What did the classical masters believe about force in training dressage?

The classical masters of dressage — from Xenophon through de la Guérinière, Steinbrecht, Fillis, Oliveira, and Podhajsky — were remarkably consistent in their rejection of force as a training method, and their unanimous position on this point represents one of the clearest philosophical through-lines of the classical tradition across centuries and national traditions. Xenophon articulated the foundational principle in 350 BCE: that a horse trained through force will show the rider's intentions rather than its own willingness, and that only a horse that performs from genuine willingness can achieve the beauty and harmony that correct horsemanship seeks. François Robichon de la Guérinière, whose École de Cavalerie remains the most important text of classical dressage, consistently emphasized that the trainer must work with the horse's nature rather than against it — that the movements of dressage should emerge from the horse's own improved balance and collection rather than being imposed through physical coercion. Gustav Steinbrecht, whose Gymnasium of the Horse is the most comprehensive systematic text of the German classical tradition, wrote that every movement should be achieved through the horse's own energy and willingness, and that a movement forced through pain or fear was valueless as a demonstration of training regardless of its technical appearance. Nuno Oliveira, considered by many classical practitioners to be the greatest dressage master of the twentieth century, was particularly direct in his rejection of force: he described the rider who uses force to achieve collection as someone who does not understand what collection is, since genuine collection is a gift the horse gives when correctly trained rather than something that can be extracted through pressure. Their consensus is that force produces compliance while training produces willingness, and that only willingness produces the beauty that classical dressage seeks.