History and the Oriental Horse

by Gladys Brown Edwards (GBE) from unknown April 1966 publication.

Documentary films have been made on a variety of subjects, including a series on "Western Man," but so far none has been made on "the Eastern horse" and its influence on history. I don't really expect such a film, or series, ever to be made, but it does seem that someone is passing up a really new approach to history, which would, incidentally, be wonderful "propaganda" for the Arabian horse through its immediate ancestor, the chariot horse of the second and first millennia B.C.

The "Cambridge Ancient History" gives credit where credit is due: "It was the introduction of the horse which, perhaps more than any one factor, changed the face of interna­tional politics." It changed more than that it made empires and dissolved others, it spread ideas and civilization, and put history into high gear.

Doubtless the light war chariot with its spoked wheels should be credited equally with the horse, for the horse had been around for quite some time (judging by ancient documents and pictorial evidence, as well as osteological evidence) but he was not used to pull the cumbersome awkward, lumbering, solid-wheeled chariots and wagons which had been invented and used by the Sumerians for hundreds of years before the ad­ vent of the lighter vehicle.

Possibly herds of wild horses ranged the then grassy flatlands of upper Syria and lower Asia Minor (Anatolia, now Tur­key) as well as the southern and western slopes of the mountains north and east of Syria and Mesopotamia (the "land between the rivers," pres­ent-day Iraq) for these same lands were fertile tribute-grounds of As­syrian monarchs who demanded, and got, horses as part of their loot.

The Hittites (of Anatolia) and their east­ern neighbors, the Mittani (ruled by Hurrians) were famous for their skill as charioteers early in the second millennium B.C., while the Kassites, farther east, but still close to Mesopo­tamia, were also great horsemen and are credited by some with intro­ducing the horse to that region.

Others think the Hittites or rather the Indo-Europeans who infiltrated earlier into Hittite country brought the horse. What all historians and scientists seem to overlook is the fact that the horse types above the Cau­casus range were completely dif­ferent from the "oriental" horse de­picted so well on Egyptian tombs, in Hittite sculpture and seals, and on early Babylonian seals as well.

If the Kassites or Hittites brought the horse a century or so before, from northeastern Asiatic sources, it could not possibly have evolved so quickly (if ever, without an outcross) into the Arabian type so well shown in the aforementioned art.

In fact those northern horses and ponies are very close to their original types today, nearly 6000 years later, while the "Arabian" type, kept reasonably pure by the Bedouins in the interior of Arabia for around two thousand years, is still almost identical to that "proto-Arabian" type shown in Egypt and elsewhere.

This latter horse had an arched neck, high-held head and tail, level croup, obvious over-all quality, and equally-obvious fire. My theory is that this "hot-blood" horse roamed wild in the region until the advent of the northern tribe who were adept at horse-handling from work with their own native ponies, and who accordingly were not afraid to tackle these spirited animals that had more or less buffaloed the local inhabitants of that sparsely settled region.

Moreover, as long as the so­ called "chariots" farther south, in Sumer, were such unwieldy, heavy affairs, it was indeed more fitting that they be drawn by oxen, mules, or the onagers that historians credit as motive-power. Mules definitely were known, bred, and used by the Sumerians and their descendants and neighbors, for to be blunt, they (the Sumerians) said so.

The famous "Standard of Ur" which shows the Sumerian chariots and wagons, de­picts the onagers controlled with the same sort of ring through the nose that is used on the oxen, so obviously this would not have worked well on a horse. Maybe that's why they gave up trying to use that capricious mem­ber of the equine race.

Also the yoke was so arranged that it pulled on the throat rather than on the shoulder (a fault of harnessing in other countries too, even to the time of the Romans) so the high-headed, half-broken horse would he inclined to lunge and choke himself, whereas the slower, more docile oxen and onagers (or whatever) could get the job done.

So, to come to the point, at that time there was little use for the horse, other than for riding, and that seems to have been indulged in mostly by nomads, and possibly be­cause of this very connotation, it was looked down upon for more sophisti­cated folk until later years.

