Suppose Horses (or Zebras) Never Existed

[David Sklansky]

Wouldn't that have been a disaster for the human race? Believe it or not this thought popped into my head when I was thinking about BASEBALL. And how the old time greats used trains to get from town to town but still used horses for shorter distances. How long would it have taken us to progess from 10,000 BC to 1900, if there weren't horses available? Clearly a lot more than 12,000 years. What's your guess? Mine is somewhere between 50,000 to never.

Or am I missing something? Would we have found some other animal? Or created one. Camels and elephants are somewhat useful. Would we have figured out a way back then to get them to do for us what horses did?

If horses were truly as indispensible as I think, is that evidence for God?

[KenProspero]

Humanity is extraordinarily clever, using the tools that are provided to mold our environment.

Horses provide an incredible mix of speed and are incredibly versatile. However, I think there is little that is about them that is unique that would effect civilization in ways you claim.

For example, Hannibal crossed the Alps with Elephants in his battles with Rome. In agriculture, Oxen can be used to drag plows at least as well as horses. Oxen have also been yoked together to draw wagons -- i.e., used for transportation.

The Horse's main advantages are speed and agility. However, it is questionable whether speed is essential for societal evolution. In fact, one could argue that the speed and agility of Horses is incredibly useful in war, and that the destruction of war has hampered humanities progress.

In any event, though Horses are incredibly useful for many purposes, I don't think they are unique in enough that it would have hampered civilization significantly. My guess

12,000 years of progress with a horse -- 6,000 - 15,000 years. The shorter time because of less war potential (though man is so inventive that we probably would have come up with alternatives), so most likely 13,000-15,000 range.

Two more points -- I don't think Zebras are rideable in the same way that Horses Are.

If we're looking for evolutionary developments as evidence of God, I think that a better argument can be made for the opposable thumb than horses.

[DivideByZero]

Interesting question.

Perhaps without horses, man would be faster today. If speed aids in survival (hunting, escaping danger), clearly the fastest humans would have eventually dominated the gene pool.

[Kevin J]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, one could argue that the speed and agility of Horses is incredibly useful in war, and that the destruction of war has hampered humanities progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about this? It seems to me that war has been a very powerful motivator in the development and advancement of new technology. Can you name anything else that has provided more motivation to create and invent at godspeed?

[ChicagoRy]

Slavery would most likely be around today because of all the uses we have had for animals in labor for the last couple hundred years (of course it has really bottomed out bc of advanced technology in the last 100 years). But without strong animals I would venture a guess that slavery would be the main form of labor. Either that or nothing would get done.

[chezlaw]

I think you're right about camels/elephants. Camels do the same job as horses don't they? and man would have driven the evolution of these in the same way they did for horses.

The steam train might have been invented much earlier, even those dozy Greeks might have linked their steam engine to some wheels if they hadn't had any horses about.

Its no more evidence for god than the absence of the gazeebalob is evidence against god.

chez

[sam h]

I think it would have set humanity back some, but not as much as you think. Camels or oxen would probably have been pressed into service by most of the civilizations on the Eurasian landmass.

Its worth mentioning though that Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel claims that the presence or absence of large domesticatable animals like horses is one of the main factors that shaped the rapidity with which civilizations advanced in the north and south of the globe. It turns out that there really aren't that many candidates for this kind of thing. If you took away oxen and camels too, we might still be in the bronze age.

[yad]

[ QUOTE ]

Its worth mentioning though that Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel claims that the presence or absence of large domesticatable animals like horses is one of the main factors that shaped the rapidity with which civilizations advanced in the north and south of the globe. It turns out that there really aren't that many candidates for this kind of thing. If you took away oxen and camels too, we might still be in the bronze age.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's right too. there are a remarkable number of characteristics that are required for an animal to be suitable for domestication, and there really aren't that many animals that fit the bill at all. certainly zebras are totally unsuitable, i think because of certain characteristics of their genetic system. i think elephants are also pretty tough. camels and llamas have major drawbacks compared to horses (much harder to train -- I don't think a "cavalry charge" with camels would ever be possible).

of course without the horse other developments would eventually ahve filled the gap, but especially given the horse's role in warfare and hence its role in stimulating military technology, I don't think it's unreasonable that many aspects of "civilization" would have been set back hundreds or thousands of years without htem.

[maniacut]

Our ability as humans to believe that the use of a club to hunt is akin to the use of a horse to carry, does not explicitly prove the existence of God.
If horses never existed the world is undoubtedly different, and that's the undoubted truth. To try and guess a claim as to how progress might have changed without the evolution of this creature is akin to asking how progress might have changed with the evolution of a horse with wings. and fire breathing nostrils.

[Rollos]

It wouldn't have affect humanity that much. Farmers still could have used oxen to plow fields, which is the main purpose horses were used for. Contact with China and other countries might have taken a little longer, and trade might have been slowed down, but not by much, maybe 100-200 years.

As for military, they didn't matter much in the conquering of the Americas since most peoples died by diesease. As far as Eurasia, I still think everything would be the same since no one civilization's military had a monopoly on horses for a significant period of time.

In short, no, the absence of horses would not have a great effect on human progress.