I imagine we had established donkeys as pack animals and useful for riding before considering horses for that purpose. Don’t know how the timing works for that. Horses might have been considered wild and dangerous sources of meat before then.
Greyhound and whippet racing would be huge.
Aah, I misread. I think that’s further off the hypothetical - even in South America, they at least had pack camelids, and who know how that might have developed, had they had more time to innovate away from mountainous regions.
Certainly off on a tangent. I didn’t see the lack of horses as changing the course of history much since so many other animals are available for their major utility, pulling. I could see more difference if those other useful animals weren’t around. Even then we can see that the pyramids in Egypt and other great human constructions were achieved without the use of non-human labor.
I feel your pain. No horses now, but decades of ownership in the past. Last one died a couple of summers ago, age 30; had him for 20 years.
I think their war/hunting platform utility had just a big an impact. Ask the buffalo, or anyone in the way of Central Asian steppe nomads.
But I’d argue that horses caused a significant advance in mobility, making travel and transportation much swifter, with greater endurance than ox-drawn wagons. Plus, of course, the role of chariots and cavalry in warfare.
Yeah, the horse’s killer app was not pulling - it was warfare. That was a game-changer in terms of utility. Without the horse we would have never had Genghis Khan and the Mongol Horde to worry about.
to @snowthx as well, I mentioned cultures that developed based on the availability of horses. Pulling wasn’t the only use of horses, cattle, etc., but I think their major use through history. Certain events would not have happened without horses, Asian steppe nomads and Native Americans are notable in that regard. I still think pulling was the most common use of horses.
It’s impossible to establish how the lack of horses used by those groups would affect the course of history. The world could be different in unexpected ways if those cultures didn’t develop around horses. I was focusing on how the lack of horses could be a driving force toward changes in technology more generally.
Kungas are something new to me. Thanks for that interesting tidbit of info.
Soviet scientists had great success in domesticating wild foxes, resulting in profound behavioural and physiological changes in a relatively short period. Could something similar be done with donkeys to give them more horse-like characteristics, maybe to the point where they could almost serve as drop-in replacements for horses? Or keeping with the spirit of the OP, could ancient humans in a horseless world have done so over a longer time scale? I don’t know enough about the differences between horses and donkeys to know how feasible or difficult this would be.
Chariots were a game-changer in the bronze age.
Native Americans, both North and South, didn’t have horses until Europeans brought them in the 1500s. The history of the Americas would probably have been much different had horses been native to the region.
AIUI, a type of horse evolved in North America but disappeared around the time humans arrived. The next horse to arrive was, indeed, from the conquistadors. The horse played a not small role, along with large dogs, as well as diseases (unintentionally) to subdue the Aztecs.
Oxen can outpull horses, pound for pound, and are more enduring under work. They are more efficient eaters and go lame less frequently. There’s a reason Conestoga wagons were pulled by teams of oxen. They are of course, mortally slow. Until the very heavy European draft horses were developed (and interestingly they are genetically more closely related to the hairy native ponies of western Europe than the horses more their size), there was no contest, oxen were far better draft animals.
The famous fox experiments didn’t change foxes’ personalities, it infantilized them. By selecting for white feet and noses. These are the last parts of mammals to become pigmented in utero, and by essentially freezing development there, there was a surprise side effect of them becoming more like baby foxes – trusting, bonding with caretakers, etc. Wolves underwent a similar (but far far longer and more complex) process to become dogs.
Donkeys and horses are both equids, and can be crossed (although it is against the will of the horse, which is why mules are almost always the result of a jack donkey breeding a mare – stallions won’t typically voluntarily breed with jennnies either).
But they are very different creatures, psychologically, structurally, physiologically. You can make them bigger – there is a strain of donkey called Mammoth Jacks, taller than many horses. But they’re still donkeys.
Cite? Wiki says different:
When the horse was harnessed in the collar, the horse could apply 50% more power to a task in a given time period than could an ox, due to the horse’s greater speed.[1][2] Additionally, horses generally have greater endurance than oxen, and thus can work more hours each day.
Sure. But they were developed.
Again, that’s news to Wiki:
It is a heavy and large horse-drawn vehicle … They were operated by a team of four to six horses of a now-extinct breed…In comparison, American western frontier covered wagons were often transported by oxen instead of horses, but travelers tended to prefer the latter option.
I think you’re confusing the lighter prairie wagon with the Conestoga:
Although it was sometimes used for westward frontier travel in the 19th century, lightweight and cheaper covered wagons were generally preferred by the pioneers.
Doesn’t sound much different from wild horses to me. Especially a wild horse from the era when domestication was first attempted.
Horses must have innate characteristics that were amenable to domestication. Zebra domestication has been attempted many times without success.
