How common was a having a horse?

Submitted by UM_Chapter_Champ t3_y79irn in history

Hello all!

I’m in a debate with some friends about horses and how common they were. I’m taking the stance that horse ownership was pretty Common in a lot of cultures and they were part of everyday life for most people. They are taking the stance that only the elite and Nobel had horses. I understand that in Europe during the time of kings and colonial America horses were most commonly owned by the wealthy. But even at that my understanding was that most people who had a farm even if it was small had a horse. I’m also making the argument that the tribes and nomads of Eurasia where horses first became domesticated would have had a culture where every warrior would have their own horse. I’m not really finding great results on the Google so I figured someone here may be able to help point me in the right direction or have some cool knowledge to share. Thank you!

edit: a lot of awesome, well thought out responses here and I appreciate you guys!

21

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

FriendlyEngineer t1_ister12 wrote

You will have to vastly narrow down you’re question to get any real answer. The answer will be dramatically different depending on time period, location, culture etc.

Ancient Egyptian peasant? No horse. Roman pleb from 100AD? Still no horse. Mongolian in 1250? Weird if you don’t have a horse. Native American pre 1492? What’s a horse? American settler in 1820? You might have a horse.

Also are we counting Donkeys and Mules as horses? Horses are very good for getting around quickly but not the best working the fields pulling plows, etc. Farmers generally used Mules, Donkeys, Oxen.

106

bluelion70 t1_istulzt wrote

I just wrote out an entire reply to this question, and just before I pressed post I saw that you’d hit literally every single point I was trying to mention, even using nearly the same year examples. Well played, sir, well played.

27

dovetc t1_isxvasa wrote

Now you've got me feeling bad for that hypothetical Mongol in 1250 with no horse. Having the jog alongside the horde.

3

DarthSeti_ t1_it1egba wrote

What a comprehensive answer, bravo sir 👍🏾

1

phoenixtrilobite t1_istgalp wrote

It's important to remember that the economic forces that have made car ownership so widespread in the present did not exist in most of history, and an entirely different set of forces governed the likelihood of horse ownership or access. Be careful about generalizing too much from the present.

Edit: not that you were explicitly doing this in your post, of course. But I've found that some people tend to assume that, since cars "replaced" horses, then there were as many horses roaming the streets back then as there are cars today.

9

Regulai t1_iste7ds wrote

Extremly ammbiguous question but:

So until around the 14-1500's ranching and mass animal availability wasnt very big. There are lots of specific regional exceptions but on average they wernt that common. Plains tribes often had more animals due to being easier then farming in grasslands and more central to culture and life.

In say europe though a family might have had a single horse or cow or otherwise to do labour but it would primarily have been that a beast of burden. Often times families would share communal animals.

After the renisance ranching became more common and beasts of burden became incressingly cheaper and more available. By the time of american colonisation it was much more likely for every farm to have at least one beast of burden and by the 1800's there were more horses then farmworkers. Nearing the 1900's new technology saw horse population explode shortly before tractors started to replace them.

5

Ferengi_Earwax t1_istfkfq wrote

Yes most medieval villeins had an oxen if they could afford it. There are documents that explain villages would rent out an oxen to plow their fields through barter( or labor) from a person that had one. There's even documents of how a whole village shared the same oxen. Horses weren't used predominantly in ploughing until the late 18th century I believe. Villains/serfs belonged to the lord and lived on the lords land. He owed labor and rent, paid usually in working his masters field a certain amount of days. You then have free tenants who could move about as they like and didn't have to work the lords lands. There are stories of free peasants selling themselves back into serfdom to survive tough winters/failed harvests. At the top of the peasants were yeoman who could own land and probably employed multiple free peasants to help during harvest. They werent subject to the lord, but still would be subject to the lord that represented the crown in the area. They are obviously the most likely to afford their own oxen.

2

Druss369 t1_isuc7t1 wrote

Oh those nasty villains and their horses. Heroes had to make do with a mule!