We do know that Zimri-Lim (1779-1761 B.C.) King of Mari (above Sumer, on the Euphrates) wanted to ride a horse but was discouraged from doing so by his ministers who advised him to stick to chariots or to ride a mule. The nomads, the Bedouins of their time, did ride horses in that early period, in the desert (which was not as desert-y, then) west of the Euphrates, and, being
brigands, were not in high favor by the more civilized people whose villages and caravans they raided.

We also know from com­paratively recent discoveries (in the 1940s) at the site of Alalakh, a once­ important trade center by the Orontes River on the north-south route to the Hittite country and Syria, that grooms were often recruited from the nomad tribes of the Syrian regions, such as that mentioned in the Mari letters, of about the same period.

A prince of this city, Idri-mi (c. 1400 B.C.) wrote a letter of interest to anyone doing research on early vehicles:

I took to me my horse and my chariot and my squire and went up thence. I traversed the wasteland and entered among the warriors who are Sutu (Bedouins). With him, in my covered chariot, I spent
the night; the next day I departed and went to the land of Canaan."

Question, just what sort of "covered chariot" was it that a prince and his squire could sleep in? It must have been of fair size. And how was it "covered?" Possibly with the usual large umbrella, but some­how that doesn't seem to
apply.

This is only one of the newly discovered items that needs further tracing and study.

As seen, we are well aware that both the chariot (of a sort) and the horse were known in the Near East before the date credited by many historians with the arrival of that animal, supposedly along with the Indo­ Europeans or the Kassites.

The credit for the dynamic change from a near useless vehicle to a demoralizing en­gine of war must go to some unknown genius who invented
the spoked wheel. That it may have been in Hittite territory seems plausible,
since that was a country noted for its metal and metal-workers and the chariots had much metal in their make-up.

The chariots were mostly of wood and leather, however, and light enough
that one could be car­ried, if necessary, by one man. Con­sequently they were not much for a pair of horses to pull, even with three occupants (as with the
Hittites) or two, as with the Egyptians.

The method of yoking was still bad, but at least the horses could stop without
the whole affair going over their ears, as must have been the case with the Sumerian arrangement (is that why they used big-eared animals?) which had no bellyband.

As to whether or not the proto­-Arabian came from the Arabian peninsula, this does not seem to be the case. In fact some tribes frankly admit (according to Alois Musil in "Manners and Customs of the Rwalla Bedouins") that they originally ob­tained their horses from peoples they raided in Syria, the latter at the time including practically all land between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean, and north to the mountains.

Nomads in Syria had plenty of horses, as noted, and so did settled areas of that region, as the tribute lists of both Egypt and Assyria so often assert. Come to think of it, this would include horses in "Arabia," since at times the environs of that country included much of present Syria, but as far as the peninsula itself is con­cerned, apparently it was devoid of horses during this early period.

As a matter of fact, it is entirely pos­sible that there were no Bedouins or anyone else in the interior of Arabia until the camel was domesticated and bred in sufficient quantities to not only play an important part of life in the desert, but almost become life itself for desert inhabitants in­cluding horses, when they become part of that life.

For not only did the camel carry water for horses in dry stretches (and in dry spells) but also milk to take the place of water when the later was unavailable, or too brackish for a horse to drink.

Camels, on the other hand, seem to thrive on salty or otherwise near-undrinkable water, and also do better on desert shrubs than on the more fertile forage, hence not only the ability but the desirability for camel nomads to penetrate deeper into the desert - farther than they ever had before.

All of which has a bearing on the eventual home of the Arabian horse, but limits its advent into that region until after the camel was all-important. Although the camel was probably domesticated earlier, it was probably not com­mon until around 1000 B.C., and Shalamaneser III (858-824 B.C.), king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, was apparently the first to include any large amount of camels as prize of war or tribute (he even got some 'camels with double backs' from Muzri, near Bactria).

