# Holding the horses **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 13, 2001, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holding-the-horses/87218 "2001-10-13T07:01:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2001, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holding-the-horses/87218/1 "2001-10-13T07:01:41Z")
In the column on [Colera Belts](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990402b.html), Cecil refers to the story of the British artilleryman whose job was to “hold the horses” during WWII, years after horses were no longer used to tow artillery. He refers to this as an apocryphal story. Perhaps it is apocryphal, perhaps not. It certainly spreads like one, since in a Google search, I found it in half dozen or so different places with no two versions the same. Generally it’s used as an example of how “we’ve always done it that way” is not a good thing. The first place I encountered this story was in Freeman Dyson’s book “Disturbing the Universe”. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find my copy of this book. But I do know that Dyson worked as an analyst for the British military during WWII. So he or one of his fellow analysts could have been the one to notice the horse holder. I definitely remember that it was found when they closely examined films of an artillery crew in action, a detail not in any of the online versions I found. Anyway, does anyone else have this book? If so could you tell us who, if anyone, he gives credit to for finding it. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2001, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holding-the-horses/87218/2 "2001-10-14T20:59:44Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m reminded of a possibly apocryphal story about gun crews in the mechanized artillery in the British Army during World War II. Supposedly standard procedure was to assign eleven men to each crew. Someone noticed that the eleventh man had nothing to do, and asked what his purpose was. > > No one knew. Regulation books were consulted. At last there came a sheepish reply: > > “To hold the horses.” Well, from a strictly practical horsemanship perspective, yes, it’s not just a “possibly apocryphal” story–it’s probably a complete Fairy Tale. It seems to be presuming that Once Upon A Time, in military practice, an artillery battery had a team of horses that drew the artillery to its location, and that there was an “eleventh man” whose job it was to stand there and hold the horses while the artillery was fired. This is from Civil War artillery, but the principles are the same. [http://control.com/~emoore/FA.html](http://control.com/~emoore/FA.html) > [@](#): > > A standard Field Artillery battery consisted, at full strength, of six guns. Each gun was attached to a limber pulled by six horses, and was supported by a caisson, also attached to a limber pulled by six horses. The caisson carried two ammunition chests (also a spare wheel), and there was one chest on each limber for a total of about 1,200 rounds for the battery. There was also a battery wagon, a forge wagon and an ambulance, for a total of 18 vehicles. > > There were drivers on the left side horses, each responsible for two horses. When horses were in short supply, (a battery needed about 125) mules could be used, though they tended to shy in battles, so horses were used for the guns (leading to four gun batteries in part of 1864 and again in 1865). Exposed in battle, killing the horses of a battery prevented moving the guns from the field when threatened by the enemy. > > \ > > A detachment was one gun and its crew. The Chief of the piece was a sergeant, in charge of the gun; there was a corporal in charge of the caisson, and another who was the gunner that aimed the piece. The “spare men” of the Battery were those who were unassigned, and took care of the horses and equipment. [http://www.cwartillery.org/hansen.html](http://www.cwartillery.org/hansen.html) > [@](#): > > PRIVATES (Drivers) > Are the horsemen or riders that played an active part in moving the ordnance equipment. Each driver had two horses and their harness under his care. Each rode the left horse of his team and was held responsible for the feeding, watering, and grooming of the team. They were usually picked for this duty because of their knowledge or skill with the animals. during battle they brought the ordnance into position under the direction of the Sergeant, who was the platoon guide. The caisson drivers were directed into position by the chief of line of caissons, frequently taking position under hostile fire. Keeping the horses calm during battle and removing harness from downed horses was a skill of the drivers often used. The drivers had to be alert at all times in case the ordnance had to be removed from its position in haste…Though they were not ‘up front’, artillery generally had the tendency to shoot high, causing consternation among the drivers trying to control horses just in rear of the main battle line. [Here’s](http://sill-www.army.mil/pao/pahafsec.htm) what it looks like with the horses hitched up. As noted above, each “driver” (really “rider”) is responsible for two horses. He’s riding one, and controlling the one right next to him. Smaller pieces can have only [four horses.](http://www.reillysbattery.org/EquipHorses/Horses/HorseTeams.htm) IANA military historian, but I am an actual “horsey person”, and I don’t think there ever could have been any single “eleventh man” whose job it was to hold the horses. We’re talking about four to six horses per gun. Speaking from practical experience, I know that one man can handle two calm horses, but even a single panic-stricken horse can be a challenge for one man, let