Will charging horses refuse to step on a carpet of bodies?

Factual Questions
1

In the movie Gandhi, fairly early, is a scene where Gandhi and his associates are marching on a mine in South Africa, protesting illegal arrests of workers, working conditions, etc. and are charged by a troop of armed policemen on horseback. One of the protesters shouts, “Lie down! Lie down! They won’t step on us if we lie down!” So everybody lies down and, sure enough, the horses scream and stop and refuse to trample the protesters. The police retreat and the protest march goes forward. Co-o-ool!

But does this really make sense? Will charging cavalry horses really refuse to risk a broken leg by trampling on human bodies? If so, what does that mean regarding all the famous cavalry charges of history?

Would Athens have withstood King Philip’s conquest of Greece if they had just lied down in front of Prince Alexander’s cavalry charge at the Battle of Leuktra? Would the Confederacy have lost more battles early in the war if Union soldiers had lied down in front of J.E.B. Stuart’s charges…and shot upward from ground level? Would all the armored knights of the Middle Ages have been defeated if the peasants with pruning hooks had simply lied down?

Does anyone have anything approaching the straight dope on this?

2

Doubtful. However, horses are quite leery of possible bad footing and might shy at what looks like rough ground. I would assume that considerable time in training battle horses is spent in overcoming this propensity. And I’ll wager it can be overcome.

3

I saw that scene a bit differently…mostly because the guys in the front rank of the calvary were violently yanking back on the horses’ reins. I read that scene as hesitation on the part of the riders, not the horses.

4

As a horse person, I just wanna point out that the horses in the relevant scene in Gandhi were not “charging”. A cavalry charge takes place at a full gallop (for you non-horse-persons, that means “running very very fast”–think Kentucky Derby). The horses in the movie were being urged forward at a walk, as all “crowd control” police horses are, because horses panic easily and they will bolt (means “run away out of control”), so you keep them under control, and moving slow, at a walk, when you try to break up a crowd with horses.

And yes, horses are very picky about their footing and yes, if a horse has a chance to think about it, he will refuse to walk forward into something very strange and unknown, such as a carpet of human bodies.

Some horses will even refuse to walk up something as seemingly innocuous as a wooden loading ramp.

However, a cavalry charge is something quite different from what was portrayed in the movie. In a cavalry charge, you get the horses up to full speed, with kickin’ and whoopin’ and hollerin’ and whips and spurs and things, and then they’re basically panicked, and yes, then they’ll stampede right over anything and everything, human bodies, wooden loading ramps, whatever. And it doesn’t require any special “battle” training, either–as any rider will tell you, all horses, being prey animals and genetically designed to outrun predators, are hard-wired to bolt at a moment’s notice, and all it takes is a certain amount of kickin’ and whoopin’ and hollerin’, plus the example of other horses around them also panicking and bolting, and you’ve got yourself either a stampede, or a cavalry charge, depending on what you do with it.

But that’s not what was happening in the movie. And no, none of the great historic cavalry charges would have come out any different if the charg-ees had lain down. The galloping horses would simply have trampled them.

Yes, the riders in the movie were yanking back on the reins, but I interpreted that as owing to the director’s need to show the horses in distress. Otherwise, the scene, which probably read in the script as something like, “Horses move up to front rank of bodies and refuse to go farther” would have simply looked like the horses walking up to the front rank of bodies and then stopping, like, “Oh, hey, I can’t walk any farther because there are human bodies all over the ground and I’m certainly not going to step on anything weird like that.” And then they would just stand there, heads drooping down, with sullen and bored looks on their faces.

You have to saw on the reins to get their heads up and jerking around, to get the effect of their eyeballs rolling in distress. Actually they weren’t in distress, just startled and baffled, if you know how to read horse body english. “Why is my rider doing this?” because the riders were also kicking them. If you saw on the reins like that without also kicking, it’s the signal for “back up” and we would have seen the horses backing away from the carpet of human bodies. So the combination of the riders kicking, which means “Go”, and sawing on the reins, which means both “stop” and “back up”, combined to make a splendid cinematic effect of equine distress.

