Horses in the West: Reality vs. Fiction

Any novel ever published about the Old West, whether a long, historically based tale, or the worst pulp fiction, every Western radio show ever produced, every cowboy television series ever made, or Western movie to hit the screen, must, of course, include horses. And, of course, the horse was an integral part of the settling of the West. However, the images and perceptions of the horse in most of these media were as far removed from reality as the image of every cowboy as a two-fisted, Colt throwing gunslinger.

Having been involved with horses for most of my life, I can testify as to the greatness of these magnificent animals. Horses are extremely intelligent, affectionate, loyal, brave (in many cases), have great stamina, and are willing partners to humans. Without the horse, the West could not have been settled, at least in the time period it was. However, the media is full of errors about the horse and its riders. In this article, I hope to dispel some of those myths and errors.

These errors, no doubt, started with the first dime cowboy novel ever published, and continue even to this day. In 2002's truly wonderful animated film, Spirit, Stallion of the Cimarron, the filmmakers did an extraordinary job of research, and the depiction of the horses in the film is excellent, except for the eyebrows added, which, of course, horses don't have. To give the producers credit, they did admit that they added the eyebrows solely because they had difficulty showing the horses' emotions. However, even this film has two major errors. The film depicts the newborn "Spirit" already with teeth. A foal doesn't have teeth until approximately four to six months of age. And the horses are shown drinking by lapping up water like a dog. Horses don't drink in that manner. They suck up water between their lips, much as a person would drink through a straw.

Even authors trying to point out these errors can fall into a trap. Bill Pronzini, in his salute to and spoof of the pulp Westerns, Six-Gun in Cheek, tries to describe some of the errors pulp authors make when writing about horses. However, Pronzini trips himself up in several instances. For example, in criticizing one author, he states, quoting the writer, "the range was dotted with Friesians and Guernseys." Pronzini then goes on to state "Friesians and Guernseys are DAIRY CATTLE." Well, they certainly are. However, there is also a Friesian breed of horse.

Pronzini also tries to point out an author's lack of horse knowledge by stating, "He also seemed to believe 'pinto' was a synonym for horse, such as pony or bronc.... he refers to both 'bay pintos' and 'roan pintos'." Evidently, Pronzini thinks a pinto can't be described by color. As a longtime owner of pintos and paints, I can unequivocally state there are various colors of pintos. They all have white spots, of course, so, perhaps to be clear to the non-horseman, an author should refer to "bay and white" or "sorrel and white", etc., pintos, but owners and breeders of pintos and paints describe them by color, i.e., bay, chestnut, etc.

However, Pronzini does get it right when he describes the same author as confused with the term pinto itself, as illustrated by the following quote: "A posse, Bill knew, could only travel as fast as its slowest pinto would allow." Again, Pronzini quotes the same author, "A magnificent pinto not far removed from the mustang stage." Evidently, the author thought mustangs grew up into horses.

Another author I read evidently believed color determined the speed of a horse. He has one of his characters saying, "He's on a palomino...we'll never catch him, especially if he gets into the hills... Palominos can run all day and climb fast." A palomino, of course, is a golden-hided horse, no faster or slower than any other color equine. Color has absolutely nothing to do with a horse's speed or endurance.

One author even talked about a "nankeen" colored horse, which I'd never heard of. Thanks to some help from my friends in the Western pulps egroup, I found out "nankeen" is a yellowish colored cotton. I'm sure any cowpoke who referred to "my nankeen horse" would have been laughed right out of the old saloon.

In the same vein, I have seen horses described as "mountain horses" or "splay-footed desert horses, bred to run on sand". Well, a horse born in the mountains, just like a person born there, may naturally have more endurance, being used to the thin air, than one from the plains just brought to the mountains, but, once acclimated to the higher elevation, just like a human, a lowland horse will function just as well in the mountains. And there's no such thing as a horse bred for "dinner-plate sized" hooves to run over the desert sands. In fact, Arabians, the ultimate "desert" horse, have smaller than average hooves.

Another error I have read is a horse described as swimming "high in the water", so his rider doesn't get wet. NONSENSE!!!! Anyone, even a person who knows absolutely nothing about horses, can tell, just by looking at one, this would be physically impossible. When a horse swims, virtually his entire body, except for his head, is submerged, and a rider pushes his horse's back even lower into the water.

Another term often misused is the word "Thoroughbred," as in, "the horse was a thoroughbred cow horse," or, "he was a thoroughbred Appaloosa." A Thoroughbred is a specific breed of horse, registered in the stud book of the Jockey Club of New York. These are the horses that race in the Triple Crown, etc. An Appaloosa, Morgan, Paint, etc., may be a "purebred", but they are definitely NOT "Thoroughbreds".

