War Diaries Talk

Hashtags for Horses

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    There's been a lot of talk recently about the need to develop tags to adequately capture info relating to horses. This is a really interesting area, given the ubiquity of horses in all areas of operations on the Western Front.

    @cotula has suggested the following tags, so we can start building up a picture of what conditions were like for the horses:

    #horsescondition - to cover remarks such as fit and well, very tired, exhausted

    #horsesinfection - to cover illness and disease. Any expert input on common conditions to help us build up context around this tag would be very welcome!

    @bje has started tagging interesting mentions of feed available for horses. This wouldn't cover everyday activities related to feeding horse, but could be used to tag something out of the ordinary. The example Heather gives below is 'Hay ration was reduced to 10 pounds'. If you come across this sort of info, please use tag as:

    #horsesrations

    Feel free to jump in with other suggestions. If we can get a really comprehensive set of tags built up around horses and their use/conditions, it should provide excellent research material for anybody with an interest in the area.

    Posted

  • bje by bje

    I'm tagging a cavalry regiment which is full of references to horses (condition, stabling, horse lines, sick horses, forage, training etc). I do feel I'm neglecting them at the moment, but if I start hashtagging them could end up with several tags on every page. Would this be helpful, or would it be easier to just assume that a cavalry regiment would include mentions of horses?

    On the same subject, I regularly read that horses were inspected 'for casting for other than veterinary reasons'. Is this a tactful way of saying that they are going to the knacker's yard, or do they have a better future?

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    Yes I know what you mean about not wanting to swamp the pages with tags! Can I suggest you do start to use a few but try to be selective about particularly interesting points?

    For example - if it just says "horses fed" or "horses inspected" or "horses exercised" then it's pretty obvious that every cavalry unit would do that every day and it's not awfully useful to tag it.

    However if you get entries with some detail that could in themselves be interesting and give an extra insight into the use of horses, like "hay ration was reduced to 10 pounds", or "6 horses with frostbite after blizzard" or "horses not able to be exercised properly so turned out into local field" or something like that then do please tag them.

    Casting indicates they were surplus to requirements. Certainly some were sold to locals (though they may well have then been eaten!) but many that were totally unfit were indeed destroyed. I'm wondering what "other than veterinary reasons" meant? Presumably horses that were not large enough to be good draught horses or not suitable for riding for some reason? These may well have been sold locally I imagine.

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    I see you've started using #horsesrations, @bje . Thanks! I'll add that to the list above.

    Posted

  • bje by bje in response to HeatherC's comment.

    Thanks Heather, that makes sense

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    I've started doing an Auxiliary Horse Transport Company (ASC) hoping to get a different insight into horses. Sadly it is the most boring diary I have ever seen with most pages being for a whole month and having about 4 lines!

    Posted

  • Zandra by Zandra

    I always thought 'casting' meant the horse had lost one of its shoes, and have read the diaries with that in mind.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    It depends how it's written. Casting a shoe can indeed mean the horse lost a shoe, but in military terms if the horse itself is "cast" I'm afraid it means "disposed of as no longer useful to the military". The term is still used today with reference to scrapped vehicles.

    Apparently a horse is also said to be "cast" when it goes down and can't get itself up again (I wonder if the term originates from there?)

    Posted

  • floodmouse by floodmouse

    I ran across several references to evacuating horses and put in #evacuatehorses. I also put in #horseshoes.

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Thanks, @floodmouse. Feel free to disagree, but I think mention of horseshoes could probably be covered by #horsescondition (as well-shod horses are likely to handle things better than badly-shod ones, I'd assume).

    Evacuation of horses is an interesting one. I'll add that to the list of hashtags, but will put it down as #horsesevacuated just so it's consistent with the existing tags. Thanks again!

    Posted

  • floodmouse by floodmouse

    How about #horsesequipment to cover things like horseshoes and anti-friction saddle mats, also mentions of situations where they are short of the recommended number of saddles?

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Good idea - let me suggest that on the main hashtag list thread. I'm wondering whether #horsescondition would cover it, with reference to how equipment affects the horses, but let's see...

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Some discussion of this in the main hashtag thread here: http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/boards/BWD000000f/discussions/DWD0000d05

    Feel free to jump in!

