Horses evolved in the planes of the north american continent. Eventually in prehistoy (can't remember the time frame, it was before the rise of civilization but they were domesticated after) most horse breeds had migrated to Afro-eurasia, or gone extinct. What if they remained in America in large enough numbers that the natives could domesticate them like in the old world?
WI Horses Exist In Both Euroasia and N. America?
- Thread starter AltoRegnant
- Start date
Err... They survived until humans came. And then were killed off.
Do you mean, what if paleoindians didn't kill so much of the megafauna?
(For some species, like the mammoth, overhunting may have been just the final straw, but horses breed pretty fast, so it just about HAD to be overhunting that did them in)
Do you mean, what if paleoindians didn't kill so much of the megafauna?
(For some species, like the mammoth, overhunting may have been just the final straw, but horses breed pretty fast, so it just about HAD to be overhunting that did them in)
... sure, what if the paleoindians didn't wipe out so much of the megafauna and domesticated the proto-horses?
Alarico Rodríguez
Banned
I honestly prefer a domestication of the mammoth than any horse. Cavalry is overrated as hell. Even the Battle of Cannae was possible because Hannibal had destroyed the Romans beforehand thanks to elephants, allowing him to get into central Italy and giving him a favourable position. Even examples of cavalry overrunning infantry occur because infantry pins down the rival infantry (Zama, Adrianople, Yarmouk). Elephants on the other hand provoked Alexander's men to mutiny and turn back in India. Chandragupta's use of elephants made it so that no army from Europe ever made it beyond Iran for over 2,000 years until the arrival of the Portuguese, and that was by sea. Even the vaunted Mongol cavalry was successful because of the composite bow, not the horse itself. Historically, Chinese infantry-based armies steamrolled Central and Northern Asian cavalry-based armies.
Elephants are super expensive to maintain. This goes extra for mammoths.
Now that's an idea. But like @Analytical Engine pointed out, those are expensive to maintain and would likely require a sophisticated and wealthy state. Did mammoths enter what we know to be the home of the Mississippi people or the eventual iroquois? If they domesticated horses they could probably maintain the mammoth
And yet elephants were phased out by most armies before horses were. Not even the Romans bothered to use them despite having access to them and seeing them in action. No, elephants were the ones that were overrated, not cavalry.
I won't say that there's no macroanalysis that could be more wrong, but wow. Cavalry is civilization-defining. Cavalry changes everything at all levels of organization. Cavalry gives a buffer of centuries to people who form raiding para-states over more advanced sedentary neighbours, and lets them crush the sedentary equal-technology neighbours like empty shells. Also, India and China's history more or less looks like "conquered by horse cultures" every 200 years.
And this is before we get into the advantages of horses qua horses, large working livestock, efficiency multiplier, trophic level concentrator and living disease reservoir. Any of those change everything all over again.
Regarding Hannibal's elephants, how many did he have at Trebia? 30-odd? Is that civilisation-changing? Can you build an empire with 30-odd elephants?
Last edited:
Mammoths are probably even more impactical than elephants. They would neeed much more food than horses and very hard to maintain anyway. It is not even sure were mammoths very easy to domesticate anyway. And it is possible that mammoths had even longer carriage time and it would last hellish long time before they would be ready to breed. There is many reasons why elephants weren't ever very attractive as war animals so I don't see why mammoths would be any better.
As I've pointed out on similar threads, having the horse (and no other big domestic animals) would help a lot; horses can be transportation, muscle power, food. It would give the NAs a leg up and enable them to advance further than they did in OTL. But... it's also 'putting all your eggs in one basket'... any big disease that affects horses will have a crippling affect on the lives of the NAs...
True, like cattle in East Africa, where rinderpest epidemics in the 19th century destroyed entire kingdoms. But domestication of horses will likely invite other domestications--maybe the mountain goat or bighorn sheep, or maybe even something bigger like reindeer, elk, or moose (or combination of animals). I think the OTL introduction of the horse is illustrative on how things might go in Western North America along the Columbia River and immediate vicinity. Now, OTL the horse proceeded destruction by Euroamerican elements, but if the horse was introduced without Euroamericans arriving behind it there'd by a different result.
I imagine we'd have an expansion of horse culture people spreading pastoralism and agriculture (the early maize horticulture) who would displace or otherwise influence numerous Amerindian groups. A very different North America without a doubt, but I'd imagine the horse domestication would result in domestication in the bighorn sheep or the mountain goat, or maybe even both animals. I suspect mallards would be domesticated too like elsewhere. So I don't think it's "putting all your eggs in one basket", especially since like OTL we'd expect the majority of cultural centers to be located along rivers and a thriving industry of canoe construction to exist.
There were Columbian mammoths in the Mississippi region and woolly mammoths in the Iroquois territory; their hybrid species, the Jeffersonian mammoth, lived in Illinois and probably a few other regions. Also, technically not mammoths, but mastodons ranged across both those regions as well.
that's a big if.... neither seems to be really easy to domesticate. The mountain goat isn't a real goat (distantly related at best), and bighorn sheep aren't the same as the Eurasian wild sheep. We might be able to do it today with all of our modern facilities and materials, but to a Neolithic people? Might be beyond their means. After all, having cattle in Africa didn't lead to any more big animal domestications...
