# Indian War Pony



## HorseCrazyGirlForever (Apr 27, 2012)

I recently started reading about the native american war pony. They sound like amazing horses! So what breed do you think it is? And are they really ponies, or are they horses? From the pics, I think horses. But I have NO idea about what breed they would be.... Paint maybe? :-|


----------



## walkwavy (Mar 21, 2012)

"Native American" is this as in one of the more than 1,000 tribes that were in this country in the late 1800's & early 1900's? Or the more than 500 Indian tribes that are here today? Different tribes had different horses.


----------



## horseluver250 (Oct 28, 2009)

My guess is that most of these horse's would be mixed breed from spanish descendent.


----------



## walkwavy (Mar 21, 2012)

As well as horses escaping from ranchers, the Calvary, wagon trains, etc. Some tribes stole or raid from other tribes. My point is there is no one Indian pony or war pony. Many of the tribes were not “at war’ but owned horses, so were their horses “war ponies”?


----------



## MangoRoX87 (Oct 19, 2009)

It's called a Mustang. lol


----------



## walkwavy (Mar 21, 2012)

A mustang is a wild or escaped horse. Many Indian tribes rasied horses so to say they were mustangs is wrong. My opinion.


----------



## flytobecat (Mar 28, 2010)

Aren't there Nez Perce Appaloosas?


----------



## BarrelWannabe (Feb 8, 2011)

Yes, but they were crosses themselves. They were probably breed continually not only for a need but because of the colorations. 

In essence, all "War Ponies" were mutts. Unless stolen or having wandered away from Spanish or American control. They were a mix-match of whatever horses were obtained by the tribes. I'm sure castration wasn't even a thought, and being that a tribe with horses was mobile and powerful. So stallions were allowed to breed mares because they were valuable.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## walkwavy (Mar 21, 2012)

Actually many tribes had excellent breeding programs and often spoke of castrating stallions they deem not suitable. There is some history of horses coming into the Northern Plains area via Canada which came with the French.


----------



## BarrelWannabe (Feb 8, 2011)

Huh. I didn't know that. Makes sense though, having prized individuals.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## walkwavy (Mar 21, 2012)

There are several good books such as "Black Elk Speaks" that talks of various tribes' horses and how they care for the horses.


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

Some of these tribe horses were turned into a specific breed. Like Sitting Bull's herd was turned into the Nokota in the 1980's. They are mixed breed horses with also a lot of spanish descent. Some I believe are gated too. Like mine (i have one) will mature to be about 15h, and has white sclera around her eyes, hinting at appaloosa way back in her genes. But her smooth gaits and amble are probably spanish


----------



## walkwavy (Mar 21, 2012)

Actually there is NO proof that Sitting Bull's horses turned into Nokotas. Before you quote McLaughlin's 1989 report, find the page it is on. 
Also the Nokota was founded in 1999.


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

From the homepage of the Nokota Horse Conservancy website: "Foundation Nokotas were removed directly from the park, primarily during the 1980s and early 1990s. Many of the foundation stallions and mares, which formed the nucleus of the breed, are now deceased. Their offspring are termed “Foundation-bred” Nokotas.
On the advice of Dr. Phillip Sponenberg, the Foundation and Foundation-bred horses have been differentiated into two phenotypic categories, National Park Traditionals and National Park Ranch types (See “Nokota® type”). The conservancy manages a small herd of mostly traditional, but also of ranch-type foundation horses (approximately 75 in 2009) in order to maintain as much of the original spectrum of Foundation bloodlines as possible. Many of the foundation-bred ranch horses are owned by the Kuntz family."


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

It also says it is believed by some that they are descendants of sitting bulls herd, and i also have a book that says they are. And preservation of the breed started in the 80's


----------



## walkwavy (Mar 21, 2012)

It is a wonderful story but only a story. The Nokota Horse Conservancy and the Kuntzs are one and the same. They have a great story but no facts. 

If you talk to Dr. Phillip Sponenberg - he only looked at them. NO TEST - NO FACTS - just took a look and said they look like what the Kuntzs/ NHC said they could be.

Just an example, the Park herd was down to 25 horses in 1962 and 16 horses in the 1965. How did Sitting Bulls horses get in there?
Was one of the 16, one of his???

