Mounting horses from the left

[nisi]

When I was little & learning to ride my bike, my father told me to always get on it from the left. There is, of course, a practical reason for this - the chain is on the right and you're less likely to get grease on you if you mount from the left.

However, why *is* the chain on the right? Is it because people are used to getting on things like horses from the left?

I wonder if the two things are related. Does anyone know?

Nisi.

[Hideous Claude]

Years ago I read that the practice of mounting horses from the left led to pilots in WWI boarding their 'planes from the left (many of them having been trained as cavalrymen). In turn, this tradition became established and is the reason we board airliners on the left-hand side. Where I read this, I don't recall.

[Q.E.D.]

A link to the Staff Report in question is helpful. Why are horses traditionally mounted from the left side? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhorsemounting.html)

[TPWombat]

i heard that "the eye of the needle "was in fact a very small doorway in castle or city walls ,made small for defensive purposes when the main gates were closed ,so perhaps they really did mean camel,getting a real live camel through a doorway would be pretty tricky!

[C K Dexter Haven]

TP Wombat, I'm not sure what the heck needles and camels have to do with mounting horses from the left, but what you heard is just plain wrong. See:What's the meaning of Jesus' teaching about the camel going through the eye of a needle? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrichman.html)
and
More on camels passing through the eyes of needles (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrichma2.html)

[C K Dexter Haven]

...and, EddyTeddyFreddy, congrats and thanks on your first guest Staff Report!!

[Floater]

Strange that no one has thought of what, to me anyway, seems to be the obvious reason. The majority of us naked apes are right-handed and right-footed. This means that the natural way to mount a horse is to swing the right leg across its back. It just feels awkward to do it the other way.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Ah, but Floater, consider: Wouldn't a right-sided person find it easier to support their weight upon their right leg, rather than their left, as they spring upward? Also, mounting from the right would put the reins in the rider's right hand -- more effective for control than having them in the left as one mounts. So there must be another reason, surely, to mount from the left side?

The dominance of right-sidedness is why swords would be hung from the left side of the rider's belt to begin with -- thus requiring mounting from the left to avoid pranging either horse or rider with the scabbard. I remain convinced that the sword theory is the basis of this custom. But you make a good argument for your theory.

[Floater]

Originally posted by EddyTeddyFreddy
Ah, but Floater, consider: Wouldn't a right-sided person find it easier to support their weight upon their right leg, rather than their left, as they spring upward? Also, mounting from the right would put the reins in the rider's right hand -- more effective for control than having them in the left as one mounts. So there must be another reason, surely, to mount from the left side?

The dominance of right-sidedness is why swords would be hung from the left side of the rider's belt to begin with -- thus requiring mounting from the left to avoid pranging either horse or rider with the scabbard. I remain convinced that the sword theory is the basis of this custom. But you make a good argument for your theory.
Have you ever tried long jump or high jump. Right-footed persons, and I am very much so, usually take off with their right foot, and when I just think of mounting a horse it seems very unnatural for me to do it from the right side. Also, you should keep in mind that using the left foot, holding the reins with the right hand and carrying the sword on the left side are all unconnected secondary effects of our right-sidedness.

[scr4]

I think the right-handedness is more important than right-footedness here. You want to hold on to the horse/bike with your right hand as you mount it.

[theR]

Originally posted by EddyTeddyFreddy
Ah, but Floater, consider: Wouldn't a right-sided person find it easier to support their weight upon their right leg, rather than their left, as they spring upward? Also, mounting from the right would put the reins in the rider's right hand -- more effective for control than having them in the left as one mounts. So there must be another reason, surely, to mount from the left side?

Those that are right footed most often leap (push off) with the left foot. A right footed soccer player kicks strongest with his right foot, which means he is pushing off and balancing using his left foot. A right footed basketball player, long jumper, high jumper, etc, will usually push off with the left foot, not the right.

[aus55]

Originally posted by Floater
...and when I just think of mounting a horse it seems very unnatural for me to do it from the right side.

But why is it a natural feeling for you? Is it because you have always seen people mount from the left?

Humans, biologically speaking, do not have instincts. So how can you explain a feeling that causes you to always mount from one side or the other?

[Floater]

Originally posted by aus55
But why is it a natural feeling for you? Is it because you have always seen people mount from the left?

