From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Altered history of warfare
Summary: Cavalry weren't just European
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:54:43 GMT
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide


From jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)


In article <1992Jul22.170140.20249@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mike.Hoffmann@sniap.mchp.sni.de (Mike Hoffmann) writes:

>From Mike.Hoffmann@sniap.mchp.sni.de (Mike Hoffmann)

>In article <1992Jul20.134124.27197@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:

>>How would the history of warfare have developed if we did not have horses or a
>>suitable substitute?

>Horses aren't even that good as trail animals. For large amounts
>of supplies, bovines are better. Slower yes, but a horse pulling a supply
>wagon isn't an image of speed either.

The lack of forage for the horses was a big problem for Napoleon in his
retreat from Moscow. Horses need a lot of very good food. Oxen will eat
grass. So Napoleon's wagons had to replace their now dead horses with
oxen making supplies even slower and hence Napoleons problems even bigger.
Horses are a trade off between higher speeds and greater care. You can
take your pick. The ideal draught animal would be fast and eat garbage.

>>2) Fluidity of the whole campaign would be reduced.  Pitched battles would
>>tendto decide things much earlier as the speed of manouvre would be reduced in
>>both tactical and strategic terms. For similar reasons would it be logical to
>
>You are thinking of the relatively modern (18th, 19th century) use of cavalry.
>In earlier times the cavalry had the status of auxiliary troops that didn't
>operate independantly (Romans - although I am aware that in the later Imperium
>this had changed a bit). Or the horses were simply carriers for nobility -
>who often as not than fought unmounted. The knight armies weren't a
>fast striking forse either - on the contrary, not matter what Hollywood makes
>you think. With all there armor, knight and horse were slow and clumsy, the
>horse barely being able to trot, never mind to gallop or even canter.

Ah, but you're thinking of European Cavalry only. The nomadic peoples who
were serious about horse warfare didn't have this experience at all. Mongol
horsemen were supposed to move 100 kilometers in a day! Regardless if this
is true or not they did move so fast that they always suprised the hell out
of the opposition. Nor were their horses just carriers for the nobility either
let alone auxiliary troops. They were fast and the Mongol (Turkish/Uighur/
Kirghiz/Manchu/Arab/insert other here) army had little else.
As for European cavalry speed, the Greeks thought that foot soldiers moved
faster than their cavalry and the historical record seems to bear them out.
Horses need more rest, time to forage and lots of time to be groomed and
otherwise looked after. So in Europe horses were slower than infantry. You
can treat men as badly as you want and push them a lot but if horses don't
get look after properly they die.

>>3) Would armour be more important?  Given that you are slower to reach combat
>>on foot would more time be taken to ensuring that you actually made it into
>>combat?

Hmm, see above for speeds. As for armour, most infantry have carried their
own with them give or take a mule or two. I think armour might be less
important but it would depend very much on the circumstances involved.

>>4) would individual countries be smaller due to this extra time needed to
>>patrol ones lands??  How would one control the far flung parts of the empire.
>>I am trying to think of a Roman equivalent (I know they had cavalry I was just
>>wondering what they would do)?

The Romans didn't use cavalry very much and it can be pretty much ignored. The
largest pre-modern Empires which lasted any period of time (ie not the Mongol)
were *not* cavalry Empires. The Romans and the Chinese didn't go for horses
much because they couldn't fit them into their argicultural systems very well.
You try to raise a horse in a rice paddy and see how far you get. The Chinese
had to buy them from the very people they used them against - the Turkic nomads
As for controlling far flung parts of the Empire, the biggest problem for
pre-modern Empires was keeping the Generals loyal - if they have to spend
months marching to the Capital, then it gives the local authorities longer
to raise new armies and get ready. A bonus really.

>>5) What would our infantry tactics be like??  I was trying to think of the
>>armiesof histiory that did not use cavalry and were successful.  Would leaders
>>arrange to meet somewhere to decide things or would secrecy rule the day, even
>>though you eventually have to meet to decide the contest.
>

Most of the most successful armies did not use cavalry very much at all. The
armies mobility is decided by the slowest which is usually the baggage train
Leaders would never agree to meet somewhere, the chance of supprising your
enemy is just too strong an oppurtunity.

>My pleasure. No offense meant, Bill, but at last, it's not "my fighter is
>better than your fighter" or "can I build a nuke in my basement". :-) :-)

But I've always wanted to build a nuke in my basement. How am I going to
get instructions now? :-) (And my fighter is better than yours so there)

>Mike

The interesting question is not what would no animals be like but what if
Europe had a *better* animal. The Romans used wheeled waggons in North
Africa, but when the Arabs took over they brought the Camel with them.
Camels work better than waggons so the road system fell out of usage and
the camel ruled. Europe couldn't use camels so they had to come up with
canals, then railroads then cars etc. If the camel didn't hate snow and rain
so much then the modern world would be very different. The Arabs gradually
stopped using wheeled transport very much while England had to think up
something better.
Also the lack of draught Animals would affect civil engineering very much.
Roads were built to make it easier for waggons. The Incas only had llamas
which can't pull anything but can carry stuff. The result was that when
Inca roads came to a mountain they didn't go around or build a tunnel, they
carved *stairs* up the hill as llamas can walk up stairs! No horses no
bridges.


Joseph Askew
Newsgroups: sci.military