
The Horse Helped Shape Our World at Great Expense to Itself - diodorus
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-the-horse-helped-shape-our-world--at-great-expense-to-itself/2018/02/09/550b649c-0078-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html
======
motohagiography
As a rider who has done some reading into the history, one of the things
modernity does overlook is how horsemanship provided a practical philosophical
basis for human morality.

Going back to Xenophon (and Simeon before him), who wrote one of the earliest
surviving treatises on horsemanship, the personal qualities it takes to ride
and train were also the basis for leadership. Xenophon's work on the Cavalry
General is mainly practical and tactical, but expands on some of the
principles of horsemanship - a key one being, "nothing forced can be
beautiful."

The essence of it is that because they are prey animals, good horsemanship is
necessarily an exercise in leadership.

Dom Duarte's 13th century treatise (next on my list) is also about the moral
qualities for horsemanship, and the classic "education of the king," by
Pluvinel is about educating the king of France as a horseman, with an eye to
developing the king as a leader.

IMHO, officer training has always included horsemanship because it develops a
kind of physical presence and fearlessness required to get people to follow
them willingly.

Glad to see something like this mentioned on HN, as revisiting the cultivation
of leadership through physical and moral exercise is something we in tech
could certainly benefit from.

~~~
ereyes01
This is pretty fascinating. I think it might explain why the Spanish word for
"gentleman" is "Caballero", or "horseman". It is also the word used for
"knight", which makes more literal sense.

~~~
yesenadam
Not to mention 'chivalry', 'chivalrous', _from Old French word chevalerie,
"knighthood, chivalry, nobility, cavalry" (11th century), the -erie abstract
of chevaler "knight, horseman", from Medieval Latin caballarius (“horseman,
knight”), a derivation from caballus (“horse”)._

------
zamazingo
I doubt the horses had a real say in this, and the deliberate use of active
tense to legitimize the "sacrifice" is very annoying.

~~~
posterboy
I doubt anyone had a "real-say" in this, all just involuntary nervous
reactions. /s

------
ThalesX
The cow sacrificed itself for us, the horse sacrificed itself for us, the fish
sacrifice themselves for us, we sacrifice ourselves for us. And all this in
the name of wheat.

Maybe the agricultural revolution was too powerful...

~~~
jcroll
theres a car in space tho

------
exabrial
Horses were so incredibly useful to humans, it changed their entire
evolutionary course. If I recall correctly, out of the thousands of species of
horses, there is only one truly "wild" one left. Any other horses that are
untamed and raised in nature are actually feral.

I love the animals. They're like big dogs that don't understand how truly
massive they are.

~~~
bwanab
In high school, I had a summer and after-school job cleaning a local horse
stable. Up to then I'd had no introduction to horses. This job entailed being
in the stalls with the individual horses and shoveling around them. Due to my
prompting or self-motivated they'd often move around these fairly tight
spaces. I was always amazed at how nimble they were in the sense that they
always seemed to know where to put their hoofs to not step on my toes.

------
a2tech
A memorial to the almost 1 million horses, donkeys, and mules that died in
World War 1 is being built in England:

[https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/789444/War-
Horse-M...](https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/789444/War-Horse-
Memorial-Ascot-honour-First-World-War-heroes)

------
nikanj
"At the turn of the 20th century some 130,000 horses were at work on any given
day in New York City, and 20 of them died daily."

I wonder how many cars get totalled in NY per day

~~~
dreen
The article at
[http://qi.com/infocloud/horses](http://qi.com/infocloud/horses) gives a
figure more than twice that and offers this additional bit of info:

"Dead horses were unwieldy, and street cleaners often waited several days for
the corpses to putrefy so they could more easily be sawed into pieces."

~~~
himlion
Why weren't they commonly eaten? A lot of fine meat I'd say in a time when
meat was relatively more expensive.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Same reason we don't eat random dead deer at the side of the road...

~~~
logfromblammo
...we don't?

Ah, you must live in one of those... whaddyacallem... cities.~

Roadkill is very often eaten by _something_ , though if a human wants to do
it, they have to pick it up before the county gets to it. After that, it's
literally off the table. The exact method of disposal depends on jurisdiction,
but some places have a sanctuary or research facility for carnivorous species
nearby.

A random dead deer in NW Indiana, for instance, might get picked up by Wolf
Park research facility, stored in their freezer, and fed to the main pack
(still frozen).

Dead horses were picked up by knackers and turned into dodgy sausages all the
time. This was just one of the unsafe food practices that led to the
establishment of the FDA and public health inspectors.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Same thing happens here in MN. If it's within a certain distance of the wolf
research facility (the exact name escapes me ATM) in Ely, it's taken there as
food for their wolves.

However, since I'm human, I assumed the preposition "we" did not apply in this
case.