What theR said. Also, picture yourself climbing a fence or mounting/dismounting a bicycle. It's the dominant foot that you swing over it, with the other foot on the ground. I am also willing to wager that when you start walking from a standstill you more often than not take the first step with it too.

Humans, biologically speaking, do not have instincts. So how can you explain a feeling that causes you to always mount from one side or the other?
As far as I know we do have instincts, but we are able to supress them and it's not a feeling that causes me to always mount from the same side. It's in the nature of handedness.

[gluteus maximus]

Sure we have instincts! We just don't have instincts about things we've invented, like horseback riding and bicycles. Instincts were established in humans long before customs and inventions. Nobody mounts their horse or bike from the left side by instinct, but rather, by habit, or custom.

Nice Report, EddyTeddyFreddy !

[aus55]

Well I lead of with my right foot because of Boot Camp :-)

Before that, I never could recall which foot I lead with, but I don't think I always lead with my right. Though I'm sure I mostly lead with my right.

As for instincts, the idea of an instinct is that it is unavoidable, applies to all members of the species and something else I can't recall at this moment. I remember I had this similiar discussion with my Soc 101 teacher at the George Washington Univ. At the time, I thought, as you do, that we had instincts and that we merely supressed them. The professor said as I said above, from a biological standpoint, we do not.

If you change the definition of instincts to mean what most people accept it nowadays to mean, then yes we do. That is an urge that we can suppress. Kind of like not eating that big piece of cheesecake even though you want too b/c you know it's not healthy.

But in the pure sense of the word we do not have instincts. Two people who are 'procreating', can stop during the process for no reason. Two animals that are going at it, must have some reason to stop 'procreating' during the process, ie:like the sudden appearance of a predator, otherwise they are hardwired to continue the process until the end result is achieved.

Instincts are a hard-wired set of actions that the creature cannot turn-off. As the author of the column stated, most horses react poorly if you try to climb up on the right side. Because it's instincts tells it you might be a predator. But the question arises, why then can a horse be taught to allow a handler to get up on any side if the hard wire response is there? Thus is the beauty of such techniques like operant conditioning.

Either way, I think I've gotten a bit off topic.

[Sagrilarus]

Humans do indeed have instincts, including one that makes each of us want to pivot on our "weak" foot. As a righty, I instinctively turn counter-clockwise when doing a 180 to return to where I came from. This is also the natural direction that I like to rotate when climbing onto a horse. Swords may apply here, but realistically, it's just more natural for right-handers to get on from the left.

[Chronos]

So you're saying that instincts can't be overcome, unless there's operant conditioning at work? And I would dispute the claim that people can stop procreating for no reason whatsoever. For trivial reasons, maybe, but I'll warrent there's some reason, and I'll further bet that for any such reason in humans, an analogue reason can be found in other animals.

[Sagrilarus]

Instinct is merely an urge towards behavior -- a rabbit has an instinct to eat a head of cabbage, but if there is a fence in the way it eventually moves on. Similarly, I have an urge to turn counter-clockwise, but at times on the soccer field it makes more sense to turn clockwise to cover the other player. So I turn clockwise. Instincts are impetuses, not overwhelming compulsions.

[C K Dexter Haven]

While this is interesting, we're getting a bit far-afield. (Notice how I didn't say "off the track.") A debate of instinct vs learned behaviors probably belongs in the Great Debates Forum. Let's try to keep his a wee more focused on hopping atop horses, eh?

[aus55]

I never said it wasn't natural for people to mount from the left.

I was not challenging the naturalness of doing anything in context to which is more comfortable. I was challenging that this is based off of an instinct. What hand you use and what leg you lead off with are greatly influenced with which part of the brain is dominant. This is not an instinct, it's how your body works.

Chronos, I'm not sure I understand you properly. You are saying that it is not possible for a man and a women to simply stop because they choose to discontinue? Albeit, in a practical situation there surely is some reason....way to many to list. However, humans have the ability to stop for no reason.

For lack of a better way to explain it, a 'want' to stop is the reason. A desire to discontinue procreating. Humans need no greater reason then merely "I do not want to". I believe humans could stop at anytime during procreation, I'd however concede that this might not be possible as an orgasm occurs--but this is based of an effect produced by the body. I do not know enough about the biology behind an orgasm to know whether humans still have the ability for rational thought during/as it occurs. I know i'd find it difficult to say the least, and I think most others would too. But animals do not have this choice. They must have some reason to stop procreating.

