You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_jb51gga wrote



[deleted] t1_jb53zgj wrote



[deleted] t1_jb68265 wrote



[deleted] t1_jb6e6qy wrote



[deleted] t1_jb6d159 wrote



KingSnowdown t1_jb4xqaf wrote

would've thought a few thousand years longer


nuck_forte_dame t1_jb4zjwf wrote

Yeah. Seriously like the Egyptians used them and they were a long ways back. According to this they must have only used them very late.


[deleted] t1_jb50fso wrote

This is about riding, the Egyptians used chariots.


matthewisonreddit t1_jb56lr9 wrote

Do historians think that chariots came before bareback riding?

Surely a chariot requires loads of design and infrastructure while riding requires a relationship and thats it?


187ninjuh t1_jb5biwo wrote

You need big horses to ride on their back. You can use smaller ones to pull a chariot


A0ma t1_jb5xkcu wrote

You can even use a little ass


atomikitten t1_jb6imff wrote

I am betting horses also pulled things before they pulled a person in a chariot.


PetsArentChildren t1_jb5nanw wrote

Ancient horses were tiny compared to modern horses. More like ponies. Chariots work better with small horses because the chariot bears your weight and you can use multiple horses together.


cgn-38 t1_jb5s1gh wrote

Yep. A lot of the old roman "dude on horse" statues are hilarious.

Looks like they are riding on a donkey. Because that was just as big as horses got then.


SparkyDogPants t1_jb6674f wrote

Wdym about donkeys? Most are the same size as horses today


A_Harmless_Fly t1_jb6attn wrote

Sure you aren't thinking of mules?


Nolsoth t1_jb8msph wrote

I've seen some big bloody donkeys ( bigger than a pony) but that's probably more due to genetic trait selection over the last couple thousand years


Jamma-Lam t1_jb6amn4 wrote

All these domestic animals were much smaller before we genetically selected for larger and larger animals which took hundreds of not thousands of years to get giant horses like Clydesdales.


tossawaybb t1_jb6lqzf wrote

Just a couple hundred really. Selective breeding is typically quite quick, as evidenced by the English bulldog. Wasn't that long ago they were just a little shorter and stouter than regular dogs


thebeandream t1_jb75601 wrote

Weren’t ancient humans also smaller though? Or was it not proportionate enough to make a difference?


PetsArentChildren t1_jb7ffnw wrote

The Assyrians and Chinese did develop horseback riding, but each had to invent/adopt new technology in order to do so: the former, the martingale collar, the latter, stirrups. Apparently riding a horse bareback into battle means you’re likely to fall off and get stabbed!


MillionEyesOfSumuru t1_jb7k94a wrote

Stirrups were also necessary for the use of lances on horseback, unless you wanted to be knocked off the back of your horse by the impact. Their later spread across Europe changed the shape of warfare, and really of the societies themselves.


Peter_deT t1_jb92b78 wrote

Stirrups originated on the steppe quite late - 4th-5th century CE and spread both east and west. Before that, cavalry was still effective - as the Persians, Hannibal, Alexander and others showed. You could, with training, use spears and swords without falling off. The Sassanid Persians developed heavy cavalry, with high-cantled saddles, extensive armour and lances, before stirrups.


PetsArentChildren t1_jb93s22 wrote

You’re right. I misunderstood my first source.

> After the creation of a special cavalry unit, the peoples of the ancient Near East and China made some innovations to the equine equipment in order to control their horses during fighting. The “martingale” collar was probably an innovation of the Near East, and stirrups were invented in ancient China.

On my first read, that sounded to me like these happened concurrently. Upon closer reading, the paper actually indicates China had cavalry 600 or more years before the stirrup. Thank you!


