The Classical Schools: What’s the Difference Between Them?

A lot of times, when people look at different classical trainers, they see or look for trainers from different “schools.” But what does this mean? What difference does it make? Well, it can make a lot of difference, depending on your horse and how you ride!

A Brief History

If you haven’t read the post on the history of classical riding, check it out. However, here’s a brief summary and how it pertains to the “schools.” In the Renaissance, there was more or less one basic school. There were minor regional differences, much like there are regional differences between the styles of art and music of the time, but it was generally pretty similar. However, after the Baroque period, times started changing rapidly. There were court-funded schools all over Europe, and then the French Revolution happened. Many schools were abolished, and as warfare changed, the demand for the old style of riding collapsed. So, the flow of ideas between riding masters of different schools slowed, and there became regional deserts of classical riding. The thought process also either became insular or morphed significantly with the change in warfare, as that was the demand, and so we ended up with a relatively strong divide between the schools in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

The Main Schools

So what are the main schools? There are two that seem to take priority in most peoples’ thinking, and I would argue that these are the extremes: the French school and the German school.

The French school, embodied by Philippe Karl and Nuno Oliveira as well as the Cadre Noir of Saumur, emphasizes lightness and balance. Their basic principle is develop lightness and balance before adding forward energy. Everything is taken much slower with a lot of time taken first to develop the walk, then the trot (a lot of times with minimal posting), and then the canter. The lines between levels may be blurred as movements focusing on developing collection are used earlier before adding extended gaits. The French school tends to use more of Baucher’s teachings with jaw flexions, neck flexions, and other exercises to help the horse become more supple and relaxed. The French school developed from the use of more Iberian type horses (more on that later), which tend to be more sensitive and heavier in the front end.

This approach can be very helpful for anxious horses and for horses that tend to rush heavy on the forehand. It is also calmer and more methodical for people who tend to be more methodical thinkers. For riders who are physically more delicate and who may struggle with raw strength, this is a good style. However, without proper guidance, there are some pitfalls. It can be easy to mistake slow for collected, and thus the biggest problem I’ve seen is people riding their horses really slow, making them artificially light in the bit, and the back drops while the hind legs stay lagged behind. This can be damaging to the horse’s back and lead to other problems, and because the horses have been made artificially light in the bit, it can be difficult to get them to reach out to it. While this is mostly an issue of rider misunderstanding or trying to work without an instructor, it is an easy pitfall to fall in with this style.

The German school, embodied by Reiner Klimke, Gerd Heuschmann, and many of the older German competition riders, emphasizes forward and then balance. Trying to avoid letting the back drop and hind end get left behind, they feel that getting forward energy is the key to developing suppleness first. The natural gaits are methodically developed where the horse can perform the basic gaits first before adding collection. Long and low tends to be popular in the German style. This is the foundation for the FEI rulebook, so the competition tests tend to be based on this school. The German school strongly descends from the German and Austrian cavalry teachings of the 19th century and developed from the use of more thoroughbred-type cavalry horses.

This approach is helpful for lazier horses and horses that need to get out their energy in a forward, productive way instead of bundling up and exploding. It is also a bit more straightforward for riders who tend to be more straightforward thinkers. For riders who tend to struggle with fine-tuned control and do better with simpler movements and who may be physically “strong,” this is a good style. However, like the French school, there are pitfalls. While it is easy to mistake slow for collected in the French school, it is easy to mistake fast for forward in the German school. The biggest problem I’ve seen with more of the German style is rushing horses that struggle with balance. For horses that are built heavier in the front end, like many Iberians, trying to get forward and long and low can really throw them out of balance. This can lead to a heavier horse that requires a stronger hand to help them balance. While, like the French school, this is more of an issue of rider misunderstanding and trying to work solo, this is an easy pitfall for this style of riding.

We’ve also got the Iberian school, which is really very similar to the French school. In fact, one could argue that the French school had to piece itself back together after the Revolution from Iberian teachings meshed with Baucher (a lot with Nuno Oliveira, Portuguese riding master). So, we tend to see a lot of similarities between the Iberian approach and the French approach. Because of the frequent crossing over of ideas, especially because of Oliveira, there is often little discernable difference other than tack. Some might argue that the Iberian approach is more utilitarian, with the emphasis on doma vaquera and working equitation, but the training style is still quite similar.

