A start to assembling solid evidence that the earlier domesticated horses were too small to ride.
It seems to me that the answer ought to be out there from horse skeletons.
Good post, except I think the consensus belief is that dogs were originally domesticated from wolves in Central Asia, not the Middle East. Also, Native Americans used horses (and dogs) to pull travois as well as to ride.
To clarify, Native Americans did not exactly domesticate horses; they tamed feral horses descended from domesticated ones that had escaped from the Spanish (or captured them directly), and which were genetically distinct from true wild horses.
Many horses that are meant to be ridden are first taught to drive. Perhaps not in full harness, but in bridle, reins, and surcingle. Many ARE taught to pull before they are ridden as commands can be taught from the ground more safely in that fashion, and then translated to the saddle.
I was always fond of the theory that humans did not domesticate cats, but rather cats domesticated humans (but then, I’m a dog owner who realizes how well his dogs have trained him. I respond on command to the signals for “Pettings” and “Gotta pee!”)
But that’s not the same thing. It’s simply that the process of domestication needn’t have been a conscious effort on our part at all, and that a sort of symbiotic relationship evolved naturally, with the result being domestication. The cats (or other animals) gained, and humans gains. I don’t know about cats, but there are many, many more dogs in the world today than the number of wolves that ever existed at any given time-- a big evolutionary benefit for that species. I suspect the same is true for cats.
The currently existing wild equids (zebras, wild asses, and Preswalski’s horse), although smaller than most domestic horses, are quite large enough to ride. And they’re certainly as large as modern ponies (and many pony breeds can be ridden by adult humans). So I find the idea that the earliest domestic horses would be too small to ride dubious in the extreme. A horse only needs to be about 13 hands high to be ridable by the average adult human.
Mmmmm, annoying animal stew . . .
Yeah, just like Grandma used to make.
Band name, maybe?
One thing that I have wondered about Diamond. He claims that deer are impossible to domesticate owing to being too skittish. Has he ever been to Nara (Japan)? There are thousands of tame deer every where you go in Nara. No gardens though (unless behind high walls).
Tame is not the same as domesticated. “Domesticated” implies that, among other things, the animal reproduces in captivity, which not all animals, even if tamed, will do.
Wow. Are they amicable to being petted? They sound cute!
Found a pic of them begging for food. This could either be cute or annoying or scary.
Thank you for the interesting point. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but how would you explain the shift from chariots to mounted cavalry? Assuming such a shift took place?
Up until the Middle Ages, mounted cavalry was just a way to get troops there faster. Mainly they rode to the battlefield, then dismounted, got out their swords, and fought on foot. Or they could ride fast to get to an important location on the battlefield, like the top of a hill or a river crossing, gain control of that, and hold it till the rest of their foot soldiers arrived.
The mass cavalry charge, with armored riders attacking with lances, didn’t start to happen until quite a bit later.
Is there any particular reason for that change, or was it just that for years nobody could buy into the idea of fighting from horseback?
“Are you nuts, someone could fall and get hurt!”
The invention of the stirrup. More accurately it was the spread of stirrup technology by the “Mongol” invasions of Europe and the Middle East that lead to the chivalrous (literally cavalry) traditions of the middle ages.
Without stirrups horses were still important on the battlefield, but the choices were either to use them as dragoons as t-bonham noted, or to use them as platforms for mounted artillery. Mounted artillery were particularly useful because they were all but invincible and could break up defensive formations. They move in close to the enemy, let fly with a few missiles and retreat without ever being open to effective attack themselves.
In East and Central Asia the mounted artillery tended to be mounted archers, probably due to terrain. In the Middle east and Meditteranean battle fields were more often open plains and the advantages to using chariots and drivers to provide stable firing platforms led to them being preferred, either for archers or javelineers.
But there is no evidence in any of this history to suggest that horses were used with chariots before being ridden.