The Park is fenced and any stray horse is shot on sight by the Park Rangers.

McLaughlin's report (which the Kuntz/NHC use to claim were Sitting Bull's horses) states on page 236 "The free-roaming horses at THRP are descended from horses that inhabited the Little Missouri Badlands when the Park was created in 1947. Thoses horses were of two types: domestic ranch stock and "wild" unclaimed animals." Both have been present in the badlands since at least 1880."

Maybe upto a million horses were driven into the Badlands starting in approx. 1830's and continued into the 1930's. There were many horses rounded up and shipped via train (the entire train) to the east for slaughter. 

Again, a great story but no facts.


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

It's not all looks either. It's their brains and abilities. Also Nokotas are of some spanish descent, in which these horses also wound up on ranches and were widely sought after. And the national park doesn't shoot horses on sight anymore, they have a band of 'heritage' horses that are not actually the original horses now. But what they had done in the past was shoot the herd stallions and replace them with horses like thoroughbreds and clydesdales to 'improve' them. And it's a fact that these horses are of spanish descent and they are what Sitting Bulls horses are described to be


----------



## walkwavy (Mar 21, 2012)

You are wrong in a number of areas. The National Park shot 2 horses within the past couple of years.

"past was shoot the herd stallions and replace them with horses like thoroughbreds and clydesdales to 'improve' " That was an attempt that did not work - last only about 3 years and the stallions were removed - it is well document.

"it's a fact that these horses are of spanish descent and they are what Sitting Bulls horses are described to be" Actually it is not a fact and no proof.

Have someone do an "Ancestral DNA" on your Nokota. Several have had that done. 
As an example of a Nokota Traditional 100% foundation from the Kuntz's herd: Primary breed – Eastern Warmblood, 2nd breed – Irish and 3rd Quarter horse. 

We will end this discussion because you have their story and beleive it. 

The horse is a great horse. 

The NHC was started in 1999 but did not own a horse until 2004. All were owned by the Kuntzs and today most still are owned by them.

The story was sold very well, but again there are no facts to base the NHC/Kuntz's story. But do beleive the story - they need the money as they have not had a job for many years - -except collecting $$ from people that beleive their story.


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

okay. but to point out some have smanish things about them, and almost all cowy horses in north ameirica are because of spanish descent somewhere


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

I just wanted to let u know, there's a group on facebook for the nokota horse conservancy, and i asked what ppl thought about wat u said about the Kuntz's... A couple people said they know them directly and have known them for many years, and they did not make up anything about their horses. It is not proven directly that they are Sitting Bull descendants, but they deffinitely are Plains tribes horses with a lot of spanish influence. There's a lot of primitive markings, and I learned that the white sclera arounnd hotrse's eyes don't just occur in Appys and their descendants, but also Spanish horses. My horse has it. The Ki=untz also use all their money on their horses and barely get by for themselves. They would be far better off without them. Also there was a park ranger who realized the mistake of shooting these horses and I believe has since stopped it. I think if it were still going on there'd be a big dispute with the BLM, and you'd hear about it in the local news...



walkwavy said:


> You are wrong in a number of areas. The National Park shot 2 horses within the past couple of years.
> 
> "past was shoot the herd stallions and replace them with horses like thoroughbreds and clydesdales to 'improve' " That was an attempt that did not work - last only about 3 years and the stallions were removed - it is well document.
> 
> ...


----------



## walkwavy (Mar 21, 2012)

As I stated, it is a great story. I know the Kuntz’s, too. Did the people that claim to know the Kuntz’s tell you about the hundreds of horses they sell to the "kill buyers"? Bet not. Yes, many know the names of the kill buyers who do biz with them.

I am well aware of the people that "drink the kool-aid" and go “facts” will get in their way. Many big money supporters have left after learning the truth. It just takes some longer than others.

As to the money, maybe they should get a job - oops - selling the story is their job since 1999.

Just for the record, the BLM has nothing to do with these horses. They are under the control of the National Park Service.

Horses are shot if they are turned into the Park, as was done within recent times. 

You can have the last word as I am sure, like others, you do not want the facts in the way.