And, FWIW, I live on a farm.

~~~
logfromblammo
Oh, it does. Roadkill definitely gets eaten by people. At least one person,
anyway.

If anyone wants to ride in on their high horse, I'd eat that too. Nobody does
it who can afford not to.

Or nutters like Gary Busey.

------
forkLding
I thought traditionally oxen were considered draught animals and primarily
used in medieval agriculture around the world no matter the country.

Horses I presume were used but I'm thinking they were much more expensive and
less multi-purpose than oxen?

I mean one can also point out a period where civilization was between a pre-
oxen standard and that of post-oxen. I understand the part horses play in war
but agriculture tends to affect more in history generally speaking.

~~~
gascan
I'm not well-versed, but the reason you see oxen dominant in antiquity is
because the ox yoke is far simpler to make than horse collar.

I'd be curious to hear about distinct advantages to plow horses. They must
exist, otherwise no one would plow with horses.

~~~
woodandsteel
Horses are stronger and have much better endurance. From what I have read the
reason for oxen being used as draft animals is that the horse collar had not
yet been invented. Once it was, agricultural production skyrocketed, and the
new wealth made possible the Middle Ages.

~~~
motohagiography
A technology change in the 1730s made horses viable viable plow animals. It
was a lighter metal plow (name escapes me), and ploughmen switched from oxen
to horses.

Horses were previously used mainly for military and business transportation
via carriage and carts, but this change made them economical for farmers and
ploughmen.

Thing is, the temperament and intelligence of horses were different, and the
non-military horseman as a profession was born. That was the origin of a lot
of the so-called "gypsy," mysticism about "whispering," as there were tricks
of the trade that ploughmen used to protect their business.

The history is fascinating, and not unlike the way crypto is today. Where a
former exclusively military technology proliferated to a trade class, who
organized to "professionalize," it to preserve the integrity and value of its
secrets.

They formed something called "the society of the horseman's word," which was a
pseudo-masonic group modeled after what Millers had done in their own trade.
There is a bunch of hocus pocus around their history, but viewed as a trade
association or guild, it makes economic sense.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Hm. Horse collars were the major invention to allow horses to pull a plow.
They were in use in Europe since 1000AD.

~~~
motohagiography
According to a history of ploughman culture, it was a lighter metal plow that
made them economical vs. oxen in the 1730s.

~~~
woodandsteel
"The horse collar eventually spread to Europe c. 920 AD, and became universal
by the 12th century.[21] The Scandinavians were among the first to utilize a
horse collar that did not constrain the breathing passages of the horses.[22]
Prior to this development, oxen still remained the primary choice of animal
for farm labor, as all the previous harnesses and collars could only be worn
by them without physical penalty."

\--[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_collar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_collar)

I guess your history of ploughman culture is mistaken.

~~~
motohagiography
Not disputing horse collar. Point made in a history of horsemanship (an in
turn ploughman trades) was that the trade of ploughmen in england moved away
from oxen more to horses as the result of a change in plough design.

This excerpt may have been the design change that was referenced.

"There was little attempt to change the design of the plough until the mid
1600's with the Dutch being among the first in improving its shape. This
change in shape was soon discovered in Northern England and Scotland with
Joseph Foljambe from Rotherham building and patented a plough having what was
described as, the perfect implement then in use."

"[http://www.ploughmen.co.uk/about-us/history-of-the-
plough"](http://www.ploughmen.co.uk/about-us/history-of-the-plough")

Perhaps there is a more direct way to discredit the implications of my
original post?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Discredit? Sorry, not intended. Just confused, since horses had been in use
for ploughing for centuries. Unaware of any sea change in technique.

And in America of course we credit John Deere for reinventing the moldboard
plow in the early 1800's. Sadly we weren't taught of any English innovations
in school.

~~~
motohagiography
I did not intend to come off as salty as my comment reads either, no snark
intended.

------
jankotek
> _While 600,000 men lost their lives in the Civil War, some 1.5 million
> horses and mules also perished._

Horse is an animal. I find it highly disturbing to compare their 'loses' to
actual humans.

~~~
NinjaKitten
That's just an insensitive comment of yours. As if it being just an "animal"
somehow means that it was less of a loss or tragedy. Because its "just" an
animal should we not compare numbers to numbers for perspective? Isn't that a
rather silly stance to have when talking about deaths in the first place?

Humans are an animals too, the most numerous in fact. We should show some
empathy and understanding in regards to all life. Not separate and somehow
feel indifferent about anything "non-animal".

~~~
NinjaKitten
Correction: *anything "non-human".

------
bambax
> _One animal [the horse] was so decisive in shaping human history..._

What a Western-centric view.

Entire human civilizations developed for centuries or millennia, without
horses -- they really don't conform to the phases of "pre-horse, horse and
post-horse" because they were never "horse".

It's possible (although ill-conceived and wrong) to argue that there is no
history and no culture outside of Western civilization; but then one should
make an argument about it, not simply ignoring immense parts of the human
adventure.

~~~
Spooky23
Pretty much all of the horseless civilizations got rolled over by people with
horses.

The quote wasn't that "no civilization existed without horses", it was that
the horse was "decisive in shaping human history".

When you consider what happened to advanced civilizations like the Aztec and
Inca when they interfaced with horseborne civilizations, the point makes
sense, and isn't doing so by marginalizing people who didn't have horses.