A. Leslie Scott, who created the character Jim Hatfield for the long-running Texas Rangers Magazine, wrote many exciting western tales, but he certainly was no expert on horses. Writing as Jackson Cole, he described Jim's horse Goldy as a "magnificent golden sorrel" (an early term for a palomino), which was all well and good. But, he went on to describe Goldy as "over 18 hands high". Even by today's standards, that would be an exceptionally tall horse, as tall as or taller than the Budweiser Clydesdales. No cowboy or Ranger in the old West would have a mount that tall, let alone be able to "leap onto Goldy's back without touching the irons" (stirrups). And Scott also said that Goldy had a flowing BLACK mane and tail. This is genetically impossible. A golden sorrel or palomino can only have a white or flaxen mane and tail.

With several authors penning Jim Hatfield stories under the Jackson Cole house name, poor Goldy had more operations than occur in a busy emergency room on a Saturday night. In some stories he was a stallion, then he would be a gelding; then, through a medical miracle, in the next Hatfield tale he'd be restored to a stallion again.

Horses have been described as being trained to keep silent when strange equines approach. While I suppose that MIGHT be possible, it is the nature of a horse, being a herd animal, to call out to his fellow equines. I doubt it would be possible to train a horse not to whinny, stamp, paw, etc.

In the same way, authors have described horses that have been trained to ground tie or ground hitch as willing to stand, unmoving, "through a hurricane." Again, wrong. A horse is a flight animal, and when it is threatened by danger, it instinctively flees. Reins on the ground will not keep a panicky horse anchored, no matter how well trained he is.

Many times, I have read about exhausted horses "panting." This is physically impossible, as horses cannot breath through their mouths, only their noses. And this leads us to the worst offense of all, as far as misconceptions of the horse perpetuated by the dime novels, TV, and movies are concerned.

Authors, and Hollywood, just love to show horses running at a full gallop for miles. Nothing could be further from the truth. A well-conditioned horse can run at top speed for only a few miles, at best. A horse CAN maintain a swift pace, if it is carefully controlled and maintained, alternating from a walk, to a trot, lope, gallop, and so forth, with plenty of rest stops. They cannot just run indefinitely, as shown in the Lone Ranger TV series, one of the worst offenders. Poor Silver and Scout never did get to walk.

This brings us to some of the errors about riding depicted in books and film. For example, many books will talk about, or a film show, a horse who panics, bucks, and goes berserk when a rider tries to mount or dismount from the "off," or right, side. Now, of the many horses I've owned or ridden, and all those I've known owned by friends or just fellow horsemen I've met (horseman is the proper term, by the way, not horseperson), all of them could be mounted or dismounted from either side. Tradition and training states mounting and dismounting is done from the left, or "near" side, of the horse, and it seems awkward to mount or dismount from the right, TO THE RIDER. However, the horse could care less. The horse that goes crazy just because his rider mounts or dismounts from the right is a work of fiction.

In the same way, most horses don't panic at the sight of a snake. It's generally the rider who panics.

Many authors will describe a rider as "spurring his horse in the belly." Well, unless the cowboy has VERY long legs, or is riding a Shetland pony, again, this is just about physically impossible. Spur in the side, the shoulder, or the ribs, yes... but, the horse's belly can't be reached with spurs, unless the rider is standing on the ground, and kicks him in the belly.

And, of course, most Hollywood cowboys would be laughed off a working ranch. No cowboy would ride in the way that so many TV and movie cowboys did, with two hands on the reins (one rein in each hand), elbows flapping in the breeze. (Gene Autry, despite being raised on a ranch, was a terrible rider, and one of the worst examples of this style). Western horses are ridden with both reins in one hand (generally the left), the hand holding the reins resting on or just above the saddle horn, elbows close to the side. This left the other hand free for roping, etc., or even those RARE occasions when a cowboy needed to use his gun.

Finally, no cowboy, except perhaps when showing off in town on a Saturday night, would ever attempt some of the mounting techniques the movies and dime novelists love to use. Starting a horse running, then swinging into the saddle without using the stirrups wouldn't save more than a second or two, and would be a good way to get trampled if the rider missed. And the "croupier" mount, where a cowboy jumps into the saddle by leaping over the horse's rump, would just be a good way for a man to start singing soprano, when the startled horse planted his two hind hooves into a VERY sensitive spot of the cowpoke's anatomy.

In conclusion, the horse was, and still is, an invaluable partner to the working cowboy and Westerner. However, just as the cowboy in the dime novels and Hollywood Westerns has been metamorphed into a larger-than-life superhero, so, also, has been his horse.

-Submitted by Jim Griffin

Posted by ds at February 11, 2003 02:21 PM

Comments -

Posted by: Patricia Johnson at February 12, 2003 09:31 AM

Posted by: Vineeth Abraham at February 13, 2003 02:46 AM

Posted by: Lauren Stone at September 20, 2003 07:40 PM

Posted by: Gillian F Taylor at October 9, 2003 06:53 PM

Posted by: Jim Griffin at December 21, 2003 09:53 PM

Posted by: Kelley Thompson at July 29, 2004 11:27 PM

Post a comment