The Horse of America in His Derivation, History, and DevelopmentWallace, John Hankins
History
The Horse of America in His Derivation, History, and Development
Wallace, John Hankins
Horse breeds -- History; Horses -- Breeding -- United States; Horses -- United States -- History
hence his ownership is practically restricted to the chiefs of tribes. He
is never used except for display and war. Palgrave, in speaking specially
of the Nejd tribe, says: “A horse is by no means an article of everyday
possession, or of ordinary or working use. No genuine Arab would ever
dream of mounting his horse for a mere peaceful journey, whether for a
short or a long distance.”
When we consider the immeasurable superiority of the camel to the
horse in meeting the wants and necessities of the Arab, we will not be
surprised at the immense herds of the former and the small numbers of
the latter that are bred and reared in that country. A camel can go four
days without water, and under stress, it is said, a good one can cover
the distance of two hundred miles in twenty-four hours. The camel and
the country are suited to each other, while the horse is an exotic, and
has no part in any industrial interest except raiding and robbery. My
attention was first called to this unexpected smallness in the numbers
of Arabian horses in the seventh century, two hundred and sixty years
after the introduction of the original stock from Cappadocia. The flight
of Mohammed from his enemies in Mecca to Medina took place A.D. 622.
There, setting up as a Prophet, and as holding communications with
Heaven, he soon gathered around him a number who believed in his divine
inspiration. Understanding the habits and instincts of his followers,
he soon found he must give them something to do. He called them about
him, mounted a camel, and at their head he was successful in plundering
two or three caravans, which greatly enraged his old enemies at Mecca.
Whether the anger of his enemies was kindled anew because some of the
plunder belonged in Mecca, or whether he merely deprived the Meccans of
the opportunity of doing the plundering themselves, the historian fails
to make clear. Whichever may have been the underlying reason, it led to
war. In the first campaign of the Meccans and in the first battle fought,
they far outnumbered the followers of the Prophet. There were some camels
in Mohammed’s train, but no horses. He did not lead the battle himself,
but remained in his tent and promised his followers that all who fell
in battle would be forthwith admitted into Paradise. They believed the
promise, as millions and millions have believed it since; it inspired
them with a recklessness of life, and they were completely victorious.
The result of this victory was the capture of one hundred and fifteen
camels and fourteen horses, besides the entire camp of the enemy. In the
battle of the next year (A.D. 625) between the same parties, the forces
were much increased on both sides. Sir William Muir, the historian,
informs us that Mohammed had but two horses in his army, one of which
he mounted himself and took command of his forces. This battle was not
decisive. In subsequent raids he captured many enemies and traded his
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account