SeaJay1187 t1_jb7ucta wrote

Humans were a lot smaller just 150 years ago. I went to a museum at mass general hospital called the ether dome. It is an actual OR from the 1800s (the first one that used anesthesia, ether)…. Many of the doors around were from around then. Very small…. Also the chairs were so small. Go to Fenway park and you’ll see the seats weren’t meant for modern people either (not a fat joke)


Dilapidated_Monk t1_jb6ho7d wrote

Chariots absolutely came before horseback riding. It took thousands of years of horse breeding before humans were able to breed horses large enough to ride. This is verifiable fact backed by genetic testing of horses and many many papers written by distinguished scientists.


forwardseat t1_jb7u34p wrote

The most similar domesticated horses to the original wild horses are probably the small horses the Mongolians are famous for. They’re very sturdy but very small. Horses don’t need to be very large to be effective riding animals, so I’m not sure the delay there was just about size of the animal.


KeenK0ng t1_jb8qyaw wrote

Kids would ride their parent's animals. I wouldn't doubt they were riding horses before Chariots.


Worsaae t1_jbdrr8h wrote

> while riding requires a relationship and thats it?

It also requires an animal that has been specifically bioengineered through many-many-many generations in order to achieve the size and physique in order to actually carry a person.


danathecount t1_jb51yow wrote

Very late? Ancient Egypt as a kingdom formed right around this time.


WyngZero t1_jb58s83 wrote

That's what I was thinking too. The Pyramids date back 5000 years ago or so. I'd imagine humans well figured out how to ride a horse before building the pyramids.

I mean, the Pyramids are so ancient by the time Caesar went to Egypt the Pyramids were already considered ancient.


virishking t1_jb5gmi0 wrote

You can’t necessarily make that comparison since you’re dealing with different groups of people. This study indicates the Yamnaya- a pastoralist people of the Pontic-Caspian steppe- were riding horses several hundred years before the great pyramid was built in Egypt. It’s also important to note that horse domestication =/= horse riding. Even this article notes evidence of horse domestication that predates this. Meat, milk, pack animals, chariots, these things all likely predate horse riding given that wild horses didn’t have backs strong enough for it. Horse riding likely would’ve come along after generations of domestic horse breeding for those purposes.


tossawaybb t1_jb6mel0 wrote

Yep. The big thing is food availability. Large horse breeds can't subsist purely off grass, there just aren't enough calories in there. Supplementing with grain, however, works quite well. Even without intentional selective breeding, domestication improved their food prospects enough to enable larger and larger horses


[deleted] t1_jb6340l wrote

It took some time for the horse to become strong enough to carry a human. That is artificial selection that played the role of evolution


HoarseCoque t1_jb6v68t wrote

Egypt didnt have horses until well after then. The Hyksos brought them to Egypt when they invaded around 1600 bc


IamPurgamentum t1_jb6776h wrote

The whole timeline seems off to me. Think of how many things that have been invented in the last 100 years and then then 100 before that.

It seems crazy to me that these guys were around supposedly just 5000 years ago and that they didn't have the same graduations in learning and technology.

Riding a horse seems pretty basic, especially given that people back then are perceived as being closer to nature.


WyngZero t1_jb6dacz wrote

In all fairness technological development for the last 100 years is hyperbolically steeper than anytime in human history and even the 100 years prior (the first car patent is supposedly from 138 years ago).


IamPurgamentum t1_jb6dwx8 wrote

Does that not follow though? I mean, you would expect it to be exponential. My point is more that there is still a huge amount of time in between now and then. That's without getting to the 'how did they do all these things and what's their purpose' bit.

It seems logical that there would be more advances even back then.

The sumarians who came before the Egyptians were also quite advanced, and again you're talking about 1000s of years between the two civilisations.

It just seems strange to me.


walruskingmike t1_jb6lsos wrote

You used the word exponential and then failed to understand that it is basically exponential and that's the exact reason technological advances didn't happen nearly as often back then. Something like a J-curve can be basically flat for a very long time before going near-vertical in a relatively short amount of time.

