Difference between Clydesdale and Shire?

D

domane

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 September 2008
Messages
1,311
Location
South Shrops
Visit site
Can someone tell me the definitive difference please as I've never been able to suss it myself? :o

If I stood them beside each other... what would I be looking for?

Thanks :)
 
Well beside their genetic make-up :p
Shire was allegedly created or influenced by the friesian, and to a lesser extent the flanders horse, whereas Clydes were more influenced by the Belgian draft - and the shire!
Shires have the potential to be bigger with a longer stride, and are mostly black although grey, bay and brown are acceptable. Clydesdales are smaller, and with a more vertical action, usually bay, brown or black, with a lot of roaning apparent and greys
 
Many years ago I met an elderly gentleman who worked Clydesdales. He told me the way to tell the difference between than and shire was the amount of white of their legs. Shires not above the knee, Clydesdales below and above.:)
 
Clydesdales are a Scottish-origin breed and the Shire an English one. Similar characteristics were selected for in their breeding as they were used for similar purposes (i.e. their power for pulling loads) so they do share a lot of similar traits. They've achieved it though by different breeding, and in different areas. Clydesdales also have sabino in their genes, so can normally be told by their white markings. They can also be a bit smaller than shires (though that's not a fixed rule by any means) as they were allegedly bred as compact horses with strength prioritised, whereas height and power were more closely selected when developing Shires.

To cut a long story short, of the two horses in front of you, the Shire's likely to be the one with fewer/more standard white markings, and possibly taller!
 
Thanks for the replies, folks.... now I'm wondering. I've recently bought a lovely boy who's passported as Clydesdale but "only" stands around 16hh so I just assumed that he's too small to be a pure-breed and that he's a cross. But now I'm beginning to wonder.

He IS underweight and he has no topline which is making him seem smaller at the moment but I'd be grateful of a few expert opinions...

Bottom line is that it doesn't matter to me one jot what his breeding is, I still think he's wonderful :)

DSC03772.jpg


2.jpg


5.jpg
 
I've had 2 X Clydesdales and 1 Shire - sorry , no photos available on comp. In addtion to what others have said; IME Clydies tend to have shorter legs in proportion to their 'barrel' than Shires and also usually have a more pronounced 'roach back'. Just to make matters even more confusing, ClydexShires can be registered with the Shire Society.
 
Hello, I've had a look at your pics and he looks lovely and with a bit of TLC he's going to be stunning.

He looks the spitting image of my Clydesdale X Cob

Mine, his dad was a 16.1hh bay Clydesdale and his mum was a 15.2hh traditional black cob

My boy is a super horse, kind, gentle and a superb ride so your very lucky to have your boy and i wish you all the best with him.

Let me know if you want to sell him :D:D:D
 
domane said:
Thanks for the replies, folks.... now I'm wondering. I've recently bought a lovely boy who's passported as Clydesdale but "only" stands around 16hh so I just assumed that he's too small to be a pure-breed and that he's a cross. But now I'm beginning to wonder.
.....
5.jpg
Click to expand...

from your last picture I'd say Shire x cob. His markings, and his face in particular are quite typical of a shire.
 
My friend has hadtwo clydesdales and they both had the white above the knee thing going on (I never knew that!). They were both about 16h, and more cobby types than shires... Both did fantastic dressage and jumped well..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top