I have nothing against Saddlebreds. Okay, maybe. It's just... they look a little ridiculous:
To me, this horse looks like a startled deer, or maybe a frightened Thoroughbred foal, not a show horse. Yet, apparently, this is the type Saddlebred fanciers strive for!
|One of these things is not quite like the others.|
However, I can't laugh too hard-- one of my favorite horse heroes, Traveller (spelled with a double "l" in the British style) who carried General Lee throughout the Civil War, was apparently a Saddlebred:
|RIP Traveller -- died 1871 of Tetanus|
He looks more like a Quarter Horse to me. Which brings up an interesting question-- when is a breed no longer really a cohesive breed? The best example I can think of is the Morgan horse breed. One of my first horses, Jess, was supposed to be a Morgan mare:
She had a stunningly fast trot, a neck that could pull a school bus, and a large-ish rump. She was described to me once as an "Amish-style Morgan" or as an "old type" Morgan. When you go back to the original Morgans, the picture pretty much remains the same:
...but if you look at modern Morgan horses, you see something that looks like an Arabian:
...so which one is "correct?" Breeds do change to reflect the needs of their producers-- but it seems to me that our "needs" these days rarely include the Morgan horse's original purpose: a carriage/plow/wagon puller. So the breed changed into a fancier show horse. Is it still a Morgan?!