alone four to six. Even if you had them in the harness (“strapped together” for you non-horsey people), and hitched to a gun (“weighted down”, for you non-horsey people), if a shell exploded close by and they panicked, one man alone wouldn’t be able to keep them from bolting. When you see horses bolting with the stagecoach in Westerns, that’s not a joke–it really does happen, and there’s not much a 200 lb. man can do to keep 4,800 to 7,200 pounds of panic-stricken horseflesh from heading towards the horizon at a dead run if that’s what they really, really, _really_ wanna do. It took a lot more than one man to “hold the horses”. > [@](#): > > **Dyson worked as an analyst for the British military during WWII. So he or one of his fellow analysts could have been the one to notice the horse holder. I definitely remember that it was found when they closely examined films of an artillery crew in action, a detail not in any of the online versions I found.** Just quibbling here. [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~finholt/Psych360/handouts/midq97.html](http://www-personal.umich.edu/~finholt/Psych360/handouts/midq97.html) > [@](#): > > Question 6 (50 points): During World War II, British engineers analyzed films of artillery crews to help make the crews more efficient. The films revealed that artillery commanders raised their right arms, clenched their fists, and pulled forward just prior to giving the firing order. Baffled, the engineers questioned the officers about the purpose of this seemingly superfluous action. None of the officers could give a cogent explanation. Probing further, the engineers showed the films to artillery instructors. Immediately, a veteran instructor figured out the significance of the raised arm. “They are holding the horses,” he said, meaning that in the days when horses pulled artillery pieces, crew commanders would grab the reins to prevent the horses from running away when a gun fired. Use one of the learning theories discussed in lecture to explain why, long after artillery pieces began to be towed by trucks and jeeps, artillery commanders continued to “hold the horses” before firing their guns. It wasn’t the crew commanders’ job to “hold the horses”, it was the job of the drivers and the “spare men”, and the crew commanders may have made this gesture, but only as a reminder to their crews. So I’m assuming this research is what possibly morphed into the “eleventh man” story. Freeman Dyson is a physicist, not a career Army guy, or an artillery expert, or a military historian? And _Disturbing the Universe_ is a treatise on nuclear disarmament? So it might not be totally outside the realm of possibility that Dyson might have included an anecdote about the “eleventh man”, perhaps simply a poorly remembered version of what was discovered by British army engineers 40 years earlier, in order to illustrate the futility of military establishments? His specialty is “technical follies”? [http://www.flonnet.com/fl1610/16100340.htm](http://www.flonnet.com/fl1610/16100340.htm) > [@](#): > > The history of weapons is replete with examples of ingenious inventions and seemingly fool-proof strategies, based on the latest technology, that have failed the test of practice. We are not referring to weapons that are faulty in design. Even the best-designed weapons can be rendered useless if there is no suitable way in which they can ever be used for the purpose for which they were made. It is such inventions or advances, and the strategies based on them, that the well-known American theoretical physicist and arms control expert, Freeman Dyson, refers to as technical follies. So, he includes a “possibly apocryphal” anecdote that bolsters his point? Just wondering. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2001, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holding-the-horses/87218/3 "2001-10-14T21:58:17Z")
**dtilque** I got Dyson’s book from the library this afternoon. Went through it quickly but didn’t find the story. Have gone through it again about half way, more slowly this time. Still nothing. Could it be another book? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Arctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/71c47a/32.png) [@Tom\_Arctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Arctus)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2001, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holding-the-horses/87218/4 "2001-10-15T22:07:27Z")
Can’t resist chiming in with the story of the French troops during the war with Prussia in 1870 who wasted two hours halting their columns in the middle of the day – to guard against Berber raiders – in west central France. Didn’t the Russians still have some horse-drawn artillery during WW2? ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2001, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holding-the-horses/87218/5 "2001-10-15T22:15:24Z")
Well, I guess it was about time I was the subject of one of DDG’s impressive **tours de Google**. I don’t know how you manage to find time to do them. At any rate, you seem to have demolished the idea that a single man could have held the horses needed to pull an artillery piece. And about the quibble, you found yet another version of the story, which doesn’t surprise me in the least. **samclem** , I was going from memory, since I haven’t read the book in several years. And I think I may have sold my copy of it. However, I seem to remember that there was also a discussion of the size of access hatches in British bombers in that book and that the stuff on the horses was fairly close to that. I don’t recall having read any other books by Dyson, but it’s quite possible I am mixing him up with someone else.