Three long; three short; three broad; three clear
Arab general al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi asked a man of the ancient Bedouin tribe of Hilal by the name of Ayub ibn Zayd ibn Qays about the characteristics of a good horse, the latter replied: “Three short ones; three long ones; three broad ones amd three clear ones; when asked to decribe these features, the man from Bani Hilal replied:
Short back; short thighs [Correction: cannon bones, in arabic “saq”, for “legs”]; short coccyx (the bones of the tail)
Long ears; long neck; long arms [Update: above the knees, in both the front and back];
Broad foreheads; broad nostrils; broad chest;
Clear skin [Update: around the nostrils and the eyes]; clear eyes; clear hooves.
I LOVE BROADS: Broad forehead, Broad Nostrils and a Broad Chest.
Hmmmm….am somewhat confused here with regard to the “long.” When Pure Man refers to long necks, surely he cannot be referring to those exaggerated “hooky” (as they are often referred to) necks stretched out to infinity and beyond in the glossy Arab magazines? And the long legs? A 16 hand plus Arabian horse is, to me, not an Arabian. But I confess to ignorance, so am interested to hear others with regard to “long.” I will stay away from ears, as they seem to have sparked enough discourse here already. 🙂
Sorry–he said long forearms, not legs, so I am supposing he is putting those in context of over all conformation. Still….
But I still love Pure Man!
I believe it is long above the knee. I am not certain about short in the thigh, myself!
It’s certainly above the knee, for both the front legs (forearms) and the hind legs (thighs). My translation was not very good.
Brimstone had extremely short ears Edouard, and you posted his photo under the headline “How Arabian horse ears should look like.” Ayub ibn Zayd ibn Qays says a good horse has long ears. Now clearly, you can’t both be right, can you?
Actually, we’d better figure out how to measure ears. Stallion ears usually look shorter than mare ears, but I’m not sure they are. Stallions have extra large muscle attachments on their jaws and other spots on the skull, and it just adds flesh around the base of the ears.
The same thing goes for eyes. Some horses have extra muscle attachments (seen on the bone of the skull) around the eyes, and the extra flesh there makes the eye seem smaller. The actual eye socket seems to be basically the same size.
I have never — personally — been a fan of longer ears, but some of our best mares have appeared to be that way. Perhaps it is like the eye, it is a matter of the muscle attachment.
Perhaps the Arab saying is because they wanted the sensory organs to be large, meaning sensitive. ???
I always heard well respected breeders in the Middle East say that stallion ears should be shorter than mares’ ears. The better stallions I have seen among the Bedouins had shorter ears, and the better mares longer ears.. This much I know.
The “three things long, three things short, three things broad, three things clean” saying has been circulating in English for a long time, at least since the first English edition (1863) of General Daumas’s book The Horses of the Sahara.
Hello for all Arabian horse lover ( asil)
I think and I believe the Bedouin look first the character ,pedigre and performance of a horse .
And if this three things are ok the horse is good even if
the horse have one ear bigger than the other..for the Bedouin bredder is doesen t matter. I hope you understand .And I think you can not see on the ears that one horse is more asil then the other ! Sorry Because we have so much type`s and strains .
For example !we can say the horses Shuwaymat Sabbah from Tai are known for long ears .In this way .Thank you
Here’s another question. Why do people make generalized statements such as, “The Bedouin look at this, the Bedouin prefer that, etc.,” as though all Bedouin, in all regions, from all tribes, and throughout all history were exactly alike?
I think because The Bedouin bred this horse .
and not the Indian .or Raswan or Blunt
best regards
RJ, my guess is that because despite belonging to different tribes, Bedouins were a pretty uniform people. They ate the same food, wore the same clothes, used the same tools and weapons, recited the same poetry, etc. The Abbas Pasha Manuscript, for instance, records how Bedouins used to converge on very specific issues related to breeding and type: “So and so from the tribe of X said that.. and so and so from the tribe of Y agreed with him”.
If you read accounts of travelers, or even their own recorded (oral) poetry, what strikes you at first sight is that very little seems to have changed from the times before Islam came until the introduction of firearms, and even slightly after.
Whether across time or across space, they were certainly perceived as one cultural entity, by settled folks and by western travelers. Since all Bedouin tribes had horses, it is normal for outside people to apply the same reasoning to their horses as well.
RJ, on the quote appearing in Daumas’ book. You’re right. I have seen it there. It makes sense, since the book was co-authored by ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi. The latter as a clergyman, would be expected to know about sayings attributed to the Prophet’s Companions and their descendants, of whom al-Hajjaj was one.
“I think because The Bedouin bred this horse .
and not the Indian .or Raswan or Blunt
best regards”
What does that have to do with whether all Bedouin are alike?
Certainly Edouard, all Bedouin have certain things in common. They share a common culture and history.
But does that mean that no two Bedouin horsemen ever disagreed about anything? Example: Pure Man says that “Bedouins did not like horses with dished profiles.” And yet some other Bedouins told the Blunts and Homer Davenport that they liked the profiles of Sherifa and *Abeyah.
