WI Horse don't die out in North America?

If horses don't die out in North America (I'm thinking specifically the Great Plains region which would be the likeliest place for them to survive, I think anyway), what effects does this have on the developing Native cultures?

I'm wondering if this allows for higher agriculture or for steppe like tribes to develop instead.

The agriculture in the Americas is quite advanced, even on the Great Plains (look up "Corn Culture" and it's amazingly different from our 19th century view of the plains tribes.) Horses meant hunting got quite a bit easier and did moving to more comfortable or less depleted locations over a far greater range...the nomadism is about capacity and dogs just couldn't pull much of a travois load while a small extended family of 8-15 people was what hunting and gathering would support on foot (vs. much more populous permanent villages in earth-lodges with large fields of diverse crops at higher yields than Europeans were getting.)

If horses didn't die out and instead were contemporaneous throughout the Indians' presence on the continent, they're at least a common meat source and domestication into herds wasn't nearly as active of a practice in the Americas as it was in Eurasia and Africa (cattle, sheep, goats.) Making that mental journey from easy hunting prey to faithful personal transportation is a long one even in Eurasia (look at breeding for size/characteristics, saddles/bridles/stirrups/wagon harness, veterinary care, horsehoeing, horse-based weapons/tactics, wagon/cart/chariot development.) But the tribes would have 10,000+ years to figure it out (and probably domesticate American wild camels too which died out when the horse did I think.)

Trade networks for greater volume and real roads developing in North America like the Mayans built, mechanizing some farming with horse-drawn equipment, horse power for windlasses, pumps, etc., faster and further migrations from drought-stricken regions, more contact with other tribes and other bands within the same tribe would be possible impacts.

So the Spanish would have had a vastly tougher time in the American Southwest from mounted Indian warriors (but most of Coronado's opponents were succumbing to the Spanish troops' communicable diseases rather than knight's lances or crossbows.) So much of the earlier fighting would be in places along coast-lines, heavily forested where cavalry, let alone random clusters of mounted warriors are much tougher to use well.

The Indians would have certainly had a happier time of it, nobody romanticizes dirt farming or trying to lure hundreds of bison off of a cliff for the upcoming meat supply.

Perhaps American horses weren't domesticable, like Zebra, and not much changes from OTL.

*ahem*

The North American horse (assuming you're talking about the 'horse-like' horses and not the 'donkey-like' stilt-legged horses) was the same species as the Eurasian horse, so it should be domesticable.

Assuming these horses survive and are domesticated, that changes a lot. Horses are a force multiplier in warfare, making it far more deadly, faster, and capable of being fought with much fewer people. They also revolutionize farming, by providing labor, manure for fields, and meat that doesn't have to be hunted, all of which will create much higher Native American populations. This means that organized and hierarchical societies are much more common, although there will still be tribal societies in many areas.

Even if we are ultra-conservative with the development of maritime technology ITTL so that there are no horses across the isthmus of Panama or the Caribbean, there will still be horses in Central America as well as North America. The deserts won't stop horses, and the jungles of Central America are interspersed with savannahs that could provide great grazing. This means that any Spanish that land on the mainland will face cavalries which can fight them more effectively, spread the word about their presence and intentions faster, and take away much of their need to enslave Natives as porters due to providing labor.

The end result is that, ITTL, European colonialism in North America proceeds much more slowly as the Natives are much more capable of fighting it off. We might see more densely packed European settlements in the temperate areas of South America, and areas of North America where independent Native states survive.

EnglishCanuck said:

If horses don't die out in North America (I'm thinking specifically the Great Plains region which would be the likeliest place for them to survive, I think anyway), what effects does this have on the developing Native cultures?

I'm wondering if this allows for higher agriculture or for steppe like tribes to develop instead.

Click to expand...

They would be hunted at first, but eventually utilized for their secondary products--milk, transport, and agriculture.

I think the advance of trade would be the most important. You could get horse-drawn trade caravans moving from Canada down to Mexico, which opens up whole new avenues for technological and cultural development in the New World. There was some copper use in the New World as far back as 6,000 years ago--concurrent with the early Bronze Age in the Old. Imagine if those copper-workers (around the Great Lakes) had access to tin mined in Mexico, the way bronze-workers in Anatolia and Europe imported tin from Central Asia. Corn, IOTL, didn't make its way to the Eastern US until 200 AD, and didn't fully replace local crops until 900 AD or so. The horse can accelerate that greatly.

Horse-herds would open the way to other herding. Maybe Pronghorn can be domesticated after them, filling a niche similar to that of goats.