It took a long time to breed horses large enough to be ridden. The last remaining wild horse species is Przewalski's horse, and it's only 122-142cm at the shoulder. Light riding horses today are 142-163cm, while larger riding horses are 157-173cm; and then you have heavy draft horses, who are 163-183cm. It wasn't just a matter of some dude hopping onto a horse and going "aha!". People probably tried riding horses the moment they were domesticated, but they weren't large enough to do it reliably yet; it'd be like riding into battle on a pony or a donkey.


IamPurgamentum t1_jb6nxcy wrote

OK. Then what about someone who isn't an adult?

You're missing my point entirely. My argument isn't so much about technology. It's about the length of time.

I'm not arguing that they should have advanced as much but merely that they should have advanced. People would have made discoveries, practices and methods would have changed. To my knowledge the human brain hasn't changed that much. People would still be inquisitive.

The presentation we are given with articles such as this only feeds the impression that people were basic and that they did not think in the way we do. In basic terms they weren't that advanced. That doesn't really follow through.


walruskingmike t1_jb6y53q wrote

So you're suggesting that children rode horses before adults? What for? Baby soldiers? Why would that practice spread in the way you think it would?

No one is suggesting that they didn't make technological advancements. They did. Where did you hear that people "didn't advance"? Also, you're starting to sound an awful lot like social darwinism.

If you have even a cursory knowledge of archaeology, then you know that there have been a lot of technological developments over thousands of years, but technology is iterative; it gets faster and easier the more that has already been done. Rate of technological advances also increase alongside literacy, so before writing was developed, it all had to be passed down verbally, i.e., there's no library to hold all of the designs. I don't know why you're drawing this bizarre conclusion because of when ridable horses were first developed. Horse riding isn't indicative of much except riding horses.


IamPurgamentum t1_jb6ynas wrote

If technology and advances are exponential then does it not stand to reason that horse riding would have developed far earlier?

That's all I was getting at. Stereotype me all you want if it helps you.


walruskingmike t1_jb714hz wrote

No, it doesn't stand to reason. You have to domesticate them first; and remember that a horse can easily kill a man, even a small one. This means you need to have a good reason to devote resources to doing that, you need to already have the other technologies that go alongside animal husbandry, and you need to be in the right place at the right time to even be around horses.

Technological advancements don't happen just because, and cultural change isn't some linear path that everyone on earth is going down the same way; if it were, people in sub Saharan Africa would've domesticated Zebras a long time ago and done the same thing as people in Eurasia did with horses, but they didn't; it clearly wasn't worth doing for them.


IamPurgamentum t1_jb73e6v wrote

We're talking about a civilisation that made gigantic structures in an unknown way, that as best as we can sumise used pulleys to move extremely heavy items. You don't think animals would be involved in that in some way, you don't don't think that someone at something in those thousands of years would wonder about about riding them? People ride elephants that can crush them in seconds, they keep monkeys that could rip their faces off as pets. Enki is oftern depicted with a tame lion. In a traditional hunter gatherer sense you would want to understand animal behaviour. As we've discussed, this carries on to other things. It's difficult to imagine going that far with an animal such as a horse but ignoring something like riding it when it has been drawn on so many times throughout history. Everything is always improved on, but it always starts with the basics. It's very rare to overlook the fundamentals of these advancements because they have even around so long. Horses were and are used for many things.

The zebra part is interesting but again it plays into the view that these people knew what they were doing. Zebras are perceived as more equal to donkeys. As such, it's likely that in times past people realised this and so prioritised horses.


walruskingmike t1_jb76hav wrote

You're simply ignoring that horses leave skeletons when they die and we can measure those skeletons. We know when they could be ridden and when they couldn't. They needed to be bred for riding; engineering an animal to grow by 40% isn't simple and takes a long time. You're just making false equivalencies to other technologies based on nothing but conjecture.