Within that common Bedouin culture, there does seem to be room for a certain amount of variation.
Granted. I think Pure Man was talking about extreme dishes, like those odd profiles you see in some of today’s shows.
Something else: would you consider *Abeyah and especially Sherifa to have dished profiles? Judging from the pictures I have seen of *Abeyah, I could certainly tell she had a very pretty face, but I am not sure that the bulging jibbah that characterized her amounts to a dished profile. As to Sherifa judging from the drawing LAB did of her, it seems that she had a “triangular face”, which is another type of pretty face, very deep at the jowls, and very small at the tip of the muzzle, which gives the impression of a dished profile. I wish I could draw here to explain what I am trying to say in a clearer way.
I think we need some drawings of what a dish is to different people! With some of our horses, the jibbah is lower down on the face, and gives more of an impression of dish. With some, the jibbah is quite high, over the cranial box, and the profile looks straight. However, with a straight edge on the skull, both sorts may have the same amount of indention. I don’t think we have any Arabian skulls with an absolutely straight profile.
The earliest use of the word “dish” to describe the heads of Arabian horses, so far as I am aware, is Homer Davenport writing in the Cyclopedia of American Agriculture: “The two great features, possibly, that a stranger would notice first in the Arab horse, are the forehead, or jibbah, which cannot be too prominent, giving a peculiar dish to the lower part of the face, and the tail, set high and carried in an arch.” vol. III (1908), p. 447. So yes, I would use the word “dish” to describe *Abeyah’s profile, and I think Homer Davenport would, too. I would also say that Sherifa, based on the Blunt drawing, had a dished profile.
Homer Davenport obviously never saw a modern show horse, and I haven’t been to a show in years. Dropped my subscriptions to the show horse magazines more than a decade ago. So I can’t say that I’m familiar with the “odd profiles you see in some of today’s shows,” but they don’t sound like something I’d care for.
The long and short of it… sometimes aesthetics get in the way. I had an asil mare whose head looked long. By actual measurement (as per Lady Blunt’s example), she had the shortest head in the herd.
Uhmmm, and the drawing of Sherifa certainly differs to that of the photo(s). A little bit of poetic licence?
Uhmmm, and taking the written word and photos of the individuals of the same / similar period, the words don’t usually relate to what is now interpretated of them. Most early works are descriptive – the most descriptive work (to my mind) are the works of Major RD Upton, however, his work is rarely illustrated The Russian material by Scherbatov and Stroganov has the descriptive words plus the pictures, it’s interesting putting these together relative to today’s thoughts.
ps, taking the measurements of Sherifa’s head, and working them with a current individual, the measurements are reflective of the photos rather than the drawing. mho
Joksimovic, I understand your suggestion. I’ve noted this in writings of the early authors. Bedouins suggesting that a tribe’s horses may look different from others because of their preferences.
another thought… short back plus long arms and long neck would usually equal an overall long legged individual. Reasoning (mho) – head and neck combination only has the natural need to reach the ground to eat and drink therefore, in combination with a short back, the only option is long legs. So this would explain a preference for long arms (forearms) rather than length anywhere else in the legs? OR is “arms” actually referring to the humerus rather than the radius?
For me… I like balance which technically doesn’t really allow for long or short of anything overall!
and if I have interpretted Joksimovic, correctly, the this would relate to what RJ is suggesting also – the Bedouin shouldn’t be considered, in this case, as a single identity. Similarly, the same could be suggested of any nation and their inhabitants – including America. There’s an overall generalisation but when a focus is applied there are differences.
Hi Diane 🙂
I really enjoy your ‘musings’. Re the long forearm, one would also include ‘short’ cannon.
I think you can see such a leg on Bint Rajwa (see photo on this blog).
Also *Mounwer whose photo is also posted to this blog.
The Tripoli/Dharebah bothers:
http://davenporthorses.org/photos/60s%20horses/
My very favorite photo of the perfect foreleg is one taken of Sir as a youngster. Perhaps Jeanne has a copy handy?? Long forearms, broad flat knees, and short cannons with broad, flat bone.
Anyway, long legs on Arabians are usually the result of long cannons (combined with ‘normal’ forearms), while those sturdy horses with short legs often have short forearms. 🙂
It is difficult to find good photos that properly display long forearms and short cannons to advantage due to bad positioning of the horse, or lens/camera position distortions. Good conformational photos are usually taken with a minimum 100mm lens, horse standing with legs positioned correctly, and camera pointed straight at the center of horse’s barrel, with good light that highlights the bone and tendons. 🙂
Many photos are taken with photographer standing up and camera tipped down…. or with photographer sitting down and camera pointed up… (if this positioning is used by skilled camera-man, it works to make horse appear taller. ;> … and if one uses Lady Wentworth’s favorite ruse of a handler much shorter/smaller than average….. 😀
AnitaW who has visited many lovely horses so is sadly aware of the large numbers of unflattering, badly posed photos.
Just sent the photo to Edouard, Anita. It also shows a good stance and angle for horse photography. Jane Llewellyn Ott took it in 1962, when Sir was 4.