    Posted

  • floodmouse by floodmouse

    I came across a reference to horses cast. I see from the previous discussion this means put down. Did we agree on a hashtag for this? Should it be #horsescast? It doesn't seem like #horsescondition really covers it.

    Posted

  • wildcatjenny by wildcatjenny moderator in response to floodmouse's comment.

    Hi floodmouse,
    After a little research I am reconsidering my advice to use #horsescasualties for horses which are cast. Of the options available to us in the current list I would say #horsescondition is the closest match. And I agree with you it really doesn't cover it properly. I would use #horsescast just as you have done.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    Cast doesn't necessarily mean put down. It just means no longer considered fit for military use and so disposed of. (I assume it literally comes from "cast off") They might have been sold locally or shot or even sold for food. I'd agree with @wildcatjenny - #horsescondition is the best of the current tags, but if you want to start using #horsescast them go ahead and let's see what we get?

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Sounds like a plan - I'll do a quick review of the list shortly and add it.

    Posted

  • floodmouse by floodmouse

    Hi - now I have a bunch of horses that have been inoculated. This doesn't seem to fall under either #horsescondition or #horsesinfection, because it is a routine preventative vaccine to prevent infection. What about simply #horsesinoculated?

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    We can't tag everything and is this really unusual enough? I think you could use either of those existing tags to be honest and then just write afterwards "horses inoculated".

    Posted

  • floodmouse by floodmouse

    I tagged it #horsescondition horses inoculated. I also put the "Medical" tag from "Army Life." Hope that works!

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    The hashtag sounds fine, but please don't use the medical tag from "Army Life" - it's for people, not for horses! 😉

    Posted

  • calvados by calvados

    I've had a couple of horse deaths due to fractured necks, but in winter quarters not in action. I tagged these as (hash)horse death. Is this right?

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    Interesting one - should we differentiate between horse deaths "in action" so to speak and other deaths like these? If we do then what about horses that die for example if they fall down while pulling a wagon? What about horses that are shot as too injured or ill to be useful?

    So two choices really:

    1. Add a new hashtag as @calvados suggests for horse deaths not occurring in "action" (and we'd have to define where the line is drawn)
    2. Expand the casualties tag to include all horse deaths - does this devalue it? Is it useful to have the "in action" deaths separately?

    Opinions please from those of you tagging diaries who have come across this sort of thing!

    While on the subject of horses I have noticed a few people using the "condition" one for injured horses which is wrong and also using the "evacuated" tag for MVS diaries which we have said not to do. The current definitions (as a reminder) are:

    • #horsescasualties - horses killed or injured through enemy activity or friendly fire.
    • #horsescondition - to cover remarks such as fit and well, very tired, exhausted, state of horseshoes, etc.
    • #horsesinfection - to cover illness and disease
    • #horsespurchase - any mention of the buying and selling of horses
    • #horsesrations - out-of-the-ordinary mentions of feed, e.g. 'Hay ration was reduced to 10 pounds'
    • #horsesevacuated - mention of horses being evacuated either due to enemy activity or through illness, etc. Don't use this tag for Veterinary units, as entraining horses back to base was something they did all the time.

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    I think it's useful for record combat casualties separately, as it allows us to assess the impact of action on horses, which is quite distinct from everyday accidents etc.

    I'm in two minds about whether we'd want to record them. On the one hand, I suppose a certain level of loss through accident is to be expected. On the other, we already record illness and we also record human non-combat casualties, so perhaps we should add in the new tag @calvados suggests. I suppose it does plug a gap in the record we're making.

    Posted

  • lenofi by lenofi

    I came across a diary entry in which horses stampeded, eventually being recovered by a member of the unit. No mention of their casualties or condition is clear beyond them having been "frightened" by "enemy fire." They were not evacuated on purpose. How should this be tagged?

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Perhaps use #horsescondition for this one, with a note that they were frightened.

