From:     Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Altered History of Warfare
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:06:22 GMT


From     Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>

ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au recently wrote:

>A quick hypothetical question I was asked the other day:
>
>How would the history of warfare have developed if we did not have horses or a
>suitable substitute?

Including no suitable draft animals?
 
> 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.

Given that your question is intended to cover all periods of warfare, this
would not be a major facotr, in my opinion.  Read Engel's _ALexander the
Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army_ for a perspective on ancient
armies and their supply requirements.  Baggage trains, when they existed, were
large and slow anyway, but they traveled _with_ the armies.  The concept of
"supply lines" really only dates to the 19th century.  Prior to that, local
forage provided food for troops on the move, and ammunition and other expend-
ables were not usually resupplied in the course of a single campaign.  I might
also recommend Martin Van Creveld's _Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein
to Patton_.

>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
>assume armis would be held inland at 
>certain points ready to respond to threats
> from several directions,  rather than border patrolling a certain percentage
> knowing that they were fleet enough to return whenever needed.

Armies of mixed foot and horse travel at foot speed anyway--and even an all
mounted outfit does not move a lot faster than a foot outfit over a long haul.
The border patrol pattern you are positing didn't exist to any substantial
degree in the ancient world.  Assuming that you are thinking about the Romans,
the theory was that the troops in a given region would be sufficient to defend
against all reasonable threats to that region.  Reinforcements could not be
despatched from a central location fast enough to do any good.  What you will
find is the occasional need to reconquer territory that was overrun by a larger
than normal threat.  Suggest reading Luttwak's _The Grand Strategy of the Roman
Empire_--it is fashionable to bash it at the moment, but some of the bashers
I've read do not appear to have actually read the thing.

> 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


Don't see why this would be the case.  If you are postulating a total lack of
beasts to draw wagons, all of that armor has to be carried.  I'd suggest having
a look at the armor ensembles that were adopted by the Greeks, both during the
hoplite period and the Alexandrian wars, and the early Romans through the 3rd
century.  

> 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)?

You control a country with fortifications--good fortifications allow 
outnumbered troops a safe retreat, and an invader is in danger when splitting
up to forage.  Foraging efficiency is reduced when forage parties have to be
large enough to defeat sallies by fort garrisons.  Suggest looking at a history
of the Crusades for a clear example of this.  Smail's _Crusading Warfare_ is 
short and to the point.  If the relative mobility of the two sides is the same,
then the pattern will probably resemble that of the Crusader states.  (Might
also suggest having a look at _Peri Peridromos Polemon_ aka _On Skirmishing_
attributed to Nikephoros Phokas -- available in English translation by George
Dennis as part of _Three Byzantine Military Treatises_ from the Dumbarton Oaks
Center for Byzantine Studies for an example of how to defend against a raid
without forts.  Relative mobility between raiders and defenders would again
be similar.)

>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.

I'd suggest having a look at the Greeks and the Romans, as well as the Swiss
in the 15th-16th centuries.  I don't see any real reason why things would be
all that much different.  The earlier armies in particular were not terribly
concerned with defense against horsemen so would be a better example.  You'd
end up with some mix of heavy infantry, light infantry and even lighter 
skirmishers based on terrain, in my opinion.  Have a look at Archer Jones'
_The Art of War in the Western World_ for an interesting concept for modeling
these interactions.

Hope this helps a bit.

Rob Dean

(Sounds sort of like "Empire of the Petal Throne" to me...)


Newsgroups: sci.military