----------



## walkwavy (Mar 21, 2012)

*"but they deffinitely are Plains tribes horses with a lot of spanish influence."
* 
Where is the proof? There is none! Even the Kuntz/Nokota do not state this anymore. They are a mix of many - do the DNA. As to Spanish influence, many beleive *ALL* horses in the USA have the Spanish influence .


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

Okay no I didn't know that. I am pretty new to the breed and what i do know i have heard generally from a few places. So books, web and people.. But i think either way these horses are unique and should be saved. But i guess now all that can be done is to decide what to believe.
And im not trying to have the last word, really just want the right facts



walkwavy said:


> As I stated, it is a great story. I know the Kuntz’s, too. Did the people that claim to know the Kuntz’s tell you about the hundreds of horses they sell to the "kill buyers"? Bet not. Yes, many know the names of the kill buyers who do biz with them.
> 
> I am well aware of the people that "drink the kool-aid" and go “facts” will get in their way. Many big money supporters have left after learning the truth. It just takes some longer than others.
> 
> ...


----------



## walkwavy (Mar 21, 2012)

Sorry but I do want to let you know that I fully agree with you that these horse are very unique and smart. Yes they should be saved. There is another roundup at the Park in Oct 2013 and they will be sold to the highest bidder at auction. Sad but that is a FACT!


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

I wish I could go to it. I am across the border so I can't...
And actually not to disagree with you, but I think really mainly only native horses and ones like Paso Finos have spanish influence... Quarter Horses trace to thoroughbreds and arabs, and thoroughbreds are european, same with most warmbloods. The only horses I question are gaited ones


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Nokotaheaven said:


> I wish I could go to it. I am across the border so I can't...
> And actually not to disagree with you, but I think really mainly only native horses and ones like Paso Finos have spanish influence... Quarter Horses trace to thoroughbreds and arabs, and thoroughbreds are european, same with most warmbloods. The only horses I question are gaited ones


Not true...mustangs were the last ingredient added to make Quarterhorses as we know them today, and Mustangs of course have Spanish influence...


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

Ahh Idk. Maybe some, but a large number not. Ive had two full QHs, plus one half QH, and none of them even came close to mustangs in their blood. they all traced back to thoroughbreds and the founding arabians


----------



## Gremmy (Feb 17, 2009)

This thread has been an interesting read, thanks for the insight walkwavy 

Nokota would you care to share the pedigrees of these horses? The early development of the quarter horse involved crossing thoroughbreds with local North American horses - of Spanish descent. Look at any QH pedigree and you'll see the thoroughbred influence, as well as a some dead ends indicative of these local horses. If your horses are of 100% thoroughbred descent then I don't believe they are registerable as AQHA.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Nokotaheaven said:


> Ahh Idk. Maybe some, but a large number not. Ive had two full QHs, plus one half QH, and none of them even came close to mustangs in their blood. they all traced back to thoroughbreds and the founding arabians


Well, if you won't take my word for it, then perhaps you will take AQHA's word... AQHA: Breed History

If you are going to debate breed history you should brush up a bit...:wink:


----------



## verona1016 (Jul 3, 2011)

There were no horses in North America until the Europeans arrived. Therefore, it makes sense that the overwhelming majority of horses the Indians had access to depend on the Europeans who settled/conquered that particular region. Spanish horses were likely prevalent across the south and west of the continent, English on the East coast, French in the midwest, etc. Some of the horses could certainly be considered mustangs, as some were escaped horses. Many more were acquired in trade or taken in battle, though.

I think it takes a lot of time and foundation stock to truly develop a breed, and most Indian tribes simply didn't have enough of either of those to really do that. If anything, I'd say they are probably more like selectively bred mustangs (i.e. "mutts" of various European strains) than anything else, ultimately coming from the same stock, even if some never were feral.

As any breeder can tell you, some traits are easier to selectively breed for than others. Color, in particular, can make it seem like a breed is/was established, but a breed needs to also have consistency in conformation, temperament, and a wide enough gene pool to avoid inbreeding.


