Dressage Horse vs. Tank
On the face of the title, one could argue this is an unfair argument….. And I would completely agree with you.
As a rule of thumb that I like to live by, you can take at a glance probably 90% of the terms found in the English dictionary and vs. a tank….I know who I’m backing.
However it seems that many site visitors/casual acquaintances of mine have decided that the argument of “dressage is a sport because the movements were developed for the cavalry” is a valid point.
First off, I at no time in my few years on the planet would like to thank war for the application of anything.
This includes, but not limited to:
- The Nuclear Bomb
But if you want to associate dressage with the deaths of millions of people since it was created in ancient Greece – on your head be it.
However the real question is why are people still comparing dressage horses with the army? There is no benefit to this argument!
I believe somewhere during the last century we built a few things that would render the horse a bit more of a handicap than an advantage in war. (See “tank”)
It actually just seems mean to the dressage horse to mention it – “you are now an inferior product – congratulations”
If we ever get to the point that we need to get a bunch of dressage horses together to go fight a war, I think we have a much larger problem to hand than our ability to go to war. Like the regression of a few centuries of human progression?
Perhaps instead of removing dressage from the olympics, we should simply remove the horses and include tanks.
This seems completely rationale based on the argument above as:
- Tank driving was designed for the military
- You need to sit specific “tests” to ensure you can take part in this “sport”
Although last time I checked, tank driving wasn’t a sport? (Neither was dressage)