Femto
Banned
You would have a “horse-nomads versus sedentary agricultural societies” thing going on between the great plains and the east coast when the Europeans arrive. Shit, give the American Indians horses and you change their societal history in a way that they can be the ones who get to Europe.
Just imagine ships built in the east coast arriving in Portugal and speaking about some great khan-like emperor in the New World who came from the great plains and conquered the whole NA with his horse-archer armies.
Bigger bonus for the natives if they get horses AND cows. Native Americans really got nerfed when they ended up without this two animals, if I remember correctly they didn't have pigs neither.
Just imagine ships built in the east coast arriving in Portugal and speaking about some great khan-like emperor in the New World who came from the great plains and conquered the whole NA with his horse-archer armies.
Bigger bonus for the natives if they get horses AND cows. Native Americans really got nerfed when they ended up without this two animals, if I remember correctly they didn't have pigs neither.
Last edited:
Optical_Illusion
Banned
I wouldn't tend to see horse nomads as *necessarily* working out the same way in North America.
For one it's not really the same distribution of biomes, exactly - the Eurasian steppe and desert zone is a big sort of empty zone in the centre of Eurasia that can absorb innovations from all directions and get fat on trade between them, and then groups can run away into that region or expand from that region into peripheries (mainly and most effectively China) as suits. While North America's equivalent zone seems more compact, dominated by a rugged mountain range, and perhaps easier for a culture on one side to protect from or fight back into.
Another factor is that if cultures domesticate horses but not really any other large mammals, it's hard to be a pastoralist exactly. You might get much lower density horseback hunter-nomads instead.
I guess for another the "horse-nomads vs sedentary civilization" is a pretty particular period and outcome; for much of the pre-history of West Eurasia, it seems more like horse using nomads in the steppe zone were opposed to the "barbarian Europe" of agro-pastoralist groups who were pretty heavily "militarized" themselves (and somewhat mobile), and there was not too much of a one-way traffic of expansion.
For one it's not really the same distribution of biomes, exactly - the Eurasian steppe and desert zone is a big sort of empty zone in the centre of Eurasia that can absorb innovations from all directions and get fat on trade between them, and then groups can run away into that region or expand from that region into peripheries (mainly and most effectively China) as suits. While North America's equivalent zone seems more compact, dominated by a rugged mountain range, and perhaps easier for a culture on one side to protect from or fight back into.
Another factor is that if cultures domesticate horses but not really any other large mammals, it's hard to be a pastoralist exactly. You might get much lower density horseback hunter-nomads instead.
I guess for another the "horse-nomads vs sedentary civilization" is a pretty particular period and outcome; for much of the pre-history of West Eurasia, it seems more like horse using nomads in the steppe zone were opposed to the "barbarian Europe" of agro-pastoralist groups who were pretty heavily "militarized" themselves (and somewhat mobile), and there was not too much of a one-way traffic of expansion.
That is true, but both animals figured heavily into culture and local economies OTL. The bighorn sheep is rather widespread, and mountain goat wool was an essential component of highly valuable woven blankets. Mountain goats often live in isolated environments, but maybe a relatively tame population of goats gets isolated on a rocky peninsula or isolated mountain range and slowly local humans insert themselves into the goat's social structure (which involves dominant animals, although bighorn sheep herds are more egalitarian).
Perhaps not inevitable, but having one large domesticate does change a lot and might make cultures more amenable to working with animals like that.
Miguel Lanius
Banned
One good example of Amerindians with horses might be Gaicurus. The moment these guys learned how to horse, it was love. They allied with a tribe of rowers with spear-paddles and then it was off to the horse races. Warrior society, raids a lot, kidnaps children to rear in the tribe. Very aggressive.
Aside from the American West, I suspect the Brazilian Northeast and Center-West (Catinga and Sertão) might become the site of horse cultures. These are very desert/steppe-like areas, generally not proper for extensive farming.
I don't think Horse cultures would work in places like the Andes or the Amazon, but having horses would definitively help them. Jungle cultures might be pretty much unnasailable by the horse cultures, because to get to them, one has to march through multiple kilometers' worth of heavy jungle. A culture like say, the Marajoaras, or the builders of Kikohugu, might as well live on a island by this standard.
I wonder if the coming of horse and the greater prosperity might lead to maritime cultures? I'm thinking native american phoenicians and greeks myself.
Aside from the American West, I suspect the Brazilian Northeast and Center-West (Catinga and Sertão) might become the site of horse cultures. These are very desert/steppe-like areas, generally not proper for extensive farming.
I don't think Horse cultures would work in places like the Andes or the Amazon, but having horses would definitively help them. Jungle cultures might be pretty much unnasailable by the horse cultures, because to get to them, one has to march through multiple kilometers' worth of heavy jungle. A culture like say, the Marajoaras, or the builders of Kikohugu, might as well live on a island by this standard.
I wonder if the coming of horse and the greater prosperity might lead to maritime cultures? I'm thinking native american phoenicians and greeks myself.
The domesticated horse might be very different in North America. Pre-Columbian Exchange there are no pigs, sheep, goats, cows, or chickens. So my feeling is that the horse will become a food source before it's used for riding or as pack animals. It'll be bred exclusively as a foodstuff at first. Over time though we'll see cart and riding animals. It would not surprise me if Native Americans start selective breeding and their are three distinctive types of horse one for eating, another for riding, and yet another donkey like type for carrying heavy loads in many different breeds suitable for a variety of climates and cultures.