I tried something similar with domesticated Bison.

Polish Eagle said:

Horse-herds would open the way to other herding. Maybe Pronghorn can be domesticated after them, filling a niche similar to that of goats.

Click to expand...

I don't think pronghorns would be domesticated, for the same reasons Africans never domesticated their antelope species... they are prone to panic, can run pretty damn fast, and jump pretty damn high. Trying to herd something that can outrun your horse isn't really practicable.

That said... horses added to the NA agricultural package would be a big boost to their culture...

Dave Howery said:

That said... horses added to the NA agricultural package would be a big boost to their culture...

Click to expand...

The horse is one of the best animals to add to agriculture: It provides labor, meat, hide, milk (albeit not as much as sheep and cows), does not compete with humans for food like pigs, and perhaps crucially is a major force multiplier for war.

The only animal I can think of that could one-up that is the camel, which provides wool in addition to the above mentioned benefits.

twovultures said:

The horse is one of the best animals to add to agriculture: It provides labor, meat, hide, milk (albeit not as much as sheep and cows), does not compete with humans for food like pigs, and perhaps crucially is a major force multiplier for war.

The only animal I can think of that could one-up that is the camel, which provides wool in addition to the above mentioned benefits.

Click to expand...

back in Ye Olden Dayes, I don't think pigs competed with humans for food; otherwise, it's hard to see why they would have been domesticated in the first place. IIRC, people fed them the waste products of agriculture and also let them forage on their own. It's only now in modern times that we feed them corn in mass production...

Montanian said:

So the Spanish would have had a vastly tougher time in the American Southwest from mounted Indian warriors (but most of Coronado's opponents were succumbing to the Spanish troops' communicable diseases rather than knight's lances or crossbows.) So much of the earlier fighting would be in places along coast-lines, heavily forested where cavalry, let alone random clusters of mounted warriors are much tougher to use well.

The Indians would have certainly had a happier time of it, nobody romanticizes dirt farming or trying to lure hundreds of bison off of a cliff for the upcoming meat supply.

Click to expand...

Most of the really nasty communicable Eurasian diseases seem to have stemmed from cows and pigs, but domestication of a large farm animal could have potentially led to the rise of the continent's own nasty diseases, so that there could be more of a two-way disease transmission upon contact with Eurasians. Not good for humanity at all, but would lead to Amerindians not being at a massive demographic disadvantage.

At any rate, having a heavy plowing animal for farmwork would definitely lead to increased crop yields and higher populations. Probably more and bigger cities in North America.

Polish Eagle said:

They would be hunted at first, but eventually utilized for their secondary products--milk, transport, and agriculture.

I think the advance of trade would be the most important. You could get horse-drawn trade caravans moving from Canada down to Mexico, which opens up whole new avenues for technological and cultural development in the New World. There was some copper use in the New World as far back as 6,000 years ago--concurrent with the early Bronze Age in the Old. Imagine if those copper-workers (around the Great Lakes) had access to tin mined in Mexico, the way bronze-workers in Anatolia and Europe imported tin from Central Asia. Corn, IOTL, didn't make its way to the Eastern US until 200 AD, and didn't fully replace local crops until 900 AD or so. The horse can accelerate that greatly.

Click to expand...

Ah the advance of the trade networks interests me greatly. I've always wondered if given the opportunity of expanding the trade pool, knowledge base and having a good draft animal would have allowed them to advance beyond what we saw in the 1500s. Say give them at least Iron Age technology.

EnglishCanuck said:

Say give them at least Iron Age technology.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Developing metallurgy is a very long and very difficult process, and domestic animals will not necessarily allow the early creation of the complex, centralized societies that allow for these innovations to really go forward. Horses may speed up innovation somewhat through trade, but to really get iron working you need earlier cities in the Americas, and not just better connected ones.

twovultures said:

Not necessarily. Developing metallurgy is a very long and very difficult process, and domestic animals will not necessarily allow the early creation of the complex, centralized societies that allow for these innovations to really go forward. Horses may speed up innovation somewhat through trade, but to really get iron working you need earlier cities in the Americas, and not just better connected ones.

Click to expand...

But it seems to be that the higher the population, the more likely innovation is going to pop up. 10,000 heads are better than 10, that sort of thing.

twovultures said:

Not necessarily. Developing metallurgy is a very long and very difficult process, and domestic animals will not necessarily allow the early creation of the complex, centralized societies that allow for these innovations to really go forward. Horses may speed up innovation somewhat through trade, but to really get iron working you need earlier cities in the Americas, and not just better connected ones.

