Debating horsemanship can be an interesting, educational and valuable exercise, especially if the -debate is aimed at bettering the lot of the horse. However, when the debate is aimed at negating a certain approach or blowing the trumpet of a specific trainer and his/her self-proclaimed discoveries at the expense of others, it enters the realm of egotism and loses its focus.

When this happens, it has nothing to do with the horse and everything to do with who can shout the loudest. And at times, this borders on the absurd and ridiculous.

One can only assume that when Xenophon wrote his treatise on horsemanship more than 23 centuries ago, he had no idea how it would change the way many people looked at horses. At that time, horses were used mainly for transport and battle. Today, horses are no longer used for warfare, but mainly for sport and recreation. Despite that, Xenophon's work, The art of horsemanship, remains an important contribution on the subject of equitation.

Past to present
Centuries ago, the conquering armies of the Moors and the Mongols astounded the Europeans, as their mounted warriors swept away everything in their path. The type of horsemanship these cavalrymen practiced, was somewhat different to what the Europeans were used to. Many of the techniques of horsemanship these mounted warriors exercised, eventually became incorporated into the European riding styles and the way people did things off horseback.

Today, several of these techniques of horsemanship have been "rediscovered" and re-incorporated into the European riding styles – even though some modern-day trainers are claiming to have invented these techniques and elements thereof themselves – and woe the person who dares question their "discovery". But, what many trainers of today claim as "new", has been around before, except that today it is commercially branded and even trademarked.
When equine matters are under discussion, the debate of "classical horsemanship" versus "natural horsemanship" is bound to flare up time and again. Arguments as to which is better for the horse, can only be answered by the horse itself – and never by the person leading the argument, no matter how valid he or she may think their arguments are. The horse, in turn, can only answer that question through compliance or resistance, these answers being shaped by its attitude, responsiveness, willingness, discipline, lightness and level of gymnastics.

Simply because a horse is ridden with a bit, does not imply that the horse is "classically" ridden. Likewise, the handler who approaches the horse with a carrot and a rope halter, does not necessarily practice "natural horsemanship".

Terminology
Initially, the term "natural horsemanship" was coined to define a philosophy of working with horses by utilising their instincts and herd mentality. This is nothing new, as it has been done for centuries. But, the term nowadays appears to have been bent and twisted to justify the methodology of certain trainers and riders.

To be truly "natural" would require that humans leave horses alone and never go near them. But then, there are those who confuse neglect with "natural" and others who believe that "classical" revolves around rollkur. Then, of course, there is that much misaligned word "collection", which is often confused with "contraction".

The use of catch phrases and buzzwords, often used to impress others, are of no value to the horse. What matters to the horse is how it has been prepared to carry out its rider's instructions and with how much empathy we achieve this. Treating the horse with the dignity it deserves, does not cost a cent. It does, however, require time and patience.

The foundation of true horsemanship lies in the ability of a trainer, regardless of the style or discipline being practised, to prepare the horse correctly for its task and achieve a soft and willing compliance under saddle. The preparation can be done in numerous ways but in brief it can be by means of irresponsible preparation or responsible preparation. When the horse has been prepared responsibly and with understanding, it is reflected in the manner the horse carries itself and its attitude.

What about aids?
The argument regarding "aids" and their use – both natural and artificial – also flares up when this debate starts, with many arguing the pros and others the cons. Sometimes, however, these arguments lack objectivity and substance and often they are based on guess-work or on "so-and-so-told-me". Then there are also the "opinions" that are expressed as fact and those who do question these opinions, are ridiculed – and the cycle of criticism, negativism and mud-slinging begins.

The fact of the matter is that a horse can be prepared to work with either a bit or without a bit. Whereas there exists a belief that "bitless" is softer and kinder, this is not necessarily the case, as there have been numerous instances where riders have irreparably damaged the horse's nose with a bitless system. The opposite is also true with instances where riders have irreparably damaged their horses' mouths with bits.

This abuse cannot be placed at the door of the bit or bitless system being used, but rather the rider who has never been taught how to prepare the horse to carry and respond correctly to the system being used. This fault is further compounded by a poor seat, balancing on the reins, poor posture and incorrect use of the leg.

The great ancient and modern classical masters of horsemanship such as Xenophon, De la Guériniére, Oliveira, Baucher and Podhajsky, were all well-aware of bitless riding, the use of spurs and bits and the application of all natural and artificial aids. Given that they frequently used bits and spurs, are we now to negate all of their work and regard them as "cruel" and "incompetent"? Or, should we take what we find acceptable to ourselves and discard the rest?

Good horsemanship is responsible horsemanship, regardless if the rider uses "classical" or "natural" methods or even a combination of the two.

Responsible horsemanship requires that we acknowledge the horse as a fellow being and treat it accordingly and with respect, while fully realising that it is not a large, furry pet, but a large animal that can cause us severe injury if we do not take care.

The best care
This, in turn, implies that we never act violently or aggressively towards the horse. It requires that we win the trust of the horse and its willing cooperation in everything we do with it. Furthermore, it requires that we:
• Take the best possible care of the horse with regard to feed and water
• Regularly have its feet and mouth seen to by qualified people
• Immediately react positively to any illness or injury
• Prepare the horse – from the ground – for everything we will be asking it to do once we are on its back
• Continually work on developing our seat, balance, timing and feel
• Develop the softest possible feel we can when asking with our reins and legs
• Continually work on our ability to communicate our wishes in the softest possible manner with the horse
• Never ask the horse to do something we have not prepared it to do
• Give the horse the necessary reward and praise and so forth
• Be firm but, above all, fair with the horse.

Our responsibility towards the horse goes even further, in that we acknowledge that our relationship with it is a conditional relationship and that as soon as we abuse that relationship, the horse is free to revert to doing whatever it needs to do to protect itself, even if this includes bucking and striking out at us. But this is common sense and not "natural horsemanship".

Winning obedience
When people advocate the use of whips or starvation as a means to win "obedience" of the horse or bigger bits to stop the horse, they are practising what at best can be termed "abusive horsemanship". When people dictate that their methods are the only suitable methods of working with horses, then they have lost themselves within their egos – and that, too, has nothing to do with horsemanship.

Regardless of whether we profess to practice classical horsemanship or natural horsemanship, holistic horsemanship or responsible horsemanship, or whatever other type of horsemanship we can conjure up – how can we insist that our approach is the only correct approach?

Only the horse can tell us by willingly placing its spirit in our hands and willingly responding to the cues we give it. If the horse travels well, relaxed, calmly and is responsive, it is obviously at ease with what we are doing. That alone is the test of our approach …

So perhaps the time has come to close the debate and realise that our responsibility is towards the horse and not our egos, and that if we truly carry the horse's best interests at heart, we will stop the negativism that has entered the subject and work towards achieving soft and willing compliance from our horses. Sadly though, it is this negativism and pettiness that gives the horse-riding fraternity the less-than-favourable name it has.

At the end of the day, all that truly matters is good horsemanship and not whether it is "classical" or "natural".