Then we have the Viennese school, embodied by the Spanish Riding School of Vienna. This school predates the divide between French and German styles, and therefore, the best characterization is that it’s a bit of both. Karl Mikolka used to sum it up by saying, “The horse writes the book.” So for some horses, the emphasis is on balance before adding forward, and for others, forward and then balance. Lightness is important, but it’s achieved in its own time, which may be fairly early or may take a while. You see some forward riding in the Viennese approach, but instead of long and low, it tends to be in “natural carriage.” Long and low becomes a release for the horse to allow the muscles to relax, not a posture to stay in (which makes sense with the front-end-heavy Lipizzans). There are specific strains of thought within the Viennese school, such as the Weyrother System, which is a very old strain that is rarely seen anymore but emphasizes using patterns to set the horse and rider up for success while more or less staying out of its way, letting the horse train and balance itself.

As this is the school I’ve adopted and teach (after trying French and German styles), I am somewhat biased to say that this style is good for a majority of horses and leaves room to adopt principles from other schools. Riders who are strong and struggle with understanding finesse find it easier to learn through the systematic approach of the Viennese school, and riders who aren’t as strong physically and more into the finesse can likewise cultivate that while building what strength and balance is needed for some of the more physically demanding exercises (such as extended trot). I find that my students and I can ride with French and German teachers with better understanding now after working so long in the Weyrother system and can more effectively use their teachings and add them to the ever-growing toolkit. However, I do recognize the pitfalls. One is that there is very little writing out there, so you really have to have an instructor to pass on the knowledge and tools, and those instructors can be hard to find. If you don’t, you can get stuck in one way of thinking and fall into the pitfalls of the other schools. Another is that because there is so much variability and flexibility, it can seem very nebulous, which is frustrating to riders who for a few months were focusing on lightness and then feel like suddenly, the instructor changed and started focusing on forward (when in reality, the horse was unbalanced and needed to rebalance, but then maybe it started leaving the hind end behind and needed to get more activation). So in a way, a rider has to be very intellectual and thirsty for knowledge to succeed in this style; if a rider tends to want to get somewhere quickly and simply, this is really frustrating.

Then we have another school I am very partial to and use quite a lot, which is the Medieval/Renaissance school, as embodied by Arne Koets, Bent Branderup, and the Fuerstliche Hofreitschule Bueckeburg. This is extremely similar to the Weyrother school except it skips a lot of the “newer” inventions of the 19th century (posting trot, flying changes every stride, etc.) and uses more weapons work and a more of the older, “low airs” that you don’t see as often. There tends to be an emphasis on balance first before forward, but there is still some forward emphasis. The more frequent use of the low airs, such as terre a terre, falcade, etc. is a bit unique nowadays, as is the earlier use of the curb bit and the frequency of riding just on the curb. I don’t teach this style as much as I ride it, as most people I encounter are a bit intimidated by it, but I have found it to add a lot of context and therefore understanding to other styles. The pitfalls I find are that without a good instructor (which are REALLY hard to find in this style) and a solid seat from the rider, you can end up in a mess more quickly than you might from the other styles. I have found that my students who have a solid base in the Weyrother system adopt this school extremely quickly and thrive with it, but I have also found that students who get “stuck in their headspace” can break out of it more easily when I put the exercise into the Medieval/Renaissance context (I can’t tell you how many shoulder-ins I’ve taught by pretending to “chase” a student with a sword… at the walk… with very comical movements… usually with nothing in my hand or maybe a stick… but it “clicks” almost immediately!).

Other Thoughts

Now, these are mainly my observations, and these observations are based on the majority trends of riders using the different styles. I point out the pitfalls based not necessarily on the top riders but on the majority of students who are trying to work in the different schools. Being the super-nerd I am, I have tried all these different schools with top instructors, and so I’ve seen the pitfalls in myself and in others. However, being a super-nerd, I understand the pitfalls of my own school in how it demands riders be intellectual and studious, and not all riders have that kind of mind (though I will argue: without at least some studiousness and intellect, a rider is much more likely to get trapped by the pitfalls of any of the schools).

I will also point out that if you talk to the top riders from these schools, you’ll find that they will actually agree on many things that you might think they’d disagree on. A staunch “German” rider will agree that balance is important to effective forward riding, and a staunch “French” rider will agree that you have to have engagement of the hind end or you will collapse the horse’s back. So while on the surface it looks like there’s a large difference, the differences are much less than one would think. The details and the path to get to the pinnacle of training are where the differences lie. Otherwise, within the umbrella of classical riding, the principles and the standards are the same, even if the way to get there looks a little different among the different schools.

Therefore, what school you go with may depend more on the instructor you mesh the best with than with the actual school of thought, as without an instructor, it’s easy to set yourself up to fail with any of these schools. However, remember: it’s not all black and white, and all of us classical instructors are basically on the same team. We’re about what is best for the horse and works best with the horse’s nature. So while we may take different paths to get to where we’re going depending on our horses and on our own bodies, we’re still united by the same goals and same standards.

-Emily Wright