And by your own logic that people should've decided to develop horse riding much earlier, then people in sub Saharan Africa should've been riding around on Zebras. They weren't "prioritizing horses" because horses are not a native species. They were brought into sub Saharan Africa relatively recently, so why didn't people ride Zebras when there were no horses present, a period that lasted tens of thousands of years? By your logic, it should've happened. And if zebras are perceived more like donkies, then that also applies to early horses, which mentioned earlier. A zebra and early horses are about the same size, so the conditions are about equal.


IamPurgamentum t1_jb788tf wrote

No, that's not my argument and you keep mentioning zebras when we have just established the difference between a zebra, a horse and a donkey. There is a difference of intelligence. To advocate that this is what was used and regarded enough to breed when other similar creatures were around is to acknowledge that they knew the difference. To know the difference means they are more than capable of considering and attempting to put someone on top of a horse, baring anything else. If you imported those creatures then the people before realised this and so on.

The size of the horse (unless it's massively smaller) is irrelevant, children were sent to work not so long ago.

You're are caught on your argument rather than considering the argument against it. People are people.


walruskingmike t1_jb87cr3 wrote

You keep shifting your goalpost and ignoring like half of what I say in each comment. Now suddenly early horses were chosen because they're so much smarter than zebras and donkeys. Did you ever think that maybe horses have been bred for their intelligence? They're also nearly half a meter taller now too, because we bred them for it. Did you personally compare the intelligence of early horses to zebras? Hell, even to Przewalski's horse, if you want to get comparative about it. Because if not, you have no point here, just more guesses.

We're back to child cavalry now, are we? What exactly can you get done more with a child on the back of a horse that you couldn't get done by just having the horse pull something? Bear in mind, that in order to tame a horse for riding so that it won't buck you off, you need someone to break it in while on its back, a back that won't hold an adult; even modern horses don't like this process when feral and they've been bred for this for thousands of years. So now you need tweens breaking them in. So you're arguing that a culture decided to have their children try to be the first horsemen, something that's incredibly dangerous and at that point hadn't been tried; and for what reason, you still haven't said. Not to mention, there is exactly zero evidence for child-only horsemanship in either history or archaeology; but hey, it makes you think you're clever.

I guess all of history, anthropology, and archeology are wrong, though, and some dude on the internet is right. You got me. Go ahead and respond in whatever way makes you feel smartest if you really feel like you need the last word. I won't be reading it.


vashoom t1_jb7o1yk wrote

> exponential

You keep using that word but are not understanding what it means. The further back you go on an exponential curve, the shallower it gets. Technological advancements are exponential. That's why they're faster now and slower way back when.

But that's also a simplification, because "humanity" is not a single entity with a single development curve. Civilizations grow and advance and then develop new technology and societal complexity faster and faster, and then they stagnate/fall, new ones evolve and branch off of them, etc.

Also there are major differences in society and technology between 5000 years ago and 1000 years ago, so I don't even understand your premise.

Lastly, why would riding animals need to be something a culture developed early? Animals are far more useful as food, wool, beasts of burden, etc. It also requires pretty sophisticated techniques and technology to effectively ride animals, especially on battle (stirrups for one thing). Hitching a cart, which were human powered before, to an animal is actually less complicated than developing horseback riding.


tossawaybb t1_jb6neer wrote

It pretty much is, you can't forget that an exponential curve looks the same no matter how much you "zoom" in. It takes ten thousand years to go from stone to bronze, a thousand years from bronze to iron, and then merely a few hundred years to go from simple steam coal mine pumps to nuclear-heated steam-electric turbines. You don't see an enormous change in quality of life for the average person, but the reality is that each of these advancements absolutely rocked their contemporary world. Combined with how technological advancement only takes hold with economic incentive (steam engines have been around for a thousand years, their uses have not) you get what looks like very little progress until just now. But in reality there was constant independent innovation and improvement around the world.


Ganajin t1_jb5pgwf wrote

They used them to pull things, which is not riding them.


onelittleworld t1_jb6ockr wrote

They didn't have them at first, no. The people who built the pyramids, sphinx, etc. did so without horses.

They didn't have horses in widespread use until after the first and middle kingdoms were dead and gone. True fact.


