French based, German based and Portugal/Spain based dressage training

[strangewings]

My impression is that any classical school of dressage for Germany is buried in these comparisons outside of maybe the training scale, and instead “German” is equated with modern competition dressage, which IMHO we shouldn’t really do anymore…even if you blame the Germans for the current state of competition dressage.

Isn’t there a classical German school as well? (I mean, yes, surely there is, if all classical schools come back to the writings of master trainers from the cavalry? Or does classical mean something else?)

Is there a good resource somewhere that does a comparative analysis of these different schools? That doesn’t start and end with the description of what was easy/hard for the particular breeds they rode? Not that that is unimportant, but that must only be scratching the surface.

[pluvinel]

@strangewings

Or does classical mean something else?)

It dates back to what is called “manege riding” as an art form of European royal houses.

What is currently considered in competition dressage dates to the use of the mounted cavalry. This is called the “campaign school.”

[strangewings]

What exactly do you consider manege vs. campaign school?

Maybe an interesting philosophical difference that exists and that I had not appreciated is that the cavalry certainly requires training methods in the campaign school that are optimizing for longevity, function, and useability/ridability. The training approach must produce consistent results and be a system that is straightforward to train people to reproduce.

I thought the passage originated in the cavalry for parade riding, though, which is more for exhibition than function. Unless you count that exhibition functions in morale and fostering pride and unity among troops.

What are the objectives of the manege?

The art form at the SRS to my understanding does something like adding haute ecole to the campaign school. The art there, to me, is in taking “functional” to natural limits e.g. levade as the pinnacle of collection. There is a logic to this that I always thought of as fundamental to classical dressage - the haute ecole is a relationship between form and function that proves out the efficacy of the training methods.

But the function came first and so I don’t see how to dismiss the role of the cavalry in classical dressage and attribute it just to the royal houses?

[pluvinel]

@strangewings

What exactly do you consider manege vs. campaign school?

There are books written on this topic. I suggest that an internet BB is not the place to get this education.

@strangewings

The art form at the SRS to my understanding does something like adding haute ecole to the campaign school.

This sentence shows the fundamental lack of understanding and confusion about this history. The haute ecole of the manege preceded the campaign school by several hundred years.

[strangewings]

I will simplify my question. You first post seems to completely dismiss the role of the cavalry in classical dressage. If that is not what you meant to do, can you clarify what you define as classical dressage without making any comparison to competitive dressage?

[strangewings]

@pluvinel

This sentence shows the fundamental lack of understanding and confusion about this history. The haute ecole of the manege preceded the campaign school by several hundred years.

I was referring to their own described training progression

SRS: The Education of the Stallions

[pluvinel]

@strangewings

I will simplify my question. You first post seems to completely dismiss the role of the cavalry in classical dressage.

Because the mounted cavalry had no role to play in the haute ecole training of the manege.

@strangewings

I was referring to their own described training progression

srs.at

SRS: The Education of the Stallions

ENGLISH Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no…

From your link

The Schools

The Remontenschule: In the first year there is the training for young horses, riding with as natural a horse as possible in unaccompanied gaits on the straights.

The Campagneschule: Riding the horse in all gaits; turn and tours in perfect balance.

The High School: At this level, the rider brings his horse to perfection. What follows now depends on the particular suitability, talent, strength and sensitivity of the respective stallion and what the stallion offers. The stallion learns piaffe, passage, gallop pirouettes and canter changes from jump to jump. It takes an average of six years until a stallion can be used in the School Quadrille and thus finished his education to School Stallion. The famous school jumps of the “Schools Above Earth” - Levade, Courbette and Capriole - dominate only a few, especially talented and sensitive stallions.

You realize this description was written in the 21st century? The “campaign school” is the basic school (eg., the ecole base…low school) that is needed for a cross country horse that can do basic W/T/C. The “haute ecole” (…high school) is the training required for the manege.

I suggest perhaps a google search can help clarify. If I look at my bookshelf, there is perhaps 10+ linear feet of horse books consumed, underlined and re-read over 50 years. I’m sorry if I cannot summarize them for you in a few sentences.

[strangewings]

I sincerely apologize for my ignorance regarding those terms.

I will rephrase my question again. In your educated opinion, did the cavalry play a significant role in the development of dressage in any of the classical schools? Edit: reread your post. Is the haute ecole the defining characteristic of classical dressage?

Your first post implied to me that your definition strictly attributes “classical” to the royal houses.
This was surprising to me as I thought the role of the cavalry in the development of classical horsemanship went straight through to Xenophon. But as you have ascertained, I am largely ignorant to the history.

[Willesdon]

I own a book published in the 17th century that, to paraphrase, says “people pretend that training a horse in dressage is preparing a horse for war”. I’m not at home so can’t find the quote but it is from Gervase Markham’s “Complete Horseman”. He was a soldier and a horseman and had an opinion on everything!

[belgianWBLuver]

PK(Philippe Karl) was a longtime Cadre Noir rider and professor. The method “Légèreté” is basically a reprogrammation of many of François Baucher’s and his student’s exercises, minus the controversial ones.
It uses similar exercises to N.Oliveira’s ideas but also some “renamed” exercises that Oliveira didn’t practice.
It’s a modernized more easily understood method of Baucher.
IMO, and having been heavily exposed to PK, Oliveira, and M.Henriquet’s Versailles school (based on Oliveira’s teachings), I feel there are many great practices from each method.
If one reads, studies and can seek out qualified practioners of these 2 methods, one can really become proficient in working horses in lightness.

I’m not married to either method to the point of ignoring the other. I benefit from practicing exercises in both methods and so do my horses.

