to the ground, and a hammer for shoeing. US Cavalrymen carried two extra shoes as part of their standard field equipment.
I wouldn't call them out of date. Specific, definitely. All farriers are not created equal. When I worked at the trail barn, we'd get the shoeing school out to trim and shoe the trail horses. There were lots of horses to work on at one place and we had some "unique" conformation to work with. During the summer, the horses would get the "slobbers" from a few of the plants in the pasture. Most of the horses wouldn't eat those plants, but the ones that did...damn. Gallons of drool. Occasionally, one of the shoeing students would get it in their heads that they were better horseman than a dude string guide. This one kid got real lippy with me as I was holding a horse for him. He made a lot of disparaging remarks about my skills and knowledge, and wasn't kind to Hawk. Hawk was one of our best string horses. He knew his job. Since I "didn't know anything", I let Hawk sniff the guy, who's jeans were gaping and his shirt had rode up. Hawk was working on a mouthful of drool. Since I didn't know anything, clearly I couldn't stop him from dumping that mouthful of drool down the kid's pants. When he went hopping forward asking why I didn't stop the horse, I deadpan told him, "You are better horseman than me, so you should have seen it coming, because I did". The next kid I held a horse for asked me politely to let him know if the horse was going to do anything, to please let him know. Manners never go out of style. |
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Oct 27, 2016 2:26:53 GMT
"you should have seen it coming, because I did"
Perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Oct 31, 2016 14:38:07 GMT
The shoes. The top photo is a horrible job. Hopefully it is at about 8 weeks and long over due.
The next one is freshly shod, and not a bad looking job. Hard to criticize when you don't know if there was a problem being addressed or something.
The third one is okay. Hopefully a hind foot.
The American Farriers Association test requires the farrier to shape the foot to the final shape before placing the shoe. They do not want to see the foot rasped back to the shoe, except in certain circumstances. So after "safing" the shoe, meaning you bevel the outside edge, you want a fit that shows a dime width of steel around the entire foot. The shoe is safed to match the angle of the hoof, so there is no real edge to catch from interference or from another horse.Many Farriers push the envelope, wanting to give the horse as much support from the shoe as possible. This is impractical a lot of times. One way of sort of cheating, is, after the shoe is nailed and your finishing the work, you run the rasp on edge around the shoe where it meets the steel, creating a little reveal. It just looks good, and looks like someone cares about the job they are doing.
Some people see a foot and say the heels are too low. But the thing is, you have to trim to the angle of the pastern, and you have to trim the heels so that the frog functions. If you leave the heels long, they will just crush and roll under as they grow. Some horses, especially on the hind feet, are almost standing right on their bulbs. But that is the way they were made. Changing things like that because it doesn't fit our pre conceived ideas of what a "good" foot looks like. Shoe for a sound foot that functions. I avoid "fixes" when the horse is perfectly sound, and has a history of health and soundness. Don't fix it if it's not broke.
|
|