----------



## Gremmy (Feb 17, 2009)

Timeline and population have a huge impact on that though. The British were a bit late to the game and prior to their settlements the east coast was dominated by the French in the North and the Spanish towards the south - both occupied significant portions of North America. Without giving everyone a history lesson, the Spanish were a dominant force on the continent early on and laid the foundation for a very heavy Spanish influence in North American horses. Much of it is bred out now, but it's pretty outrageous to claim that any horse that is a North American breed with roots going that far back does not have any spanish ancestry - the odds are against you.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

verona1016 said:


> There were no horses in North America until the Europeans arrived. Therefore, it makes sense that the overwhelming majority of horses the Indians had access to depend on the Europeans who settled/conquered that particular region. Spanish horses were likely prevalent across the south and west of the continent, English on the East coast, French in the midwest, etc. Some of the horses could certainly be considered mustangs, as some were escaped horses. Many more were acquired in trade or taken in battle, though.
> 
> I think it takes a lot of time and foundation stock to truly develop a breed, and most Indian tribes simply didn't have enough of either of those to really do that. If anything, I'd say they are probably more like selectively bred mustangs (i.e. "mutts" of various European strains) than anything else, ultimately coming from the same stock, even if some never were feral.
> 
> As any breeder can tell you, some traits are easier to selectively breed for than others. Color, in particular, can make it seem like a breed is/was established, but a breed needs to also have consistency in conformation, temperament, and a wide enough gene pool to avoid inbreeding.


Now, that depends. Some Indian tribes were ruthless cullers and quite frankly were far better at developing breeds than we are today (in general). The original Appys were a very well developed breed. Later on, when draft blood was introduced to better suit their changing needs there was more conformational variance and the breed was less consistent. But again, that was later on. To say that Indian tribes could or did not develop breeds is not correct...


----------



## candandy49 (Jan 16, 2011)

*Indian War Pony..*

What an interesting thread this has come to be. The Indian Pony whether it be a War time mount or for breeding purposes by the various tribes it is still a history in the making of horses and their origins. I agree that all Indian Pony bloodstock are of mixed blood lineage. Until a specific bloodline has been established as in the Quarter Horse. 

Faceman, Thank You for posting the link to the AQHA:Breed History. I know and am familiar with the history of the Quarter Horse. I have in fact been on the King Ranch in Southern Texas.

I do know for a fact after much research there was actually a prehistoric equine/horse. It stood only 11-12 inches/not hands high at the withers, had 3 toes on each foot. It has been suggested that the ergot on some nowdays horses is the remainder of a long ago ancestor.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

candandy49 said:


> Faceman, Thank You for posting the link to the AQHA:Breed History. I know and am familiar with the history of the Quarter Horse. I have in fact been on the King Ranch in Southern Texas.


Interesting...I worked on the King Ranch for 7 months in 1982. What did you do there?


----------



## verona1016 (Jul 3, 2011)

Faceman said:


> Now, that depends. Some Indian tribes were ruthless cullers and quite frankly were far better at developing breeds than we are today (in general). The original Appys were a very well developed breed. Later on, when draft blood was introduced to better suit their changing needs there was more conformational variance and the breed was less consistent. But again, that was later on. To say that Indian tribes could or did not develop breeds is not correct...


I don't mean to imply that they didn't breed for quality, but unless I'm vastly underestimating the scale of their breeding operations, consistency and availability across generations in desirable conformation traits, and communication across tribes, I still don't think I'd consider any of their horses to be a separate breed in its own right.


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

Faceman said:


> Now, that depends. Some Indian tribes were ruthless cullers and quite frankly were far better at developing breeds than we are today (in general). The original Appys were a very well developed breed. Later on, when draft blood was introduced to better suit their changing needs there was more conformational variance and the breed was less consistent. But again, that was later on. To say that Indian tribes could or did not develop breeds is not correct...