[belgianWBLuver]

Read this book

Dressage: The Art of Classical Riding book by Sylvia Loch

You’ll love it, it explains a lot and it’s affordable

[belgianWBLuver]

Currently, in the US. The term French dressage is used very loosely by many practitioners. Barbier’s, who rode with Oliveira for a time, teaching style, is a little too eccentric for my liking.

I appreciate teachers like Pippa Callanan, who does a nationwide tour and is worth auditing. She is a student of both the PK method and the Oliveira method. Alexis Martin-Vegue is another good one who also incorporates biomechanics in her lessons.

They both have a normal, friendly teaching style without the BS and theatrics.

[belgianWBLuver]

OP, to answer your question, many of the Portuguese masters closely followed and some still do, the old French methods of François Robichon de La Guérinière who taught French royals at the school of Versailles in a very artistic manner. However there are many Portuguese and Spanish riders who lean heavily towards the popular German competition-style school. Same in France.

Then there was François Baucher who dropped into the mix with his “unearthly” method that was controversial but in many ways worked.

So you have to focus your vision on “the type of classical education” you prefer.

True French classical concentrates of the horse’s front end, lightening it with appropriate exercises, gaining mobility in the jaw, flexing the poll, building the hind end and the entire body with lateral work, etc, etc. Oh an edited to add, the thoracic sling and a little more height in the head and neck. Forward impulsion is important but not necessarily paramount from the beginning.

The old German classical masters (and a few newer ones) used the French methods in their programs. That’s why many of the old videos show beautifully moving light horses.
But the mainsteam German system mainly focuses on developing the hind end of the horse and forward impulsion coming from this hind end at an early stage of the horse’s training.

Do some reading and most importantly, audit some different instructors to see what is pleasing to you.

[pluvinel]

@belgianWBLuver

The term French dressage is used very loosely by many practitioners.

Agreed. If anyone is interested in Philippe Karl, he has a number of videos available thru his web site or Amazon. There is a video called Classical vs Classique with him and Christoph Hess that is interesting.

[belgianWBLuver]

I remember about a decade ago, several Jean Claude Racinet students and followers who would work their horses with loose connection (iow no connection) and no forward impulsion to speak of. Incorrect application of Racinets method. And unfortunately a contributer to why the French method is so criticized.

[strangewings]

@belgianWBLuver

Then there was François Baucher who dropped into the mix with his “unearthly” method that was controversial but in many ways worked.

I recall being “warned off” french classical in the 90’s when I first started taking dressage lessons, and I think that must have been because of Baucher. I think this trainer was mostly adhering to writings of Walter Zettl, but I was just a kid at the time and didn’t really know how to ask these questions so I don’t know for sure at this point. She was definitely very anti-competitive dressage, even then.

In the intervening decades, with exposure to a diverse array of trainers, horses, and quality, type, and level of training and instruction (mostly classical and “classical”), I have started thinking that the right tactic is to think less about what is pleasing and more about what problems will be created if a given method is used poorly or incorrectly. Then let that plus the combined strengths and weaknesses of the horse and rider guide the methods of work (across schools) to effectively achieve the gymnasticization required in a biomechanically sound way that also accounts for the horse’s mental state.

[belgianWBLuver]

Yes, agreed. Like for example, I was lucky to work for an old Portuguese master who had no breed preferences. He taught WBs to collect and be light yet forward and Iberians to develop the strength and suppleness to extend. Everybody did cavaletti and small jumps.
Now when I work my Lusitanos. I work them out on the trails, up and down hills. They all have an extension.
My dressage QHs the same, I pick them up and open their thoracic so that they carry themselves more evenly. Then I supple them with lateral work. These horses make nice lower level dressage mounts (and sometimes upper level).
Biomechanics is very important!

[HorseBuff]

I wholeheartedly agree. I audited Pippa’s clinic this past Spring and plan to audit again this Fall with hopes to bring my mare next Spring to her clinic (she is rehabbing so we’ll wait until she’s recovered). She was simply amazing to watch and learn from.

[HorseBuff]

I learned of French Classical about a year ago and found both my horse, a Friesian cross, and myself in our happy place.
I’ve read a lot of Sylvia Locke’s books, she has a very good Facebook group as well - helpful and gracious. Her husband was a Portuguese trainer. She is a wealth of knowledge and breaks everything down simply and intelligently.
I also started following Bettina Biolik and joined her online training group. She’s been wonderful to learn from. She is who I am following the closest and implementing currently.
Pippa Callanan, if you can find a clinic near you, is worth its weight in gold to at least audit.
Wendy Murdoch has a couple of YouTube talks with Bettina Drummond which are incredibly educational on Olivera. She spent her childhood working for him. He took from several styles including later Bouchard, French and Portuguese.

[EleganteE]

On a practical note, having ridden and trained both Warmbloods and Andalusians, the biggest difference is suspension. Warmbloods have more natural spring while Andalusians are more grounded. When you start training them, WBs are heavier in the hand and the work is to lighten as you train into collection. Andalusians have soft mouths so are the opposite - start very very light and build up the stronger hand shake. Other than that, you get both sides of the spectrum in each group: some collect easily, others don’t. All need training to get true collection and extension. Different bloodlines offer strengths and weaknesses in both groups.

I watched the Four Ecoles in Paris: Spanish Riding School, French Cadre Noir and Spanish School. For the performance, I liked the French group the best. Horses were more up and open. The Spanish like their Brio which puts the horses more under tension and not as relaxed seeming. The SRS did not seem as correct which may just be opinion over reality. I really don’t know the Spanish system so can’t comment.

Did some training with a Phillipe Karl technique person and found it very helpful. Also watched his vids. Getting the horse to chew is key in his training and it worked wonders for my stiff jawed horse and with consistent work we had the best connection I’ve every had with a horse. Learned a lot of helpful things.

So my two cents. LOL.