Talk:Turkoman horse
Template:WikiProject Horse breeds If this is an extinct breed shouldn't descriptions be in the past tense in the first section? Suitsme 06:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Grammatical improvements always welcome. I suppose there is some debate if the Turkoman is extinct, some claim it's the same breed as the Akhal-Teke. Do a little research into that question, and then if you want to make the language consistent, as long as the structure makes grammatical sense, go for it. Montanabw 00:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Arabian nights
Tthe article is perhaps easier to understand now, but it lost much of its magical beduin narrative charm, typical for this hors breeds history. I wish that this could be included in some way in the article:
The Turkoman and the Arabian compared
Perhaps this is a good time and place to consider the differences which existed at that time between the "Arabian" and the "Turkoman/Turanian" and understand how the two came to be confused.
The Turkoman and the Arabian horse, in their purest old forms, were very like one another in some ways and very different in others. Both had excellent speed and stamina. Both had extremely fine coats and delicate skin, unlike other horse breeds found in Europe. They both had large eyes, wide foreheads and tapering muzzles. They both came from very arid environments. Here, however, the similarities between the Turkoman of Central Asia and the Nejdi Arabian end, and the horses begin to diverge to suit their environments and the fighting styles of their breeders.
Among the the main differences, due to environmental influences are these:
Hooves
The Turkoman had small hooves, and the old Nedji Arabian had fairly large hooves for its size. This was an adaptation to the steppes of the Central Asia, wich consisted of a hard, rocky ground, covered with coarse sand, more like fine gravel and of stiff, parched vegetation. A smaller hoof was needed here to be able to manage the embedded rocks and sticky bushes.
In the Central Arabian desert there is deep sand. Rocks are often not embedded in the ground and can be moved by a passing hoof. A larger hoof is needed here to cope with this type of terrain.
Size
The spine of the Turkoman, the Tekke Turkoman (and today in many cases the Akhal-Teke) in particular, is much longer than that of the Arabian. The reason for this may likely to be that when riding long distances, the Turkoman was expected to trot, and the Arabian was not. Indeed, a fluid trot may not have come naturally to the old Arabian at all, as trotting on any horse over heavy sand is extremely tiring and difficult for the horse. In general, one will notice that the more difficult the terrain, the shorter-backed will a "native" type of horse be. Some horses will also show a tendency to substitute the pace or a single-foot gait for the trot, to avoid the forging and striking that short back or too long-legged horses tends to produce.
The Turkoman was taller than the desert-bred Arabian. This, again, may have to do with the comparative stability of footing which the Turkoman often enjoyed. Height would put Arabians in the desert at disadvantage, as the higher the center of gravity is over footing of any kind, the more energy is required to maintain it in balance. An insecure, shifting footing would take more energy. A taller horse under the same circumstances is likely to tire sooner than a shorter one.
In other words, the Turkoman is ideally suited for noticing, outrunning and outlasting predators, and moving towards and from the water source on the Central Asian Steppes. The Arabian is ideally suited for noticing, outrunning and outlasting predators, and moving and moving towards and from the water source in the Central Arabian Desert.
Use
Among the differences which are probably due to selective breeding, for use suitability are these:
The Turkoman was often nearly mane-less. Considering that it was originally used as a "moving platform" for mounted archers, this should not be all that surprising. A flowing mane would greatly interfere with the drawing of a bow. Certainly one could braid a mane in preparation for a fight, but in this case the warrior would have to know in advance that the fight was coming, which wasn't always the case. The Arabs, when they fought on horseback, used a very long lance or a short sword, with which a long mane was less likely to interfere or become entangled.
The Arabian carries its tail high when galloping, and higher than most when walking or trotting. The Turkoman runs with its tail streaming behind, where it does not interfere with the drawing of the bow when taking the famous Parthian Shot.
In other words, the Turkoman was the ideal horse for mounted archers who shot on the run, and the Arabian is the perfect horse for lancers and swordsmen.
Among the differences which may be due, to both environmental and breeding influences -- or unknown influences, are these:
The Turkoman horse, in all its form, had a coat which glows with a metallic sheen. Not all horses in a population will show this trait, and some glow more than others, but as a whole, a glowing coat is a hallmark of the breed. This is due to a change in the structure of the individual hair. Many theories have been formulated to explain why the Turkoman horses hair shines, but none explain why the Turkoman horses in particular benefit from this genetic difference and why other horses would not.
The Turkoman horse is narrower in the body than the Arabian, or indeed than any other breed of horse. This helps it to dissipate heat quickly, but it is also a great aid in twisting and turning in the saddle, which would be invaluable to mounted archers who need to shoot in any direction, as opposed to lancers who need a firm footing from which to thrust a lance. Lance-throwing from horseback would be far easier on an Arabian horse shaped wider in the body would also help with making the sharp turns that close-fighting requires.
In other words, the Turkoman was the ideal horse for the Turkmen, and the Arabian was the ideal horse for the Arabs.
History
So how did this confusion over which horse was which arise? There were probably several contributing factors.
One of them was that when the first Oriental horses were imported to England, it simply didn't matter what kind of horse it was, as long it was elegant and fast and could race.
Another reason comes from the Islam. Throughout the Islamic world in previous times, it was commonplace for Arabs to "adopt converts into the tribe," so to speak, especially if they were wealthy and/or in positions of power. A Turk who converted to Islam was taught Arabic and called an "Arab" by the Arabs. The Turks, being nomads, were generally open to new ideas from all over the place; many who were previously Buddhist or Zoroastrians embraced Islam and thus became nominally "Arabs." Thus their horses might have gotten that appellation by association. All this may have contributed to the fact that in England, as Sidney tells us, "Every Oriental horse -- Turk, Barb or Egyptian bred -- is called an Arab in this country."
Bluee Mountain (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Bedouin or whatever charm
LOL! The narrative was perhaps charming, but probably a direct copy and paste from somewhere and if not a copyvio then just OR or maybe even POV mythos. (the bit about deep sand is nonsense, central Arabia has plenty of hard terrain and the bit about tails and use of a bow sounds like something out of Just So Stories; even a high-carried tail won't interfere with a bow!). I have no problem leaving it parked here for future reference, though. Who knows, maybe someday a source will appear and excerpts can go back in. Montanabw(talk) 23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I DID keep some of it, just rearranged and toned down a bit. This whole article is largely unsourced, eventually that will need to be fixed. Montanabw(talk) 23:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you are listening and trying to understand what other editors want to say.