Geldings of course are way easier to handle, even more so that sometimes moody mares (which is why I always owned geldings). Castrating stallions for tractability goes all the way back to the Scythians, it appears.
Gelding horses is not a modern method of quietening male horses. It is believed the Scythian nomads of the 8–9th centuries BC were among the first to geld their horses, and apparently Aristotle is said to have mentioned gelding in around 350 BC.
I believe that’s known as “Ancient Aliens.”
Hah, I actually thought about that as I typed it but, yeah, I was meaning more along the lines of benefit to your urban dweller moving from A to B than your plains/veldt hunter.
I think you forgot chariots. Horse drawn chariots for war were used long before stirrups. We’re talking Bronze Age vs. maybe the 5th century AD in East Asia. And probably not until the 7th century for Western Europe.
That “good” part is complicated, though. Domestication has a cost, ranging from almost zero effort for wolves to who-knows for whales. A species becomes domesticated when that cost becomes less than the benefit for the local people.
Domestication is simply an application of evolution via human selection. No species is immune to evolution. Zebras, or blue whales, could be domesticated, if we spent the multi-generational effort to do it. (Narrator: we’re not going to.)
I think the problem a lot of people have when they hear “zebras can’t be domesticated”, is they think it means the species couldn’t be modified to suit our needs. When instead it means that it’s economically infeasible to do it.
<< deleted by poster…already covered before in this thread and I missed it >>
It should not be surprising that various peoples of the ancient middle east castrated animals when they also made a practice of castrating humans.
Arguably, we humans have domesticated ourselves. It’s an interesting hypothesis that points to traits such as jaw size and dental characteristics, brain size, and other things that have changed in our species over the past 10,000 years or so.
I agree, although I like to joke that women domesticated our species and dogs came along for the ride.
Stirrups aren’t necessary for heavy cavalry, they just make them more effective by increasing lateral stability. But hetairoi had no stirrups, cataphracts had no stirrups, clibanarii had no stirrups. They all functioned fine at charging.
Stirrups were a significant incremental advance in the use of horses in warfare, rather than a revolutionary one.
There is a local zebra owned by a neighbor of my wife’s family. It is kept along with 3 other horses, and et al random farm animals. It coexists happily in the same basic horse pasture, pen, and simple fences with the other horses, and is mild tempered though not rideable. No biting, kicking, shyness. Granted it is an individual, not a population, but it then raises the question of if its calm disposition is a trait that could be passed on to offspring, and gradually emphasized over generations. IANAZE either, but friendly pet zebras apparently can exist as individuals.
Oh no, The Greeks and Romans had cavalry, but no stirrups. Stirrups are useful for a couched lance charge, true, but not for cavalry.
Right.
Not having come up with or having been exposed to an idea is not foolishness or lack of intelligence.
It’s the secret sauce of humanity: culture, learning from the previous generations and others. Sometimes ideas occur independently in different groups, sometimes copied, and sometimes not. Wheeled transport just didn’t get thought of in the Americas even though they had toys with wheels. The idea of domesticating a species to the end of riding it, let alone in battle, may not be obvious until you’ve seen it done. Then it’s an of course a horse!
Here’s a recreation of a Roman cavalry saddle – clearly would hold on to a rider well in combat.
Good cite there, thanks.
Wikipedia has a very long, detailed article on Roman cavalry, with lots of citations
That’s not the funniest joke in the world.
Enough smaller to be riding large dogs?
Breeding may have been extra-important for horses, given that all horses are descendants of one (or maybe a few) very lucky (and nerdy, in equine terms) male horse.
Genetic studies suggest modern horses may have just one founding father. It might have been an unusually docile stallion, perhaps an orphaned foal raised among people.
How lucky was this horse? Very lucky. DeLong links to Underbelly quoting David W. Anthony.
The standard feral horse band consists of a stallion with a harem of two to seven mares and their immature offspring. Mares are… instinctively disposed to accept the dominance of others, whether dominant mares, stallions—or humans. Stallions are headstrong and violent, and are instinctively disposed to challenge authority by biting and kicking.… [A] relatively docile and controllable stallion was an unusual individual—and one that had little hope of reproducing in the wild. Horse domestication might have depended on a lucky coincidence: the appearance of a relatively manageable and docile male in a place where humans could use him as a breeder of a domesticated bloodline. From the horse’s perspective, humans were the only way he could get a girl. From the human perspective, he was the only sire they wanted.