Camels were so often received from the kings and queens of "Aribi" that Assurbanipal (668-626 B.C.) complained that, after his last campaign against Syrian al­lies, Assyria was "as though in­undated with Arabs and camels." But never a mention of a horse as tribute from any Arabian ruler, ex­cept when such (as "Samsi" and "ltmar") were included with other conquered monarchs, and then only when the latter were of countries or cities previously noted for contribut­ing horses.

In Assyrian annals, the countries furnishing horses time after time to these ever-raiding warrior-kings were, as noted, the Hittites, then declining in power, the Mitanni, many towns in Syria, and the lands around Lake Van. Later the northwest Persian region furnished chunky Nisean steeds (highly prized Persian horses) as heavy chariot horses and their foals as food for the feasts of Mithras in the reigns of Darius and Xerxes, Persian successors to Assyrian power.

That the Hurrian-Mitanni horseman retained their skill from the chariot days down to the time of increasingly­ important cavalry is shown by a com­ment of Sargon II in the eighth cen­tury B.C.:

As to the people who live in the land of Uratru . . . their like does not exist for skill with cavalry horses. The foals, young steeds born in the King's spacious land which they rear for his royal contingents and catch yearly, will never have any­ one straddling their backs: yet in ad­vancing, wheeling, retretaing or battle disposition, they are never seen to break out of control."

Uratru is near Lake Van, in Hurrian country, so this cannot help but remind us of the famous "textbook" of Kikkuli, a Hurrian working for the Hittities, who wrote the treatise on the training of chariot horses.

The most publicized invasion in an­cient history is probably that of the heterogeneous collection of warriors known as the Hyksos, into Egypt, in the period between the XVIIth and XVIIIth Dynasties. No one knows for sure their make-up or origin.

They were first known as "the Shepherd kings" (due to inept translation of the name) but now this word is said to mean "princes of foreign Iands" something more fitting to their nature than anything as peaceful-sounding as "shepherds." At first this period was dated around 1900 B.C., then dropped to around 1750, and now to 1650.

If it is dropped any lower, they will involve Cleopatra and her consorts in the affair. At any rate, the Hyksos are credited with introducing the horse and chariot into Egypt, whether or not they actually em­ployed this weapon in their invasion.

The first Egyptian hieroglyph was of course after the Hyksos era, in the Thutmose II period (1490-1436) and shows a horse of definite Arabian type, even in this miniature form, with arched neck and gayly-carried tail. Subsequent paintings and carv­ings all show horses of this type, with tail-carriage being one of the most "Arabian" points, as is the high-carried neck and the almost-living "fire."

That this was not mere imagination nor artistic license (though stylized) is shown by a com­parison with other animals … the donkeys and mules all are portrayed with low carriage of head and neck, and absolutely dead tail-carriage. Also they all have level backs (a characteristic of both types) while the horses are invariably rather "easy," when not outright sway­-backed.

This trait may be exaggerated by the very high head-carriage, which often lends to lower the back. Goats, gazelles, and other animals are much more realistic than human forms too, so the artists apparently had a real type in mind, and no imaginary ideal.

The same high-carried tail and stylish appearance is represented even on such small items as the cylinder seals of Babylonia, Hatti, Assyria and elsewhere, whenever horses of this early period are shown, whereas the mules and donkeys are correspondingly straight-necked and dead-tailed.

If the horses had this mule-like trait (as had the so-called Tarpans and Mongolian ponies) as to head and tail-carriage, this would have been as faithfully represented in art. But the horses were not that cold-blooded type, quite obviously.

Not until the latter days or the Assyrian Empire, and the latter part of the classical age in Greece, did the type begin to change, a heavier sort beginning to show up, with lower­ carried tail, coarser neck, and an apparent inability to flex the neck.

Almost concurrent with the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, the horse and war chariot made its appearance in Mycenae, Crete, Cyprus, and Troy, and at first these steeds were as light and elegant as their Egyptian counterparts. However they soon were blended with northern blood, so do not figure in the "Arabian" horse his­tory to the degree the Near Eastern horses do.