P.S. It doesn’t hurt the horse to rock the bit in his mouth like that, it just makes him toss his head very dramatically. Which no doubt was what Attenborough wanted.

5

I just watched the movie again this evening. In my copy, the cavalry troops come out from behind a building at a walk, make the turn to face the protesters, and then, at the command “Charge!” break into a gallop, at full speed, as you put it: "kickin’ and whoopin’ and hollerin’ " before stopping just short of the prone protesters.

What happens in your copy?

6

A horse if left to its own devices will do almost anything to avoid falling down. I suppose this is instinct since a horse is most vulnerable when unable to run away or kick, which it can do only with all four legs underneath it. As far as a charge is concerned, the idea is to bring a mass of horse men to a point about 40 yards from the objective in good order and under control at a collected fast trot or canter, AND THEN LAY ON THE SPURS! If done right the cavalry unit, and its individual elements, becomes a projectile for those last few yards, incapable of stopping until it runs into an immovable object or is exhausted and incapable of going any place but straight ahead.

In his excellent book, The Face of Battle, John Keegan points out that the French heavy cavalry at Waterloo was unable to close with the Allied infantry formed in squares. His theory is that the success of the cavalry charge depended not on the shock of the impact of a 1000 lb. horse plus ridder and equipment, but on the moral threat breaking infantry formations before the cavalry actually came into physical contact. That is, infantry was not bowled over and ridden down by cavalry, it ran away in the face of cavalry. Jac Weller reached similar conclusions. By contrast, British cavalry was able to defeat infantry at Waterloo when the Household and Union heavy cavalry brigades rode through D’Erlon’s attack on the Allied Left-Center. It was more a matter of the quality of the infantry and infantry’s ability to get into a proper formation to receive cavalry than the quality of the cavalry. My conclusion is the in the face of steady infantry prepared to defend its self the cavalry pulled up, while in the face of disordered infantry either running away or starting to run away cavalry savaged the infantry. The same with Gandhi’s marchers.

7

So DDG and I have the same idea but different views. (I think. Unless she thinks I’m a twit but totally wrong. Which is entirely possible, cos I am a twit and often wrong.) Anyhow, and in movies: Sometimes when you see a rider hauling back on the reins it’s meant to show a desperate effort to hang on; other times that same movement is meant to show the rider wants the horse to fly onwards and upwards. To me, it’s one of those things of which only those ‘in the know’ are aware.

Which is besides the point, because what I’d like to know is (and I do remember searching on this a while back; I just don’t remember if I came to any conclusions, and I’m really not finding much now except for "Gandhi developed his non-violence ideals while working with Indians in South Africa):

I know Gandhi’s role in SA was documented. I just wonder if the incident portrayed in the movie was documented, if any contemporary accounts exist about that incident, and if the incident that appeared on film was based on one thing or if it’s a composite of a bunch o’ stuff that happened. And, finally: If the incident portrayed in the movie was specific and true to life, what exactly happened?

8

Hey guys, I’ve worked with horses quite a bit. I haven’t read all the posts in this thread yet, so y’all may have covered this.

Believe me when I say, don’t ever lay down in front of a horse and think you are safe. They can and will stomp your ass into dust if they want to. If they are afraid or provoked, it is even likely! If there are more than one of them that’s even worse. Stampede mentality, even if the lead tried to stop they couldn’t.

9

Chique, honey, I don’t think you’re a twit, whatever gave you that impression? :confused: I just think I’m seeing it different than you. I see riders signaling their horses to behave in a certain way, not riders portraying themselves as “struggling to hang on” or as “wanting the horse to go onwards and upwards”. You don’t signal a horse to “go” by pulling back on the reins. You signal a horse to “go” by kicking him. In all those cowboy movies, where you see the actor pull back on the reins and say, “Let’s go, pardners”, and the horse tosses his head and gallops off–the actor is also kicking the horse, but you just don’t see it on camera.

And the riders in Gandhi were supposed to be soldiers, and professional riders–why would they want to portray themselves as “struggling to hang on”? This is known as “hanging on by the reins”, and in horse circles is considered very bad form, and poor horsemanship. You stay on by balancing and strength and technique, not by hanging on by the reins. “The reins are not a seat belt!” your riding teacher will holler at you.