Also, I admit I do not have enough knowledge to say that instincts cannot be overcome by other means then psychological effects like operant conditioning. However, I do not see how.

Sagrilarus but you would have made a rational choice to turn clockwise. Either way, as I said above, that is based off of which part of the brain is dominant.

And yes, obviously the rabbit would move on or natural selection would take over. But what does the rabbit move on to? Does it choose some other action or if it was hungry does it continue to search out food? If it were hungry, it would turn and continue seeking food. If it werent hungry then likely it would not have tried to eat the cabbage anyway. There might be some animals that eat just for the sack of eating, I'm not aware of any, other then humans of course.

Also, as I said, if you wish to alter the meaning of an instinct to how it is popularly viewed, "an urge towards behavior" then yes Humans have instincts. However for animals it is not "an urge towards behavior", it is an unavoidable set of actions/activiities/reponses.

Someone answer me this? If an animal sees food and is hungry, and there are no factors that would raise an alarm or scare of the animal basically nothing to prevent the animal from eating, would it eat the food or could it choose not to?

Now, if a human sees food and is hungry and there are no factors to prevent the human from eating, must the human eat it or can it choose not to?

I have no doubt that people have urges, but people do not have instincts, from a biological point of view.

[aus55]

Sorry, I saw your post after I posted that.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I'm very much enjoying these challenges to my thesis, Dopers! And we may not be so far apart, if you look upon this idea of mounting from the left as a specific manifestation of the general dominance of righthandedness in homo sapiens. (By the bye, does anyone know if apes are generally right- or left-handed?) Thus, avoidance of sword-stabs would be synergistic with greater physical ease of mounting off the left foot. Of course, there's no way to prove which influence -- the specific or the general -- is more likely correct as the origin of what is now a well-established custom.

I will throw in another argument fof the sword theory, one that I touched on briefly in my original article. That is that horses were initially domesticated primarily for use in war. In earliest times they were used to draw chariots; then (perhaps as they were bred larger than the original pony-sized equines) their use for cavalry -- as chargers, carrying scouts, etc. -- developed. Horses as general transportation would be a later development; their use in agriculture came later still, since oxen were more efficient at drawing plows and wagons until the horse collar was invented. I'm grossly simplifying here, but the general drift of this argument is that the initial use of the ridden horse for war by sword-wearing men would inevitably influence the choice of side on which to mount.

Speaking of whether apes are handed also reminds me to mention that horses show sidedness, both under saddle and while being worked on from the ground. Why this is so is unproven, although horsepeople love to argue diverse theories, ranging from position in the womb to various forms of human handling and use.

[Raoul Scungilli]

Let's go back to the idea of "What side does it feel natural to get on a horse?" In surfing, riders usually place the left foot forward. Those odd few like myself who place the right foot forwards are called "goofy foot." Though I am right handed and I kick with my right foot, I can only get on and off a bicycle from the right side. This makes it awkward for negotiating the kickstand on the left side, but the kickstand is placed on the left side of a bicycle for the convenience of most riders who naturally mount from the left. I suspect most riders have naturally mounted horses from the left, as well.

[lachesis]

umm, EddyTeddyFreddy? as a horseperson, i think you've, emm...

<< wait for it >>

got the cart before the horse.

as it were.

large animal domestication is most likely to have started long before the concept of major organized warfare involving cavalry. keeping animals for food purposes (milk and meat) is likely to have begun sometime in the Neolithic period. as they became more docile with handling, the concept of this creature carrying burdens no doubt became an appealing notion, particularly when transporting large loads. horses probably weren't the first domesticated herbivores, but they undisputedly WERE subject to hunting as food back in prehistoric times. sheep, goats and oxen were likely to have been more tractable and easier to handle (not to mention relatively slower and easier to catch and pen up). but once the concept caught on, any non-predatory four-legged creature probably became fair game for transport as well as larder purposes. witness the use of camels, reindeer, and even dogs as carrying or pulling animals, in addition to the (now) more-common cattle and horses.

while even goats have been trained to pull small carts for racing, the chariot, cart and wagon are likely to have come long after first depositing a bundle of goods, then later a human body, on the back of a quadruped.