Click to expand...

Well my thinking is that even if the horse survives and manages to be domesticated we probably get early trade going, and with precious metals able to travel farther across the continent you could probably have ideas and innovations travelling with them.

Increase the population, get some centralization going, then I'm giving a guess they could reach at least the Iron Age in terms of development later on. It just seems that with 10,000+ years to domesticate and take advantage of the horse would give them a leg up on other types of innovation as well.

Sucrose said:

But it seems to be that the higher the population, the more likely innovation is going to pop up. 10,000 heads are better than 10, that sort of thing.

Click to expand...

My thoughts on the subject exactly.

Why exactly did horses die out in the Americas? Were they hunted to extinction, or what?

I don't have the source handy, but apparently North American horses and Mammoths did survive in a pocket up north for several thousand years after they died out elsewhere in North America. That was discovered in an interesting way: not through finding fossils but by finding their DNA in the permafrost.

As to what would have happened if they survived: I'm not at all sure they would have been domesticated before Europeans arrived. One problem is that they would have survived hanging on by a thread, probably in rugged areas without a lot of people. Big animal/small pocket or pockets probably equals a sharp reduction in size, and some increase in genetic diseases, so there would be issues even if the population expanded back out of the pockets. Also, if what killed them off historically was over-hunting, which is one of the major theories, then you would probably see survival of the most wary, skittish animals--the animals least suitable for domestication. They would also probably survive in the areas with the fewest people--in areas with poor hunter-gathers rather than denser populations of farmers where they would be more likely to be domesticated.

At the same time, even if they weren't domesticated before Europeans arrived, they might speed up the spread of horses and use of horses after the Europeans arrived. Indians see Spanish riding through on horseback and realize that they could do that too, using the native horses. The survivors would probably interbreed with feral European horses early on and pass on genes that would allow them to spread quicker. Remember, there were horses in New Spain nearly a hundred years before Jamestown and Spanish explorers in much of the southern US. Speed up the spread of horses in North America by fifty years and most of the tribes in the interior of eastern North America would have them before the frontier reached them. I'm not sure what that would do given the forests over much of the area, but at least the Indians would be more mobile and have a reserve food source, which would help against famines following epidemics.

didn't the Maya, Mississippian and other Indian cultures die out from mismanaging their resources? They would have to get rid of this problem first. Second disease is a nasty thing, It would still decimate their numbers. Combined with the Europeans having superior tech I think that the native cultures would only hold out for a little longer.

Ego_Illud said:

didn't the Maya, Mississippian and other Indian cultures die out from mismanaging their resources? They would have to get rid of this problem first. Second disease is a nasty thing, It would still decimate their numbers. Combined with the Europeans having superior tech I think that the native cultures would only hold out for a little longer.

Click to expand...

The Maya never died out, and while resource misuse exacerbated the abandonment of some of their cities, ultimately it was a complex process with many causes such as military strife and political instability as well as climate change.

The Mississippian culture seems to have gone down from an apex during the Little Ice Age, but it's killing blow appears to have been Eurasian disease rather than anything they themselves did. In fact, one Mississippian society, the Natchez, persisted well into the age of contact until they were ended as a civilization (though not a people, the Natchez are still around) by the French and their Native allies.

Having domestic animals could give Native Americans diseases to give back to the Europeans, and as you said disease is a nasty thing. Mosquito-borne fevers and epidemic disease could really slow down European colonialism in the Americas, just like it did in Africa. And while Europeans may have superior tech even ITTL, Natives on horseback can overcome pretty much any technical disadvantage short of the gatling gun-as they did in the Great Plains and Pampas IOTL. In addition, Native peoples who resist the initial wave of European colonialism can trade for weapons, helping to close the gap before further colonization attempts.

oudi14 said:

Why exactly did horses die out in the Americas? Were they hunted to extinction, or what?

Click to expand...

A combination of hunting, and climate change. Horses are well-adapted for cold, dry climates--unlike cattle and sheep, they know to smash ice with their hooves to get at water, and clear snow with their legs instead of plowing their face into it for grass. At the time of their domestication, horses, had retreated from south-west Asia and much of Europe (which was growing its primeval forests) into the Ukrainian and Kazakhstan steppes, where they were domesticated. Numerous other species experienced similar troubles as the glaciers retreated. However, their genera persisted in earlier interglacials, and only when humans and their 'modern' hunting weapons (spear-throwers and such) arrived were they so clearly wiped out. It is likely that human hunters hit them at their weakest--a warm period of habitat shrinkage.