Also, the horses in the movie were not bucking, which is usually the situation when you see an actor on a horse portraying “struggling to hang on” by the reins.
Satyagrahi:

Right–the horses gallop right up to the front rank of bodies, their riders signal, “Whoa!” by pulling back on the reins, the horses stop, and then they all start doing the mincing-around-at-the-front-rank-of-bodies-and-pull-back-on-the-reins-and-kick-too thing, to make their eyes roll and their heads toss dramatically.

I’m saying that the riders told the horses to stop, at the front rank of bodies. I’m saying that Attenborough wasn’t filming some natural behavior of horses, where he said, “Okay, in the script, the horses gallop up to the carpet of bodies and then refuse to go any further, so you guys on the horses, I want you to gallop your horses at full speed towards this human carpet of extras, and then the horses will suddenly stop, all by themselves, at the front rank.”

Any riders to whom he proposed this “au naturel” stampede would have said, “Um…” and (hopefully) refused to participate, as it is no way certain that the horses would in fact stop when they were supposed to–unless their riders told them to.

For one thing, what happens if the presumed “natural behavior” doesn’t kick in, and the horses don’t stop at the front rank of bodies? There’s Ben Kingsley not getting his Oscar because he was kicked in the head by a galloping horse and somebody else had to step into the role…

No, it’s too risky. The riders were instructed, “Gallop right up to the edge, then stop your horses at the front rank of bodies, and make it look like they’re protesting being told to walk forwards into the bodies.” This is something that every horse-crazy little girl on the face of the planet knows how to do from her first week of riding lessons–if you accidentally tell your horse to “stop” and “go” at the same time by simultaneously kicking and pulling back on the reins, he’ll suddenly toss his head up into your face and smack you in the nose. :smiley:

A lot of what actually happened was lost in the editing, you know. They don’t show the entire scene in a single camera shot. There’s a lot of cutting back and forth between the horses’ heads and the riders and the folks on the ground and the horses’ hooves, so you can’t expect to see detailed closeups of the riders signaling “whoa”.

10

And, Chique, it doesn’t make any sense, dramatically speaking, to portray the riders/soldiers as hesitant to force their horses forward. The whole point of the scene is that the Evil Soldiers would happily trample the Helpless Protestors in a cavalry charge, except that the Noble Horses refuse to go any further.

The point of the scene is that it’s the horses who are reluctant, not the riders.

11

I remember seeing a documentary about training NYC crowd control horses. They are trained to control folks, not hurt them. As such, they are taught to shove, nudge and jostle folks all while avoiding stepping on them. Any horse-folks want to comment on the likelihood of getting stomped as part of a Times Square shag rug? Was the documentary (or my memory thereof) blatantly wrong?

How do you stop a charging horse? Take away his Visa! Hahahaha… well, someone had to speak for the four year olds.

12

Sounds like DDG knows whats up w/ the Caballos. You’re right about the portrayal of authenticity in the film. Even the directors knew the horses might not stop.

I’ve brought several into this world and have broken and trained several to ride. It’s risky business at best and I wouldn’t guarantee anybody’s safety in this situation.

Also, while horses are skiddish about many things, especially their footing. They can be trained to do just about anything, regardless of the dangers involved.

We had a rodeo here this past week and I bet I saw a couple of dozen people get the hell stomped out of them.

Been there…(damn, I need another margarita) see ya’ later

13

You won’t get stomped as long as the horses are kept to a walk, which Crowd Control Police know how to do.

And as long as you aren’t stupid enough to think that a 1500 pound horse can shove you–and you can shove back. :smiley: If you try to shove back, all you’ll get is the 1500 pound horse in question stepping on your foot, albeit very politely, in a “sorry ma’am” Friendly Neighborhood Cop sort of way. He will obey his rider rather than you, and if his rider is telling him, “Keep walking”, he’ll keep walking, even if one of his steps takes him directly on top of your foot. He has his three other feet on level ground, so one uneven “bump” underfoot won’t faze him.

