I was just thinking...

[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.

[Dayve]

Yeah i agree but if they don't have metal then they are all likely armed with wooden shields and wooden tipped spears... And this is how they probably were always armed since what preceeds a wooden spear?

They might have had well developed tactics and strategies, but without metal and horses they can never be well developed... Maybe if you just look at the American continent ONLY, and not the rest of the world... Then perhaps some can be considered more developed than others perhaps in the designs of their weapons and shields, but once you factor in the rest of the world like the most ancient of eastern civilisations like the babylonians and see that even then they had primitive metal tipped shiat... They're not well developed at all.

[Warlord 11]

Didn't they use stone tipped spears? I would think that it would be better than wood. And I am pretty sure they had stone.

[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.

[Angadil]

I would suggest you read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Its a tough read, but also very interesting.

I'd second that recommendation.

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...

Agreed, but then again, what about other equids? I seem to recall that one of the first representations of equids used in warfare is a Sumerian war-cart pulled by onagers. I am not saying their performance would have been comparable to that of horses, but maybe good enough to make it worthy? Better an onager based chariotry and, maybe, eventually cavalry than none at all?

[eadingas]

As many have said, pre-colombian America is the right example of horse-less army. Don't underestimate the Incas - they have made quite a valiant stand against the conquistadors, not like their wussy cousins from the north.
Horses are simply most effective in what they do, but they are not the only things that can do it. Anything that is fast, thin and can carry a man on his back can be used. People ride ostriches, you know :)

[Trithemius]

I'd second that recommendation.

And then read "Collapse"; its very interesting even if I think he neglects some societies that might bear scrutiny. :)

[Trithemius]

Agreed, but then again, what about other equids? I seem to recall that one of the first representations of equids used in warfare is a Sumerian war-cart pulled by onagers. I am not saying their performance would have been comparable to that of horses, but maybe good enough to make it worthy? Better an onager based chariotry and, maybe, eventually cavalry than none at all?

I wonder if, without horses, people would have tried to seriously domesticate other animals for military purposes? I am reminded of "The General" (essentially the life of Belisarius in a different setting) where they ride extremely large dogs instead of horses. It took some breeding to get horses capable of carrying men in armour - perhaps, with sufficient time and breeding, other animals might have proved as useful (or even better?).