3

ngorso t1_iswwjgc wrote

That‘s true for most of Europe for most of the middle ages, yes. Something I‘ve not seen mentioned though, is that in the absence of oxen, farmers would also use cows as beasts of burden. Especially here in Switzerland where cows were rather common in the high- and late middle ages. This was mostly due to the the nature of the terrain; up on the mountain slopes you can‘t feasibly farm grain, but you can have pastures for cattle, simply called „alps“ in German. The main settlements would generally remain in the down valleys where farming was possible, while the wealthier farmers could join the „Alpgenossenschaften“ for a fee, so they could send their cattle to the communally owned mountain pastures. This way cheese became the dominant export good for many alpine regions, something Switzerland is still known for today. It‘s worth mentioning also that, certainly in Switzerland, there tended to be more „free“ farmers toward the end of the middle ages (we even had a couple civil wars where farmers fought for their rights in the early modern period). Additionally, in Switzerland farmers in service to a lord tended to have more freedoms later on, having a fairly complex societal structure in which the lord didn‘t just have complete authority over the villages. Rather the village’s community appointed representatives, which then had to be either accepted or denied by the lord‘s representative. other than that, the lord‘s influence was mostly limited to managing legal matters and taxes, though often a sort of veto would be retained by the lord‘s representatives if they didn‘t like what the village council came up with, but it seems like this was rarely used. In many regards they enjoyed a surprising degree of autonomy. So, it was a lot more cooperative than you‘d think in a feudal society. I don‘t know how common this was in the rest of Europe though. Swiss farmers were rather infamous for rising up against the „natural order of things“ (the estates), especially after the Habsburg Wars and especially by Swabian lords before, during and after the Swabian War (called Swiss War in Germany). But that‘s another matter entirely.

As a quick aside: Hugary is also interesting to mention, as Hungarian cows and oxen were exported en masse into central Europe during the middle ages.

But yes, horses were really rather rare and expensive during much of the European middle ages. not just to buy but also to maintain, as they ate more than cows of the period (there is a pletitude of sources for this here in Switzerland, eg. Alpgenossenschaftsbücher). I read that English kings would often dwell in the houses of wealthy citizens when they were travelling, which put a large logistical burden on the host, since he had to feed all those horses - a king never travels alone. On a smaller scale, I‘ve seen the same sort of principle in a source about a prestigious abbess from western Germany, when she was visiting her domain. Apparently it put quite the strain on the hosts, not because they had to feed the abbess and her entourage, but because they suddenly had to feed dozens of horses. That leads me to believe that, even if they could afford one, peasants would likely not buy a horse since they cost a lot of upkeep. Oxen were the obvious choice.

2

Ferengi_Earwax t1_isy40qf wrote

I didn't know that about Switzerland and the "alps". Very interesting. I've heard stories about using using cows. It's not so far fetched because cows would be more attainable and served more than one purpose. I'm also aware of the rights granted to the lower classes in the late medieval to early Renaissance Era. Alot of fascinating rebellions that led to the common classes restoring some of their rights. I believe the holy Roman empire lended itself to the situation by being leas centrally dominated than France or England. From what I know it was a web of independent operators which were loosely grouped together, so rights could vary widely across the empire. Overall it seems the lower classes enjoyed more freedom and representation quit earlier than the rest of the western big powers. I was not aware that Hungary imported alot of cattle, but it would make sense due to the expansive grasslands. As for the last part about traveling nobles, that was the norm since the fall of the roman empire. Lords/kings would travel to designated areas staying with their vassals to dispense justice and no doubt for some, to ease their own financial burden. In English history, there are multiple nobles who bankrupted themselves readying their estates for an impending monarchs visit. They would do it to get into the monarchs good graces in hopes of lucrative contracts. There are stories where the monarch never showed up, and the lord ended up bankrupt anyway without the monarch reimbursing them with favors. I usually would never use from this site, but I've read it and it's well written. https://www.history.com/news/elizabeth-i-royal-progress-expense

1

yinzerthrowaway412 t1_istglgg wrote

Completely depends on time period and which culture and society you’re looking at. In antiquity, cavalry forces in Europe and the Middle East mainly consisted of nobles because they were the only ones that could afford their own horse. At the same time, there were nomadic tribes in the steppes where everyone had a horse because it was easier to raise animals than farm the land there.

So yeah it just depends on when and where.

5

Motor_Philosophy4687 t1_isvd1zj wrote

This question is kind of silly given that it seems that neither you or your friends have any historical baseline.

3

UM_Chapter_Champ OP t1_iswfycz wrote

The entire thing is indeed silly. I think it’s a hyperbolic statement to say we have no historical baseline lol.

1

Motor_Philosophy4687 t1_iswuih8 wrote

Well I mean you're asking the most general question ever that is completely time and space related. But plenty of people have said it already. The question 'Euhm how many people had horse???' is just historically ridiculous.

