My email server is giving me fits so some of these posts I only know about
because they are quoted by someone else. My apology if I do not give due
attention to them as I catch up.
My experience is that mules are rumored to be smoother to ride rather than
rougher. They tend to walk straight forward and do not have the sidesway
that horses do. Another reason they pack better. I do not know about the
bell system. More modern packers bell a mare and let them loss at night
since the mules will stay with the mare if you can find her you will find
them. I often leave my mule loose. Some good stories from that from the 2006
AMM Nationals some of you may be chuckling about right this minute.
I believe about any animal that is trained to saddle can be packed but
teaching one to pack is a lessor chore. Choicing an animal is beyond the
scope of this post but packstockk are better a little short than way tall
for loading and tying of knots.
Now on to Gene's post. Gene knows I love him so don't nobody think he will
be offended if I call him on a couple things.
I have a limited knowledge and can not recall sources so take this with a
grain of salt. As I understand the early trade: As far back as Escalante in
1776 the Indians had trade routes across the West. Escalante followed a Ute
trade route into what is now Utah. The Utes occupied fairly poor resources
so they were especially gifted traders and were accused of taking stock from
California to New Mexico.
When the trade route to Missouri opens in the early 1800's there are more
mules in the SW than there is in Missouri. So the early Missouri mules were
actually Mexican mules from the year before. Granted there probably was a
breeding program in Missouri but there was always a huge deficit of mules
every year as the book the Mule Alternative documents. So I agree that a
mule breed from an American horse, ie any horse from the States was big by
SW and Indian standards, had a possibliltiy of being bigger. Still even
those would be an ass which is generally smaller breed to a horse and many
of them had to be small Indian horses. Why would they be so much bigger?
I wonder if the Indians did breed mules. Catlin says that the Comanche had
1/3 their herd made up of mules. Why wouldn't they steal an ass or six and
make their own if they valued them so highly?
As Gene says just my thoughts.
Wynn
On 1/26/08, Gene Hickman <ghickman9@???> wrote:
>
> Wynn you are right that Miller seems to paint the mules larger than the
> horses. I do not disagree with Dave Hunt that there was some artistic
> license involved, as we see that in a lot of the details of Miller's
> paintings. Most of which are done at a later date and some almost 20 years
> after his trip west.
>
> However, when reading the fur trade journals etc., it seems that the
> majority of the Mules came from Missouri. It was a major enterprise in
> western Missouri to raise and sell mules for the expeditions west. It seems
> that most of these mules were being bred with the draft horses of the day.
> This may account for their larger size. There were also some mules coming
> out of Mexico and I don't know what they were breeding their donkeys with.
> These Mexican mules were probably more common in the southern Rockies than
> in the northern areas where Miller was. It would seem likely that the mules
> from both locations, being used more commonly for draft animals, that they
> would have naturally been breed to the larger horses. The Indians generally
> were not breeding mules and what they had came from the EuroAmericans. Now
> Miller leaves with Stewart from St. Louis to Waterloo or Independence,
> Missouri with representatives of the American Fur Company. The AFC is buying
> all of the mules and some horses they can get in Waterloo, for their trip
> west. Would these mules not be bigger than the horses encountered further
> west? Just my thoughts, I'm neither a horse nor a mule expert.
>
> As Always,
> Your Most Obedient Servant,
>
> Gene "Bead Shooter" Hickman
> Booshway Manuel Lisa Party
> http://www.manuellisaparty.com/
> Booshway Montana Brigade
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Hunt
>
>
> In his post Wynn Ormand said: <-----(stuff deleted)----- It has always
> interested me that
> Miller painted the mules larger than the horses. Perhaps artistic license
> since a horse
> was a romantic figure and the art of the day made such things as horses
> and men be drawn
> with tiny feet and etc. Still I wonder. -----(stuff deleted)----->
>
> Wynn,
>
> I once read somewhere that the horses of the day were actually much
> smaller in size than
> the horses of today, which would account for what appears to be small
> horses in the Miller
> paintings.
>
> Longshot
> _______________________________________________
> Hist_text mailing list
> Hist_text@???
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hist_text
>
