The domestication of horses has led to their uses in transporation, in warfare, and in recreation. Have horses ever turned against their riders during battles? If so then this would have changed the course of history! When the horse of, say, a famous king was being ridden, did the horse have any understanding of the importance of the man who was on his saddle? I understand that horses obviously have a rudamentary understanding of a relationship existing between horse and man because of domestication but I am wondering how it effected human events and history.
I’m not sure I understand. A little background might help you though.
Basically horses are a herd animal. In the wild there is one stallion who dominates all the mares and juvenile males, and there is one prime mare who dominates all the other mares. That’s horse social structure. When two horses meet for the first time they will usually fight if they are stallions, or if they are mares there will sometimes be a fight or if the newbie is entering an existing herd she will often submit to the prime mare.
The stallion controls the herd by pushing the mares along, using physical force as required. The prime mare acts as a focal point for the stallion as well as controlling other mares. When humans enter the picture we immediately occupy the place of the stallion and prime mare. The herd structure then becomes focussed on us.
Once you realise this you will see why horses are unlikely to ‘turn’ on their rider. To do that they would need to be prepared to make a challenge for the position of stallion. That’s never going to happen if the horse is a gelding or mare because the hormones aren’t there. Stallions can be a bit nastier but even then they are highly unlikely to choose a stressful situation like a battle field to make a challenge. That’s as silly as making a challenge while the herd is being attacked by lions.
So no, horses don’t have any real understanding of the importance of the man in their saddle. They understand that he is the stallion and thus the herd leader, and that rebellion will result in pain and social ostracism. For a horse that’s enough. A species that eats grass doesn’t have much extra energy for introspection about social dynamics. If a horse is in constant close contact with a group of people it might come to appreciate the human dynamics to some degree and understand who is the alpha, but even then they will presumably see the situation as one where there are numerous rival stallions, or at the least a rival stallion and numerous rival prime mares. Either way they know that their position in the social hierarchy is way down near the bottom.
Having said all that there are accounts of horse in panic attacking on people to get away, but they mostly just wanted to go through them, not turn on them. And of course frightened horses routinely throw riders, but once again that’s not specifically directed at the rider.
Famous kings made sure that they got the best horse available. War horses were trained for war. To ride a horse in battle requires a lot of rapport between horse and rider, because you have a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other; so you have to control the horse with words and/or pressure of your legs. This is possible only after much quality time spent together. It took a long time even after the domestication of the horse for this to be possible. When the Assyrians first started experimenting with riding horses in battle around 800-700 BC (as opposed to having them pull chariots, which they had already been doing for about 1000 years) they used two-horse teams where one rider held the reigns of both horses and the other rider did the fighting. Must have been clumsy!
There can be unexpected things that happen to make a war horse lose its mind; camels and elephants, for instance, if the horse has never seen them before. Around 500 BC Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian Empire, was in a battle with the Lydians, who were famous for their cavalry. Cyrus mounted some guys on baggage camels and charged them at the enemy. The Lydian horses went nuts and Cyrus won the battle.
Throughout history kings and generals have relied on their noble steed in all their campaigns. While volumes have been written about the interactions between men in battle; interactions between oppossing sides, among the garrison, and between two men, I cannot think of any analysis regarding horses. Isn’t there anything written about horses in battle? That was a great example given with the elephants in the battle with Cyrus the Great. He also fought with Alxender the Great. You may all know the account of the young Alexander taming the wild horse which he would name Bucephalus. But what about the relationship between Alexander the Great and Bucephalus. There must have been a reason for him to only ride that horse. Had he rode another horse into battle, would the outcome have been possibly been different? That’s what I’m wondering; how to take into account horses in wars.
You’re oversimplifying. It isn’t just “alpha horse” and “everybody else.” There’s a defined pecking order all the way down, and horses are constantly jockeying (snicker) for position within the pecking order. Humans don’t automatically get the top slot, either. They have to earn it.
Our alpha male is a gelding, and he will definitely assert himself against other horses and other people. We introduced a young (18 month old) stallion to our little herd, and the gelding put him in his place very quickly. My wife wasn’t experienced with horses and allowed the gelding to push her around (literally) until I explained the mechanism: when two members of the herd approach the same space, the dominant member forces the other one to move. When she forced the horse to move instead of the other way around, she was asserting herself as being higher than him in the pecking order.
As for the OP, I very much doubt that horses understand the pecking order of humans, or that any one human is more important than any other. A horse develops a relationship with a particular human, and that’s the only one that really matters.
Have you ever heard the old saying that if you get to feeling overly important, you should try bossing around someone else’s dog? Horses are the same way. The aforementioned gelding understands that I am the boss, but if someone else enters the corral, they’re starting at ground zero. Doesn’t matter if it’s the mayor or the stableboy–the horse will judge the person himself, not based on the new person’s relationship to me.
Does that help?
We need only look at the historical documentary Animal House where Niedermeyer was inspecting the cadets when his horse was hit in the flank by a golf ball. The horse bolted, injuring Niedermeyer.
I would not put Niedermeyer in the came class as the above mentioned greats of warfare. Bluto perhaps, but Niedermeyer? Wasn’t the tag line that he was shot by his own troops in Vietnam?
I also agree with InvisibleWombat’s theories, and would say it can be applied in one form or another to just about all the animals we deal with in a “domestic” capacity.
Apologies for the hijack, but why is it that camels terrify horses so much?
They do? I’m just guessing here, +MDI, but are you speaking of horses that have never been around camels before? Being prey animals, horses are terrified of darned near everything the first time they encounter it, but they get used to other critters very quickly. My horses are best buddies with the goats and they wander freely through herds of cattle. They’ve been up-close and personal with various antlered animals, and I can’t imagine why camels would scare them if they had a chance to get to know each other.
Wombat is correct. This was known in antiquity and was often exploited by camel-riding desert raiders. Horses have to get “acclimatized” to camels before they can be around them peacefully. Here’s a
cite