I was just thinking...

[Dayve]

Something popped into my head and i have no idea why... But it's been making me think all damn night... And the thing that popped into my head was this...

What if horses never existed? What if, during evolution or whatever, man evolved into... Well, man, but horses never came into being... Can you imagine how so very different history would be without horses? Warfare i'm talking about... No cavalry... No horses to pull baggage carts and supplies up to the front line... No mobile units of ancient armies... How would the armed forces have evolved without the use of horses? What do you think personally would have changed?

I think the phalanx would never have become obsolete... I know it didn't in fact become obsolete, just the tactics that were employed with it became obsolete... But i think the phalanx would have continued to dominate the battlefield right up until the gunpowder era... Because a phalanx' worst enemy is the cavalry... Once you pin it down the cavalry hits the back and that's goodnight... Unless they started training men to be super fast runners and armed them with spears... Or maybe the west would have been archer dependant like the east... I don't know...

Why am i asking this? I don't know... It just came into my head out of nowhere and i thought it would be fun to discuss.

[Wardo]

And camels, and cows, and lhamas, and elephants, and buffallos and bisons, and girraffes, and zebras, and goats, and sheep, etc..

Human creativity is the most powerfull war tool, just as you were creative enough to imagine a world without horses, and/or the things mentioned above, someone would've thought of a substitute, or adapt better than other people.

Anyway, if nothing changed, the Eastern Horse kingdoms would be ridiculously easy to conquer by heavy infantry armies, first come, first serve.

[Dayve]

But all of those that you mentioned aren't practical... Elephants were way too expensive to keep, and one can't really ride a buffalo, a cow, a llama, a bison, a giraffe, a zebra, a goat or a sheep... At least not effectively enough to fight in a battle...

[Mithradates]

If the eastern knigdoms didnt have horses then the likelihood would be that they too would evolve heavy infantry otherwise as you say hey would have just been steamrollered. Interestingly didnt the aztecs, americans not have horses until europeans came?

[Justiciar]

a llama

I take it you've never been to the Tibet AR?

[sithlord85]

I take it you've never been to the Tibet AR?

wtf....huh

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

_____________________________________
"I don't fear the dark side as you do obi wan"
(Anakin Skywalker)
http://www.myspace.com/darklord86

[Avicenna]

camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels camels

[/Mithrandir mode]

[Dayve]

Camels aren't as effective as horse though are they? And can they survive in the west indefinately like horses can?

[Slasher]

Well horses were trained by humans to be ridden so I suppose if they didn't exist some of the animals which are wild atm would have been trained and bred to be ridden....

I suppose the Eastern ancient armies simply would have relied upon fast archers or guerilla tactics against heavy infantry....the parrellel with the Americas is good to see what it would be like....

[Trithemius]

I think the phalanx would never have become obsolete... I know it didn't in fact become obsolete, just the tactics that were employed with it became obsolete... But i think the phalanx would have continued to dominate the battlefield right up until the gunpowder era... Because a phalanx' worst enemy is the cavalry... Once you pin it down the cavalry hits the back and that's goodnight... Unless they started training men to be super fast runners and armed them with spears... Or maybe the west would have been archer dependant like the east... I don't know...

Why am i asking this? I don't know... It just came into my head out of nowhere and i thought it would be fun to discuss.

You are aware, of course, of the resurgence of pike-block based tactics in the 16th century, and the so-called "pike and shot" era?

Have a read if you aren't, early-modern warfare is quite interesting in a lot of ways.

[Dayve]

I am aware of the rebirth of the phalanx in the gunpowder era yes... Squares of pikes with musketeers in the middle... What more do ye need!?

[cunctator]

You can look onto american warfare before the europeans arrive. They had quite well developed armies without horses, but also wothout metall weapons and armour.

[Dayve]

One can't have a well developed ancient army without horses, metal weapons and armour...

One can however have well developed tactics and ideas...

[Angadil]

One can't have a well developed ancient army without horses, metal weapons and armour...

That would depend on the definiton of "well developed ancient army" you use. After reading just a bit about, for example, Inca campaigns mine really doesn't. Horses and metal don't seem necessary for very sophisticated warfare. Of course, I am not saying that an army without metal will not lose most of the time against one with it or anything like that.

[Trithemius]

I am aware of the rebirth of the phalanx in the gunpowder era yes...

Pike blocks predate effective gunpowder tactics - in fact early firearms groups were intended to protect the pikes, not vice versa.

Squares of pikes with musketeers in the middle... What more do ye need!?

Integrated artillery support, more rapid mechanisms, and -finally- bayonets?

Military technology and practice seems to move in cycles, if there was no cavalry then you'd probably see more use of light infantry in harrassing roles and perhaps earlier development of 18th century-style marching patterns.

[Mujalumbo]

I know I'm just speculating here, but wouldn't the steppe nomadic peoples have simply adopted some other beast of burden? At first, horses weren't developed enough to carry the burden of a grown man. It'd take many a generation before they could transition their forces from chariot-bourne to out-and-out cavalry...

[general_varro]

I would suggest you read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Its a tough read, but also very interesting.
I personally think that without horses, warfare would be completely different...horses played a huge role in tech development, transportation, and even our immune responses (we developed our immune response to many diseases from our herd animals...which the American Indian did not).

Right off the top of my head, I would say that the most direct correlation to warfare would be no horses means no chariots. Chariots were the superweapon of the ancient world and the basis for the mounted horse archer and eventually the knight...

once again, I suggest reading the book.

[the_handsome_viking]

They would ride dinosaurs.

[Jolt]

What if horses never existed?

Tanks. You can never beat em.

There were ancient tanks (Armored Chariots) but they were obviously pulled by horses. Also, Buffalo's were a many times a steed for Indochina rulers in Ancient Times.

[Dayve]

I wouldn't exactly call armoured chariots the ancient tank... They were too unreliable. One bump and the wheels came off. The easiest way to defend against them is do deploy on uneven ground... Tanks of today can move through basically any terrain there is.

I see the ancient tank more as the cataphract.