Earliest use of the term Natural Horsemanship?

[Chilli]

Was looking through a load of quotes from clasical horsemen from the 16th century to the present and came across this.

" 'NATURAL' horsemanship cannot possibly take the direct road of sharp aids. For its nature lies in taking the innate state of the horse and changing it gradually, like the moon rises, climbing imperceptibly, and yet reaches its zenith in a relatively short time."

(OTTO DE LA CROIX, 1910)

Not sure if it's the same thing as it dosn't sound at all like the brutality (maybee thats to strong confrontational might be better) of some of the early American NH.

And few of the shorter quotes if anyone is interested.(They were pretty much all great but so many and some where very long, it was nice to see focus on bio machanics and the psychological aspects of training the horse's mind from so many years ago, which sadly can be found lacking today is some places)


"One thing is for certain: where horses are pressured the most, the art of riding is the least at home."

(B.H.V. HOLLEUFFER, 1896)


"Brutality begins where skill ends."

(EGON VON NEINDORFF)


"The biggest enemy to the partnership of dressage is impatience and the human nature to dominate other creatures."
(WALTER ZETTL)


"...If I have always worked honestly, my horse will carry me to the end of the world."

(E. F. SEIDLER, 1837)


"A ruthlessly condensed training only leads to a general superficiality, to travesties of the movements, and to a premature unsoundness of the horse.
Nature cannot be violated."

(ALOIS PODHAJSKY, 1965)

[Kate F.]

It's an interesting question!

I think that while we might find "natural" and "horsemanship" in the same sentence or sentiment all the way back to Xenophon and before, what we mean by the expression "natural horsemanship" today is much more recent.

I was just flipping through my Tom Dorrance/Bill Dorrance/Ray Hunt books - and while it was admittedly a quick flip - I didn't see any reference to the expression "natural horsemanship" - so I'm inclined to think the expression was coined later (maybe 1980s??) to describe this type of approach, rather than something the "founding fathers" (so to speak!) were describing.

Parelli branded "Parelli Natural Horsemanship" - but presumably only added the "Parelli" bit to distinguish his style from other people using and teaching what was being described as "natural horsemanship" at the time. Monty Roberts patented "Join Up" (even though people had been joining up wires and bits of string for ever!!:D) and didn't feel the need to call it "Roberts Join Up" - so I guess we can assume that "natural horsemanship" was an expression relating to this type of approach and training before Parelli adopted it.

I'm curious now, so I'll ask my mentor, Richard Thompson. He knew Bill Dorrance, Ray Hunt and co. personally and studied with them, also Buck Brannaman - who although rather younger is also considered "up there" with the NH founders. He may have some idea of when the expression was first adopted "commercially" and by whom. I doubt we'll ever find out who came up with it.... I suspect it was someone at a clinic saying "what do you think all this stuff should be called?" ..."well, it's horsemanship, and sort of based on natural behaviour... why not natural horsemanship"...."hey, that has a bit of a ring to it ... why don't you suggest it to.....???" Then ...??? heard about it and thought "hmm.. that's a snappy name for it! Let's call it natural horsemanship"! :D:D

We know that most of the ideas and principles go back centuries and across continents - but the formulation, presentation and packaging is new - and it's that formulation, presentation and packaging, I think, that we call "natural horsemanship" to distinguish it from what went before, even though the undercurrents and principles are much older. Bach and Beethoven used all the same notes - but put them together differently. Both composed beautiful music. Just because Bach used the notes first, it doesn't mean Beethoven wasn't original or didn't come up with anything new! :D :D ;)

[old_woman]

Bach and Beethoven used all the same notes - but put them together differently. Both composed beautiful music. Just because Bach used the notes first, it doesn't mean Beethoven wasn't original or didn't come up with anything new! :D :D ;)

Excellent analogy!
But students of - say - Bach, do not feel they should restrict themselves to listening, playing, enjoying and studying only his compositions and those of no other composer, or claim that his music is the only music that is fit to be heard ...

[Kate F.]

Excellent analogy!
But students of - say - Bach, do not feel they should restrict themselves to listening, playing, enjoying and studying only his compositions and those of no other composer, or claim that his music is the only music that is fit to be heard ...

Exactly! All of us can learn from everywhere - and it's not, in my opinion, wise to dismiss any one genre as being either just "rehashing old ideas" or "totally outdated" - there are pearls of wisdom (as well as bits of rubbish!) to be found everywhere! The difficult bit is being selective about what's what! :)

[Alyth Long]

" - The difficult bit is being selective about what's what! :)

And that is exactly why PP says to learn one system thoroughly first. So you have a foundation of knowledge on which to assess other systems/techniques.
Alyth

[Torny]

How VERY refreshing to see some very logical and down to earth thought!! Indeed, Natural Horsemanship looks to be a more modern 'term' and when mentioned only two names seem to be very strongly associated with it. Parelli or Monty.
'Hear Hear' to those with the previous replies, so very true.