I agree with you that Indians could develop breeds. Because where Europeans would breed for blood and lineage, Natives would breed for mind, tempernment, and physical ability. Some would have been bred long enough to be established as a breed.
And also I didn't say no Quarter Horse traced to mustangs, just that really only some do. This one hints at it: King Quarter Horse
This one does only a bit... And it took me a min to find a horse like this because the old QH pedigrees I looked at were all half thoroughbred
Flying Bob Quarter Horse


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

It is my understanding that the native ponies could outdistance the calvary horses with ease. It was the calvary who stole the good stallions when they could and left draft stallions behind. The idea was that the new colts wouldn't have the speed and stamina. The cavalry rode horses with a lot of english tb in them and they were no match for the ponies. The apps did what was called the shuffle, a very slight variation of the single-foot which is easy to ride all day whereas the tb's trotted.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

verona1016 said:


> I don't mean to imply that they didn't breed for quality, but unless I'm vastly underestimating the scale of their breeding operations, consistency and availability across generations in desirable conformation traits, and communication across tribes, I still don't think I'd consider any of their horses to be a separate breed in its own right.


Well, I can't speak for obscure "breeds" that some tribes might have developed, but Appys were most assuredly a breed in their own right. Remember, the Appy of today is not the Appy of 100 or 200 years ago. The original breed was almost destroyed, leaving only a small remnant behind. The ApHC has virtually destroyed what was left, leaving what we know as an Appy today that is mostly a colored Quarterhorse. 

IMO you are underestimating the breeding ability of some of the Indian tribes, and are overestimating the breeding ability of "us". Our breeding practices with most breeds are unrestricted and no effort is made to require conformation to a breed standard to obtain registration. While there are excellent lines and some excellent breeders, I cannot honestly point to a particular breed in the US and say there have been great advances made in the last 100 years. The problem is for the handful of breeders that truly can "improve the breed", there are thousands of people breeding mediocre or poor horses that dilute quality and breed characteristics. To be quite frank, it really would not have to take very good breeding practices to beat the breeding practices that exist in this country. We are certainly no benchmark for quality breeding...we breed thousands of horses every year that would be culls under any reasonable breeding program and never even considered as breeding stock...


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Saddlebag said:


> It is my understanding that the native ponies could outdistance the calvary horses with ease. It was the calvary who stole the good stallions when they could and left draft stallions behind. The idea was that the new colts wouldn't have the speed and stamina. The cavalry rode horses with a lot of english tb in them and they were no match for the ponies. The apps did what was called the shuffle, a very slight variation of the single-foot which is easy to ride all day whereas the tb's trotted.


Most cavalry mounts were Morgan based, at least in the time frame we normally think of when we think of the cavalry. That is why the Indian breeds ran circles around them. Morgans were a good versatile breed, which was a necessary trait for the cavalry because the cavalry did much more than just fight Indians, but they were just no match for the Indian ponies considering the battle conditions and requirements of the engagements...


----------



## Gremmy (Feb 17, 2009)

Nokotaheaven said:


> I agree with you that Indians could develop breeds. *Because where Europeans would breed for blood and lineage, Natives would breed for mind, tempernment, and physical ability. Some would have been bred long enough to be established as a breed.*
> And also *I didn't say no Quarter Horse traced to mustangs, just that really only some do.* This one hints at it: King Quarter Horse
> This one does only a bit... And it took me a min to find a horse like this because the old QH pedigrees I looked at were all half thoroughbred
> Flying Bob Quarter Horse


Bolded above; blood and lineage are the result of breeding for preferred qualities like mind, temperament, and physical ability, regardless of whether the breeders are European, Native American, etc.

In regards to the pedigrees you've linked, for one thing you're using examples of horses that existed before the AQHA was even founded. There are a lot of dead ends in those two pedigrees - look at Traveler - a huge influence on the breed, unknown lineage, and high chance of carrying spanish blood. Any AQHA horse today will trace back to horses like this - not just some, all of them.

Just to clarify that I am not saying that all quarterhorses trace back to _mustangs_, but that they trace back to the Spanish type.


----------



## steedaunh32 (Jun 5, 2008)

This has been a very insightful read! I have absolutely no knowledge on the subject but have always loved this photo of a painted Native American Pony.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Gremmy said:


> Bolded above; blood and lineage are the result of breeding for preferred qualities like mind, temperament, and physical ability, regardless of whether the breeders are European, Native American, etc.
> 
> In regards to the pedigrees you've linked, for one thing you're using examples of horses that existed before the AQHA was even founded. There are a lot of dead ends in those two pedigrees - look at Traveler - a huge influence on the breed, unknown lineage, and high chance of carrying spanish blood. Any AQHA horse today will trace back to horses like this - not just some, all of them.
> 
> Just to clarify that I am not saying that all quarterhorses trace back to _mustangs_, but that they trace back to the Spanish type.