    Posted

  • Otterman by Otterman

    I am new to this project looking at Veterinary Services. I am curious about hash tags use in general (still reviewing discussions on when and where to use). With limited project experience to go on, the great list of tags related to horses, and the field guide are great aids. I wonder if V.S. activities need #tags and what might be relevant to note. There are certain activities that appear to be common, "collecting sick horses" and could be considered a work party, or is it distinctive enough to warrant a #? Use of trains to move "sick" horses also seems noteworthy. It seems that the VS is fairly mobile and has to bivouac regularly. Delivering remounts also seems significant. it implies that "sick' animals have been treated and are going back into the field. Making temporary encampments in the open with a pack train and herd of rundown and ill horses seems more than a "work party".

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    The likelihood of us getting new tags is much less than of us developing out own new hashtags as I am sure you can see from what we have done already. This was all in response to users (like you!) wanting to record things that the original researchers who set up the Project had not really considered - this is a strength of Zooniverse of course. Do be aware that every single different type of Unit has a whole host of special things that only they do and it's impossible to capture everything. I think what you have to consider is "how might this information be useful to researchers in future?" In some cases it will be obvious that certain activities are carried out all the time by that type of Unit and so there will be no need to record them. The key point here is in picking out those things that are then unusual enough to be worth a hashtag.

    So for example with your MVS. Collecting sick horses is what they do. It's no more worthy of a special hashtag that infantry standing guard or medics treating the wounded I don't think. The remount issue is an interesting one that we might explore further - give us some examples? Bivouacs can be recorded under the Army Life accommodation tag. The encampments one might be a situation where you could use an existing tag such as horsescondition to describe how they are housed but it is certainly an interesting one to comment on.

    What do others who have done MVS tagging think?

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    I think remounts is an interesting area, particularly as there often seemed to be tension between the Vets and the Remount Service. We could use a few specific examples to make a decision about how best to tag that, though.

    I think agree that #horsescondition could be used to tag noteworthy things related to how horses were accommodated.

    Posted

  • atozvet by atozvet

    Agree there was enmity between veterinary and remount officers. Perhaps dating from Boer War when remount ifficers on transport ships to S Africa had shot all due to a case of suspected mange: just one example

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Yes, I'm sure that would raise the veterinarians' ire! What a waste.

    I'm not sure whether there are any Remount Service diaries or not. It'd be interesting to see what they're like, if they exist.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    Not sure what we decided about remounts, but since we are hashtagging the larger drafts of men, what do we think about a tag #remounts for pages like this http://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/subjects/AWD0001bwr Maybe we should set a minimum number that warrants it - perhaps 50+ animals? What do people think?

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    That sounds like a good approach. I vote yes!

    Posted

  • atozvet by atozvet

    I am interested in horse injuries recorded in the diaries. when picketed out on lines (tied up by a head rope only and no intervening bales, horses kick each other causing lameness. I am now on my third mobile veterinary section diary up to 1915. It has only recently occurred to me that out of all the reasons for horses coming in for veterinary treatments, injuries due to warfare such as shrapnel or bullet wounds are rare. I actually hash tagged the Royal Scots Greys horses for getting shelled near Ypres and also the horses that stampeded probably in the same bombardment:- 'horseinjurieswarfare?
    My impression is the cavalry were kept in the rear lines, waiting for the opportunity for a 'breakout' when they could be used, but it hardly ever happened so they were safe from war wounds but a lot of skin disease due to standing out in the wet and many foot conditions from mud and nails trod on.
    Evacuating horses implies they were moved by rail to a base hospital or a remount depot; the Mobile Veterinary Sections were more First Aid Posts run by a vet who decided which had minor injuries and could be returned to their units whilst others needing proplonged treatment would be 'evacuated' to the rear usually with a Corporal and 2 men as escorts. Sorry to be longwinded!
    Incidentally an unfit horse is CAST or put down, required the orders of a Remount Offiocer or a Vet. Officer

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Definitely agree that actual combat casualties are rare enough to be tagged - #horsescasualties with a brief description should suffice, I would think. Or do you feel that it's worth differentiating further?

    I guess while the casting of horses would have normally required remount or vet authorisation, there would have been situations where that wasn't possible. I read yesterday about the cavalry charge at Monchy and how, once they'd reached the village, one of the officers was detailed to shoot the injured horses, of which there were many due to the incessant shellfire.

    Posted