As much as I work with a more classical & natural approach, asI call it. Leaving the horsemanship work out to avoid confusion. ;)

[Esther.D]

I have a reprint of an 1850s cavalry training manual which is against force and advocates a new style of mass training where each trooper trains his horse by taking it through a Parelli-like style of systematic ground exercises - they did this all together in an arena and thereby trained lots of horses at once BUT allowed them a bond and understanding with their rider. Very enlightened man and worth a read, will look up the details as my mind as gone blank :rolleyes:

[katefarmer]

Natural Horsemanship looks to be a more modern 'term' and when mentioned only two names seem to be very strongly associated with it. Parelli or Monty.

I think that's more a UK perspective. I think in the USA it's a bit broader, with far more high profile clinicians and practitioners. For most Austrians the first name that comes to mind is often Reinhard Mantler - who is a former Parelli student who made his own "brand" that is the first exposure for many people here - though that is changing as more trainers enter the market.

Hempfling is/was also pretty big in central Europe - but again, the market is broadening and the term Natural Horsemanship is being seen as an umbrella term that then invites the question "which type of NH"?

There are also a lot of people who are generally considered to be in the NH field who don't label themselves as such... for example Mark Rashid. I think there's also now a bit of a reaction against the Parelli/Roberts attempts to dominate the market, with trainers who are actually using and teaching what can broadly be described as NH distancing themselves from the label. I must confess to being one of the guilty ones. I got so fed up with people's preconceptions and prejudices about what NH is and what it entails, that I use the term very sparingly these days - or rather I immediately qualify it as "a form of NH....."! :D

[Chilli]

I have a reprint of an 1850s cavalry training manual which is against force and advocates a new style of mass training where each trooper trains his horse by taking it through a Parelli-like style of systematic ground exercises - they did this all together in an arena and thereby trained lots of horses at once BUT allowed them a bond and understanding with their rider. Very enlightened man and worth a read, will look up the details as my mind as gone blank :rolleyes:

I think you are taking about THE TRAINING OF CAVALRY REMOUNT HORSES by L.E.Nolan. (Considered the greatest horseman in England at the time by some)

It’s based on Francois Baucher’s Second Manners, Nolan’s book was originally going to be an English translation but he decided to apply it to training cavalry horses.

It’s not based on Francois Baucher’s early work as that was harsh and confrontational but he had a nasty chandelier accident (yes chandelier accident, which he never fully recovered and left him weak so he had to develop a less physical/confrontational horse training system)

Francois Baucher is very important because he changed the way horses were trained to carry themselves from the old school to what we have today.

In the old school much was written about equilibrium; the horse's hind legs were drawn under him and rooted to the ground, whilst his fore legs were always scrambling in the air;

http://i9.tinypic.com/73ouejq.jpg

and those horses that were perfect had acquired a way of going up and down, much resembling the motion of a hobbyhorse; too much weight was thrown on the haunches, and a horse could neither raise his hind leg to step back when required, nor could he dash forward with any speed whilst made to throw his weight backwards.

The horse, again, whose weight was thrown forward was still worse and more dangerous, for the weight of the rider often brought him to the ground; and at all times the bearing on the hand was so great as to require the strength of both arms to resist it - thus, the horseman, having no power over his horse, became in a great measure useless as a soldier.

http://i6.tinypic.com/735l2mg.jpg

The true equilibrium, which is neither on the haunches, nor on the forehand, but between the two, Mons. Baucher alone has shewn us how to obtain, by carefully gathering up and absorbing one by one all the resources of the horse, and uniting them in one common centre, where they are held at the disposal, at the sovereign will and pleasure, of the horseman.

[Esther.D]

Thank you Chilli, I am indeed talking about Nolan's book, I just had an absent moment and couldn't remember either his name or the book title :o
I didn't know about the previous book, that sounds worth investigating so thanks for explaining it, fascinating stuff this early development.

[old_woman]

There were a large number of books and pamphlets about "new" methods of training the horse published in the 18th and - especially - the 19th C, some by the famous such as Nolan, and some by those of whom few have heard.

I've been collecting them for some years now.

I could reword them in a more up-to-date fashion and I would defy anyone to tell that they weren't the writing of todays' latest icon of "natural" horsemanship!

[Skib]

Very nice thread. Thank you.

[LodgeRopes]

I agree with Skib, great thread.
I cannot add anything on the origin of the term Natural Horsemanship
BUT my Great Grandfather invented the question mark.







Ok,ok, I lied, he didnt invent the question mark at all, its just that I dont seem to find the time to visit the boards much these days, and i wanted to contibute something :o

Rob