A 1500 pound horse doesn’t have to “stomp” you to hurt you–all he has to do is step on your foot. Trust me, it really hurts, and you can get broken bones in your foot, just from that.

And while they are trained to watch where they’re going and to try not to step on anybody’s feet, still it’s difficult for something that big to move through a tightly-packed crowd and not step on somebody’s foot.

And I bet that immediately after you’ve had your foot stepped on by a 1500 pound horse, you’ll be more than happy to move out of his way, which is how Mounted Crowd Control works. You will also be a superb example to the 20 or 30 people around you, as you hop around in agony, loudly cursing the enormous quadruped that is moving through the crowd. Watch everybody else back off, quick. :smiley:

Which, again, is how Mounted Crowd Control works.

14

Satyagrahi asked:

My answer is “No, calvary horses really will NOT refuse. Not because they’re afraid to risk a broken leg, but because their herd instinct, training, spurs in their flanks, urgency of their masters, and the ‘feel’ of battle all say ‘advance’”.

DDG, I think I’m going to have to watch that opening scene again. My (admittedly hazy) memory is that the troops were more sympathetic to the factory workers than their commanders.

Horses - as much as I adore them - really aren’t all that bright, especially in a herd situation. If the calvary was determined to charge the strikers, horses would naturally pick up on that determination. Conversely, if the calvary was ambivalent about charging the strikers, so go the horses.

In the opening scene the horses stopped. If the horses stopped, one of four things happened: 1) Millennia of herd instinct was turned on its head; 2) The men in the saddle pulled up; 3) Poetic license on the part of the screenwriter/director; 4) A combination of 2) and 3).

Oh, and one more thing, DDG…a horse doesn’t even have to “stomp” you - all she has to do is really really hate to have her feet cleaned out and lean on you as you work. And lean. And lean. And then you drop the foot as you move before she falls on you, and then the point of her hoof comes down between your foot and your toes as she puts all her weight on it to right herself…

[sub]I really hated that horse. I should’ve stuck with the Arab…He was a lot nicer :stuck_out_tongue: [/sub]

15

you can punch it, though. yeah yeah, Philadelphians…

jb

16

Horses will not.

Moo-cows (and Spanish fighting bulls) will. (Don’t try this at home.)

17

>> if the calvary was ambivalent

What part of the Bible is that in? :wink:
>> Will charging horses refuse to step on a carpet of bodies?

A well trained horse will do anything the rider wants. That means anything, even if it is jumping off a cliff or galloping into a wall. The whole process of training is replacing the animals natural instincts with the only instinct of following orders. Sort of what they do in boot camp with human animals. There is no natural instinct which cannot be overcome by training.

The worst instict of a horse is the tendency to be spooked by anything and everything which is unfamiliar. Other than that they are pretty dumb and their instincts are not that good. The idea that horses’ natural instincts are much better is not borne out by practical observation. Non trained horses are easily spooked and pretty dumb and do pretty stupid things that will result in broken legs or dead horses.

My sister rides horses, Some photos

Kelly Bundy said there was no need to stay in school as “everything you need to know in life you can learn from movies and dates”. I am sorry to say but movies are not documentaries. I know this may shock some of you out there but that is the way it is.

18

so, did Attenborough make this up for Gandhi, or has this myth been around for a while?

jb

19

I don’t know how long this idea has been around but I first saw it in an old movie “El-Dorado” w/ James Caan and the Duke.

Mississippi (Caan) dives under a bunch of running horses, they all jump over him and when he gets up he tells Wayne and the others that a horse would never step on a man, (or something to that effect). Anyway, everybody looks at him like he’s crazy and even say as much.

20

I think horses would rather jump something than step on it, if they didn’t know what it was. Many horses have had jump training, even if its only small hurdles, and besides, it is a pretty natural thing to do when faced with a barrier in front of your feet. So part of the “myth” could simply be that the horse will try and clear whatever is facing him rather than step on it - whether it be a championship jump or a man. Now,a “sea” of men, well, that would likely spook a single horse and cause it to refuse to advance, but in a heard-type situation…some might go on, others might hesitate, and others will shy away completely.