Correctamundo...virtually all Quarterhorses have Spanish blood. The odds of finding a Quarterhorse that has managed to avoid having any ancestors in 20 generations with no Spanish blood render the possibility almost impossible...


----------



## Joe4d (Sep 1, 2011)

Our history books claim , all horses came from the spanish or other european sources. Frankly I dont believe it and find it to be racist propganda along the lines of Columbus "discovering" America.

The most advanced horse breeders in the US to my knowledge were the Nez pierce, who lived very far from Spanish influences. They were already widely known as master breeders by the time Lewis and Clark found them. Their horses seemed to have quite a bit in common with Mongolian and northeast Asian stock. I really think there was some trade and contact going on between the Pacific NW and NE Asia before and during the era of the Spanish conquistadors. When Joseph surrendered most of his horses were killed to make sure he stayed surrendered. While small numbers were supposedly kept, and later ranchers attempted to recreate the breed based on descriptions and paintings we really arnt sure of the bloodlines. The modern appaloosas are more about color. The lack of mane would seem to point towards an Asian source.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

:rofl::rofl:

Good one Joe, yet another conspiracy theory, history is just full of them


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Golden Horse said:


> :rofl::rofl:
> 
> Good one Joe, yet another conspiracy theory, history is just full of them


Yeah, if such trade had occured, which is absurd of course, there would be plenty of evidence - which there is not. There would be reference to it from the Spanish, and legends by the Indians, to say nothing of the physical evidence of trade goods from Asia.

And it's Nez Perce - not "Nez pierce"...

But...you never know. Heck, Appys could have been bred up from POA's (Pony of Africa"), when the pygmies that developed the small breed for their own use floated down the Congo to the sea and transported them in their canoes past Madagascar and across the Pacific to the Monterey Peninsula, sneaking by the Spanish at night witht the ponies muzzled and their hooves wrapped in jungle leaves, and then by land to Idaho...it could happen...:wink:


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Faceman said:


> But...you never know. Heck, Appys could have been bred up from POA's (Pony of Africa"),


Total pish and hogwash, everyone knows that Steve Jobbs developed them


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

That was kind of my point of showing those pedigrees. In quarter horses you have to go way back to the original founders of the breed to find any trace of spanish/mustang blood. But there's been so little influence by spanish and mustangs in them in the last 50 or more years that it would have no affect on them today. They are a result of what their owners wanted. And now they are mainly crossed on thoroughbreds.
And as for Morgans as cavalry mounts.. From what I do know about them, there is suspicion that the Justin Morgan horse was part Canadian horse, which traces back to horses brought over to Acadia and New France in the 17th century. The Canadian horse in hardiness is just as good as the mustang, and probably more durable than most of today's breeds. But they were'n't bred for speed or stamina


----------



## TimberRidgeRanch (Mar 6, 2012)

HorseCrazyGirlForever said:


> I recently started reading about the native american war pony. They sound like amazing horses! So what breed do you think it is? And are they really ponies, or are they horses? From the pics, I think horses. But I have NO idea about what breed they would be.... Paint maybe? :-|


Are you thinking of the CHOCTAW Indian pony?

History of the Choctaw

Very cool breed this farm is actually owned by John Fusco The director for such movies as Young Guns Spirit Stallion of the cimmeron and Hildago. I was lucky to be introduced to him. The horses are so smart and sturdy breed. 

TRR


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

I looked at your link, and looked up the stallion Iktinike... and came across this, and thought it was interesting
Meet Our Horses - Colonial Spanish Horses


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

Nokotaheaven said:


> I looked at your link, and looked up the stallion Iktinike... and came across this, and thought it was interesting
> Meet Our Horses - Colonial Spanish Horses


The amount of colour inaccuracies on that page made my eyes bleed.


----------



## Nokotaheaven (Apr 11, 2012)

Haha I didn't even pay attention to the colours. Just looked at the horses themselves


----------