i mean, really -- which is the quickest to envision and implement: inventing the wheeled vehicle and necessary harness for attaching it to an animal, or placing yourself on the animal's back? if dozens of youngsters and ponies are any indication, riding bareback came long before the actual invention or popular use of a saddle. in either event, the animal has to be trained to accept the notion of either having harness strapped to its body, or bearing weight on its back. (the bridle or some form of directing the head would be a given for either instance.) guess which one adventurous youth is likely to try first?

really, if you think about it logically: how would you know an animal like a horse can be used to pull a vehicle, unless you've previously determined that it can be induced to safely accept smaller burdens? and it's not unknown for cattle (like oxen) to be ridden by their owners in other cultures, even if their major duties are served by pulling a cart or plow.

so i strongly dispute your notion that war chariots preceded any form of riding, whether in war or peace. while the animals themselves may have only been pony-sized, the people were on a shorter scale also. and if you think a large person would stop at the thought of riding a short-statured equine, you've obviously never seen a picture of native populations riding donkeys and asses.

errrr, end of hijack.

[jonbrawn]

An extension of mounting your horse from the left hand side is that you would ride your horse along the left hand side of the road - you wouldn't want to be standing in the middle of the street trying to swing your leg over your horse now, would you?

So, that's why Brits ride on the left, and now drive on the left. I think the driving on the right malarky that you foreigners get up to had something to do with Napolean didn't it?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

lachesis, you've caught me out in an oversimplification. :o (I did say I was grossly simplifying.) I've found a good description of what is known and speculated about domestication of the horse here (http://www.imh.org/imh/kyhpl1b.html#xtocid2243616).

Apparently, my teachers and references in the history of riding predate the research noted in that article to this effect: While it had long been accepted that humans harnessed horses prior to riding them, new archeological research in Eurasia now may push the date for the first horseback riding back to approximately 4,000 BC I hreby renounce my previous cart-before-horse belief, based on this updated information. ;)

That horses would be ridden before being harnessed -- yes, I accept your correction on that point, in terms of herding, as the article points out. But I continue to believe that horses were first used in organized warfare for pulling chariots rather than as ridden cavalry. Consider this quote from that same source: Traditionally it has been felt that driving came before riding in the civilized lands of the Near East, where recorded history began. There were large chariot forces which required schooled, disciplined, and highly conditioned horses at a time when riding was probably still pursued only in a casual fashion. Disciplined cavalry mounts, trained to function with their riders in formation, are thought to have come only after 1,000 BC The state of riding before 1,000 BC is depicted by this scantily clad, unarmed rider (groom or messenger) in a camp scene. He is still riding the donkey seat that was used 600 years before in conjunction with nose-ring control. It would be another 600 years before the rider of antiquity sat upon a horse like a true horseman.

Can't go further into your arguments right now as I'm at work. More later, I hope, tonight.

[John W. Kennedy]

Certainly the cultural evidence is all in favor of the war chariot coming before cavalry. There are no cavalry in Homer, and I don't recall any in Egyptian art. Even in later times, after new developments in tactics had rendered the war chariot obsolete, the Romans made little use of cavalry during the classical era, and employed foreign auxiliaries for what little cavalry they had. A few nations (notably the Parthians) who lived on broad plains developed effective mounted archers, but it was only with the late-classical invention of the stirrup and the introduction of heavy lancers that cavalry became an important part of most nations' armies.

[C K Dexter Haven]

It's a philosophical discussion, putting Descartes before Horace...

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

And I'm taking a firm position -- can't call me a Percheron the fence.

[lachesis]

are audible groaning posts permitted?

:rolleyes:

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Only from postilions on straight-shouldered nags. :p

[C K Dexter Haven]

Hay, hay, now.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Aw, all these puns are getting kinda Hackneyed.

[GusNSpot]

Most right handed folks who are not full of 'puns' use the right foot for control naturally.
Learning to water ski, most instinctively drop the right ski and place the right foot to the rear to control the ski. They afre taught to try lifting each skki and seeing which way they are more comfortable. Usuaslly the right side ski is droped.

Most ball room dancing has the leader, usually the male, start with the left foot first so the right can do the control thang.

While in England, I drove from the right, but the throttle pedal was still on the right. Hmmmm.

Horses can be trained either way or both as can people, but when you make them go in panic mode or without any training, it seems most right handed folks lead with the left foot and control with the right.

Of course, the exceptions are the rule or something like that....... YMMV :D