Any historical portrayal of the influence of the light horse on history should include the famous Battle of Kadesh, which is well documented, even though from a biased point of view, that or Ramses II, who proclaimed this rout as a "victory."

What is of especial interest, however, is his gratitude to his chariot team, which apparently got him out of a very tight spot:

What will the whole world say when it learns that you have left me quite alone? That not a charioteer nor any archers joined me? I have fought, I have repulsed millions of people alone. 'Vic­tory of Thebes' and 'Mut is Satis­fied' were my glorious horses.

It was with them that l was alone amid terrifying enemies. I will see them fed myself every day, when I am in my palace, for when I was in the midst of my enemies with Menna, my shield bearer, and with the of­ficers of my horse who accompanied me, and were witnesses of the battle, they were with me."

Whatever we may think of Ramses' choice or names for his horses, this does give him a human touch rarely seen. "Mut," by the way, was a goddess, but what she was "satisfied" about is indefinite.

The great, though bloodthirsty, As­syrian warrior-kings are rarely given much play in movies, but they were a colorful lot, and now that their history and customs have quite literally been dug up, possibly some smart producer will get around to capitalizing on their important place in history.

Although their artists de­picted a rather more compact horse than did the Egyptians (the same with other animals and the people portrayed) the general type was the same at first…very Arabian until alloyed with the meat-producing Ni­sean types (20,000 foals for each feast of Mithras, in Persian times).

Whether the Nisean Medean, or some other type is completely to blame for the utter change that took place thereafter in Persian horses is not known, but in the Sassinid period (226-651 A.D.) we see a complete change to a Roman-nosed, extraordi­narily pudgy animal, with an apple rump and very low-set tail.

Due to the Mosaic rule against the "multiplication" of horses, the Hebrews did not indulge in their use (nor indeed have the terrain for use of chariots) until the time of Solomon, whose record in horsetrading and possession of horses is well known.

David was also mentioned regarding horses, but he got on my blacklist thereby:

He took (from Hadedezer of Zobah) a thousand chariots...he hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left enough for a hundred chariots."

You'd think he could just as well have killed the horses outright, but apparently he simply did not like horses. Many Hebrews did not, associating them with Egypt, and in fact that seems to be at the root of Moses' admonition.

The first great migrations (if they can be called that) involving the Arabian horse as a breed, were the Islamic outpourings into neighboring countries and then over Persia and north Africa, and eventually into Spain.

Some historians who don't do much research still contend that there were no horses at all in Arabia until after the time of Mohammed, basing this on the fact that the Prophet had only two horses in his army in his first battle.

The first day of his flight from Mecca his camel was overtaken by a troop of horsemen, whose leader however let Mohammed go, after he had worked one of his "miracles." In a later battle even more horsemen attacked Mohammed's army, and in fact horses were often used by the opposing forces, and eventually by Mo­hammed's.

Pre-Islamic poems tell of horses among the Bedouins, and in fairly large numbers, though prob­ably never on the scale they were bred after Islam, when their produc­tion became part of the religion…horses being important in war.

But the real clincher that should squelch such modern nearsighted historians is given in Ockley's "History of the Saracens" written in 1729, viz:

Abu Obedah gave thrice as much to a horseman as he did to a footman, and made a further difference be­ tween those horses which were of the right Arabian breed (which they looked upon as best) and those that were not, allowing twice as much for the former as for the latter."

Some­ time between the days of the Assyrian raiders on "Aribi" and the centuries before Mohammed, the Bedouins had acquired horses, mainly as a means of raiding other tribes for procure­ment of camels, but we don't know just when.

We also know that they took horses by the thousands from every important city they conquered in Syria, for this is written in "Sara­cen" history, all the fortified towns employing cavalry at that time.

Quite likely too, many of these horses were taken back into the desert as breed­ing stock after they had proven themselves in war, but more practically when the "right Arabian breed" became scarce due to the wars, and it was nevertheless necessary to heed Mohammed's proclamations on building up a vast supply of war horses.

