From: pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Peter Shyvers)
Subject: Re: Altered history of warfare
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:22:13 GMT


From pshyvers@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Peter Shyvers)


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 had not always been used. Some civilizations had not even known them
>(the pre-columbian Americas). In the ancient Middle-East donkeys and mules
>had been used - for riding and in front of chariots. In appropriate climate
>camels were used. Even oxen were used for *attack* wains!
>
Remember too the Arabian peninsula - camels are the beast of burden - and 
faster than horses in some of the terrain!

>>My impressions are that the following would occur:
>
>>1) Increase in successful guerilla activity, as supply trains could not use
>>"horse power" so they would be slower and larger thus providing more easily
>>found and attacked targets.
>
Even were horses around, guerrillas would use horses. The ratio remains the 
same; in fact, given that most logistics trains are not terribly faster than
men, in the *presence* of horses guerrillas are more effective - the horse
gives them the advantage of mobility. Consider that Russian partisans in WWII
were often horse-mounted. 

>>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.
>
Bravo. In fact, with the possible exception of the Indian wars of the 1850's
to 1870's, mounted troops have never operated independently of large bodies
of infantry. Again, it's that cavalry can never stand up to infantry and
artillery very long, it's usually much faster than its supply trains, and
horses are logistically expensive beasts. Lee's artillery was pretty immobile,
and his cavalry away much of the time around Fredricksburg because there was
little forage for the horses.

Cavalry was usually "shock troops" used to exploit tactical opportunities, or
for screening & reconnaisance.

>>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?
>
As has been said, armour is heavy stuff; it is a burden to the ground-pounder.
Ask any grunt. Consider Alexander's armies: a breastplate, perhaps, and a sword
or spear. The weight saved by not toting lots of armour allows faster manuver,
which saves more lives and gives greater advantage.

>>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)?
>
>Communications is not that much of a problem. The semaphore or light-towers
>were invented rather early in history. And not being able to send a task force
>quickly is balanced by the fact that your enemy also can't march above a 
>certain rate.
>
Culturally you'd likely see smaller "regional" identities, due to more difficult
commerce and travel, but as far as armies go - they march, not ride. Administrative control can be exercised without commuting. The horse did not make ruling
Judea possible for Rome; it was the rule of law, the strength of the Legion, and
the devotion to the cause of the army and governmetn officials.

>>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.
>
Considering the predominant portion of any Hellenic, Crusades, European, or 
modern army is based on foot soldiers, we've probably already seen the tactics
and strategy of infantry-only armies. The key tactical change associated with
mobility appears to have occurred in 1936, with the invention of Blitzkrieg
(applied on small scale in the Spanish Civil War.) The Aufrollen unt Schwerpunkt
of the Panzertruppen was probably the first time that the (armoured) cavalry
was the predominant striking force, with the infantry used for mop-up
operations. Even then, however, and in WWII, armour couldn't stand on its
own. Thus the Combined Arms concept that has ruled in mechanized armies to this
day.
  


Newsgroups: sci.military