1

UM_Chapter_Champ OP t1_isxuwbo wrote

Well again, you’re missing the mark on what I was asking. I’ll clarify it for you. Have there been cultures/societies where horse ownership was common throughout history, or was it always reserved for the upper class or those with a lot of wealth and status? I don’t see how this is historically ridiculous. I understand that different times had different cultural norms. All I’m looking for is examples of different cultures where people had horses and since I’m not an equine history buff I figured I’d get some responses of different peoples that everyone had a horse. Seems like some people on this subreddit keep their noses held pretty high about their knowledge of the past. And to add on to this, you didn’t even give an answer. All you did was talk negatively about myself and my friends. Thanks for your contribution here chief. And what would a non historically ridiculous question look like? “What year was George Washington born?” Well that’s easily looked up and found, there’s no need to ask the question on here and look for more detailed and nuanced responses to a question I already agreed with you about being a bit silly in nature. So please enlighten me with your vast knowledge of horses or just stop.

2

Vdaggle t1_itb7c71 wrote

Ok so to be honest the only example that comes to mind is ancient mongolia, horses were extremely common for most people. However for a large portion of history and overall, most people didnt own horses. 1850’s america and onward had a lot of people owning horses as well but that has since declined

1

Motor_Philosophy4687 t1_isy5go2 wrote

There is so much leeway between 'where horses more owned in the past across social classes and cultures' which is an insanely broad question, and 'What year this did happen in' which is insanely specific and almost arbitrary, because it can be googled and you have the answer instantaneously.

An example of a question in between would be: 'Would you consider the Peace of Westphalia to mark the true beginning of international politics as we know it?' or 'Did mutually assured destruction really prevent the US and the SU from engaging one another?' or, more in line with your question, 'What time period in European history was horse ownership most common, and in what country?' or 'Which culture was most engaged in the glorification of horses as a military or working animal?'. You know, more specific but not too specific. It leaves room for discussion and interpretation. Now all you have are bewildered comments, due to the lack of specificity.

Concerning your question- which, again, lacks specifictiy -horse ownership varied extremely per culture, time period and class. There is really no universal answer.

0

UM_Chapter_Champ OP t1_isyj5ow wrote

It seems that you were able to narrow it down through your own thought processes and get to multiple answers that completely answer the question I asked. Without being much of a history buff and trying to be as objective as possible in relation to my arguments made in the discussion with my friends I posted the question as I did. I appreciate your feedback.

1

bdrwr t1_istn7qp wrote

What culture, time, and place? The answer depends on these factors.

1

AnaphoricReference t1_istolbp wrote

Do keep in mind that horses are difficult animals to feed compared to most livestock. And even more difficult to breed if they don't live in a large group, and you don't understand the process of artificially inseminating them. Horses are finicky about that. Just owning a stallion and mare is usually not good enough.

In areas with a lot of suitable pasture horses can be common, while in densely populated areas with no natural grass they are a luxury imported from abroad, difficult to keep alive over the winter.

Research on age and gender distributions of horse bones collections in the Roman empire and China shows that these cultures mostly imported their horses and breeding was relatively rare. Steppe peoples on the other hand ate and sold young stallions in great quantities.

In the relatively wet plains of Northern and Eastern Europe plowing with horses was common in the middle ages. In the drier landscapes of the mediteranean oxes were used for that purpose.

1

ninjaturtle56374 t1_isuijwt wrote

I am not historian but I am sure owning and caring for a horse was more expensive and difficult than having a modern car.

1

Rear-gunner t1_isxisc5 wrote

Yeah cars do not have to be fed each morning, do not get sick, etc.

1

StepSideways77 t1_isv654p wrote

Mongol warriors in the 12th century were said to have ten horses each when they invaded Europe, grass fed. Europeans fed their horses grain. London in 1900 was said to have 600.000 roaming it's streets on any day. Sorry, can't recall date, but would guess pre 2000 BC, Pharos legs bones, when examined, were curved from riding donkeys... 500 years later horse driven chariots are all over the place. The horses usefulness greatly increased when use of a harness that did not constrict their windpipe was invented.

1

Shadowrider1509 t1_istg95i wrote

Draft teams were probably more common than you imagine as they were needed to move freight and overland and do farm work.

0

bajaboy2000 t1_isw9dh3 wrote

My Grandmother had expressions that I assumed were Appalachian, but I discovered they were English. One of them was "If wishes were horses, we'd all ride."

0

ram905 t1_iswb01b wrote

Must have been common since no vehicles were there .

0