From the time of the Islamic con­quests, the Arabian horse was on his way. Not only was it introduced in large numbers to Persia, Asia Minor, Egypt, and North Africa, but even into Spain. The world tours of that country later introduced the descend­ants of the Spanish-Arabian into the Americas and everyone knows what happened thereafter.

A whole movie could be written about the Arabian horse and its importance in the founding of the Thoroughbred, which could reach back into the desert to locate that handsome Maneghi stal­lion the Darley Arabian, to North Africa and France to find the Go­dolphin Arabian (even if part Barb, he still owed much to the Arab) and to Asia Minor for Captain Byerley's "Turk" not to mention covering more of the Near East and "Barbarie" for the other noted oriental horses, including the famous "Royal Mares" of King Charles II.

It was the fashion of the time to import Arabians and their near relatives, so plenty of stories could be made of that, plus early racing in England. It is ironic to realize that excellent movies have been made on Thorough­breds, Lipizzaners, Quarter Horses, Saddlebreds, wild horses galore, and now one on Justin Morgan, but none specifically about their ancestor, the Arabian. [ed: Obviously we know that there are movies around the Arabian horse (The Black Stallion), or featuring the Arabian horse (ie. The 13th Warrior) since the time this article was written.]

Could it be because this breed doesn't do anything today? Its advocates now stress its suitability as a child's horse, or as a pleasure horse that goes round and round and comes out nowhere, in the deadly-dull "pleasure" (tranquilized) all-Arabian shows of today.

The other breeds, by contrast, are featured in fast or spectacular work, and their owners are not afraid to use them. What a comedown for the once-famed war­ horse, that tough, un-tireable, lean, and often hungry steed of the Arabs and of the multitudinous warriors of the ancient Near East.

But all is not lost. Some people do believe the Arabian still has what it takes, as the rare, individual exploits have shown, and until the day Arabians can work their way into the attention of Walt Disney (an ex polo­ player who knows horses) through performance, it wouldn't hurt to show, via a documentary film, the picturesque history of the breed.

On the order of the "Western Man" documentary, a TV "spectacular" could be made via color views of old paintings, Egyptian, Assyrian, Baby­lonian, Hittite, early Aegean and similar art (including sculpture, especially the magnificent Assyrian base­ reliefs), just as was done in the "Western Man" epics.

Interspersed with adroit use of such art could be live shots of beautiful Arabians, playing the part of their ancestors, with authentic tack and vehicles and proper background. Not the sort seen in Italian films of Greek heroes, in which the horses are hitched to heavy, many-spoked, thick-wheeled chariots, and their shoddy harness equipped not only with breast-collar and traces, but even with a croup strap and crupper!

And their cavalry­ men post to the trot (on blanket­ covered saddles), in a period when neither saddle nor stirrups were in use, and "rising to the trot" never considered. Evidently modern extras cannot ride bareback as well as the ancients, nor can drivers learn how to cope with yoked horses which have no traces to keep them faced for­ward.

Little flaws like that can ruin a picture's authenticity, and of course should never be found in a real his­torical feature, no matter how much can be overlooked in slipshod "epics" of the Greek-hero sort.

Getting back to horses for the chariots and the riders...even the heavier types can be found among American pure­bred Arabians, including, sad to say, the goose-rumped drafty types of the Persian monuments, except for the truly Roman (not just straight) nose of the latter horses.

And Bedouin life would definitely need to be shown, and not filmed here, either, for we simply do not have enough Arabian camels for even a quick scene. And camels were mother, commissary, and sometimes the reason for existence (raiding, for more camels) of horses in the desert of yesteryear.

No, I have not been "hitting the pipe," I have dreams without outside
aid. But I still think that an approach to ancient history from the "oriental horse" angle would be unique, very interesting (to us, anyhow) and extremely colorful.

Also it would help the Arabian horse. Any millionaire film producers in the audience? Or TV sponsors?