Excellent insights everyone and definitely a lot of food for thought! I appreciate everyone who’s taken the time to weigh in (no pun intended). I reckon I’m no clearer on the “heavy weight” fulmer, but it does seem the general consensus is it’s not an ideal but for starting a horse. I suppose I’m still unclear why it’s recommended/used by so many traditionalists, such as The Spanish Riding school, but as I’m not in a position to ask them, I reckon the prudent choice is to start with one of my “old faithfuls” that greenies seem to like and that’s likely to fit her, and move on from there.
I AM surprised to hear the prevailing view seems to be there’s no difference in the German and French schools. I suppose much of it may come down to which trainer one focuses on, and at which period of time they were practicing. To be honest, when I speak of the German school I’m referring largely to FEI Dressage, the rules of which were based on The German Calvary Manuals (1 & 2), which partially intended to codify German Dressage. Obviously, many would say modern FEI Dressage is no longer an apt representation of the German School. That said, I still obverse a great deal of differences between the methods of the two schools, but perhaps it’s just an artifact of the teachers and reading material I’ve personally experienced. I’ve always understood the differences in the schools to stem from the historical difference between the Baroque horse and the heavier historic Germanic horses, so that the German school evolved as more “heavy handed” (meaning, the rider must influence the horse to a greater extent, in proportion to their historically more phlegmatic and more horizontally built horses) with a greater emphasis on creating impulsion in the horse, whereas the hotter and more compact Baroque horse lead to a system which emphasized lightness of the rider and utilized the more adjustable balance of their compact and more upright horses.
I can certainly understand how, when practiced correctly, both systems should produce similar end results, assuming that all correct Dressage strives to develop the maximum natural ability of the horse. However in my personal experience-- which is obviously limited to certain influences I’ve encountered and excludes other influences I haven’t, but others have-- the approach to reaching that ultimate goal are often different, to varying extents, although there’s also significant overlap. However, differences certainly exists, which lead to the concept if “French Dressage” or “German Dressage” etc, rather than simply saying “Dressage”. Clearly the distinction was significant enough (certainly in the past, if less so now) that it warranted the title of different schools, rather than similar enough that just sayin “Dressage” was sufficient to explain the training. In my mind, it makes sense that horses of different builds and temperaments will respond better to certain methods, and that some variation in standard technique would naturally arise when regions work primarily with horses of very different strengths and weaknesses. It makes sense to me that these styles would emphasize developing certain things which are more difficult for the average horse in that region, and which would utilize and build upon their natural strengths. But I’m not implying a certain style can only suit or develop one type of horse, only that even if the end goal is the same, it’d be bizarre for masters in different regions with different horses to use absolutely identical methods, and completely fail to evaluate their horses’ unique needs and adjust their general methods accordingly. Of course this is probably most accurate if one looks at the time period where the idea of a “national breed” was well established.
Just a long ramble on my understanding. I just like to put my thoughts, understanding, and experience out there, and any and all are free to chime in with ways I’m mistaken or where my logic msy have faltered. Then I get the opportunity to delve into something more and gain a better understanding.
As for the person who clearly doesn’t think much of Baucher, I’m curious if you’ve had the chance to look into his “Second Manner”? Baucher sustained a serious injury later in his career and, having lost much of his ability to manhandle the horse, reevaluated his" First Manner" and himself renounced it and declared it wrong. His Second Manner is very different to the First, and inspired many classical riders and the sport of Dressage as a whole. It was extremely influential to the sport. I have huge respect for Baucher. First, because it speaks highly of his character that he could examine his own ideas and reject the wrong he saw-- most people can’t, or won’t, do that. Second, because when he sought a new and kinder way, he did so in such a prodigious way that he altered the very course of the horse world. Now, it’s very in vogue to deride Baucher tgese days. Unfortunately, generally speaking those who do are only parroting popular sentiment and have never actually read the Manner which Baucher himself didn’t disown.
