From: Mike.Hoffmann@sniap.mchp.sni.de (Mike Hoffmann)
Subject: Re: Altered history of warfare
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf AG, AP 712
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:01:40 GMT


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?

Being a "horseman" myself I am very interested in the subject and have for
some time now been studying the history of horses in warfare.

To answer you question, you would first have to make clear if you mean that
you would only have lacked the horse as a specific species - with it's
advantages of speed, size, stamina etc., resp. any comparable substitute - or 
if you mean that mankind had generally not been able to find any "beast 
of burden", i.e. neither oxen, asines, camels.

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!

The history of the horse (equus caballus) and it's use for warfare is long
and diverse. And all the different uses had had a new revolutionary effect
on combat.

>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.

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.

>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.

>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?

See above. Armor has a limit: someone not only has to wear it, but also
to carry it (there *is* a difference). No soldier would have been able to
fight on foot with all  that armor on him - at least not for long.

>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.

>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.

This is tough. Agincourt might have been the same, even if the French had been
unmounted - the British long-bow men would still have made mincemeat of them.
Waterloo, on the other hand might have gone differently had the Scots Greys
not attacked again and again until the Prussians arrived. (hmmm, yes, I have
to look up the battle again - pretty dim there)

>Any feedback would be appreciated,

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". :-) :-)

Mike
-- 
Mike Hoffmann, Siemens-Nixdorf AG, SNI AP 712  
INTERNET: Mike.Hoffmann@sniap.mchp.sni.de
	Save a Tree - Eat an ISO working group Today (M.Freiss)
	Oook! (The Librarian)

Newsgroups: sci.military