HoarseCoque t1_jb6uxcp wrote

Egypt didnt have horses until the Hyksos invaded around 1600 bc


HoarseCoque t1_jb6uikg wrote

Iirc, the arrival of horses to the fertile crescent and so forth only goes back to the Gutians


Dense_Surround3071 t1_jb87sgy wrote

Especially considering how long we've had dogs. That seems like a lot of human history with a REALLY big missed opportunity running around out there.


PussyStapler t1_jb4xz61 wrote

TLDR: scientists used to think Humans started riding horses 4000 years ago, based on art depictions. Then they found some skeletons with changes to suggest they rode horses.


lobsterbash t1_jb5wkfm wrote

Horse domestication must have gone hand-in-hand with the spread of proto-indo-european language (and related culture), so this is a significant discovery.


Worsaae t1_jbdrvsi wrote

Absolutely. The Yamnaya expansion happened insanely fast. That kind of speed migration and expansion was probably only possible if you had a fast vehicle like a horse. Either to drag your chariots or for you to ride.


cquinn5 t1_jb4w260 wrote

If you’ve ever observed people who work with horses (or observed a horse’s intelligence), it makes a lot of sense we would be interacting with them for many thousands of years.

Much like the domestication of wolves into dogs, that sort of social intelligence/awareness with humans takes a LONG time


ThePlanetBroke t1_jb4zfcu wrote

Agreed. I think the shock is that it has ONLY been 5000 years. We built cities, had agriculture, even basic plumbing, long before we have evidence for riding horses. I find it one of those fascinating steps on our journey as a species.


NautilusPanda t1_jb5741q wrote

It’s interesting that in the new world they had massive civilizations in central and southern Americas without any domesticated riding animals (just lamas and alpacas as load bearers).


chainmailbill t1_jb5z826 wrote

Also without tool metallurgy or a practical wheel and axle.

They worked gold, and they had little wheeled toys for kids, but they never figured out copper/bronze/iron or wheeled vehicles.


Morphized t1_jb66g66 wrote

I don't think wheels would have been very useful in a staircase-based society


chainmailbill t1_jb66k3a wrote

I agree, which is why they were never developed. There was no need, due to the twisty mountain paths and thick jungle.


Lajinn5 t1_jb6gbm4 wrote

Lack of large domesticated animals is also a fairly big factor. A big cart or wagon is great when you have creatures like horses or bulls, combined with staircases and terrain though? No big reason to make them


walruskingmike t1_jb6m7jl wrote

There was copper working near the Great Lakes for a while, but it wasn't used to make very many tools; it was largely used like a precious metal.


LeGama t1_jb6z3df wrote

Similar fun fact, the bow has been used for thousands of years for hunting and war, but the far more efficient compound bow was invented after the nuke.


hucktard t1_jbb3b3z wrote

People have been mining and using copper in the Americas for like 8000 years though.


chainmailbill t1_jbb845r wrote

I should have been more specific when I said metallurgy; I’m talking about turning ore to metal via smelting, and then alloying those metals with other metals to make useable materials for tools and weapons.

There’s no evidence that smelting existed in any capacity in the precolombian Americas.


hucktard t1_jbcsih2 wrote

Yeah, sorry to be so pedantic. I recently learned that fact about copper mining in North America and it blew my mind a little so I had to comment.


SparkyDogPants t1_jb68l9y wrote

Riding horses came after domestication. They were originally too small


Beer_Bad t1_jb590rz wrote

Right. You would have thought nomadic people would have used horses long, long before agriculture and settling into cities were a thing.


helm t1_jb772q3 wrote

Dogs are the first domesticated animal.

What's been lacking is pictures. Apparently the Yamnaya did not paint their riding activities in caves so it could be preserved for millennia.


OldKingCanary t1_jb514fh wrote

Well we see when horses did come around the culture that first domesticated them basically took over most of the damn world. Like a proto-mongol empire, the yavanna people swept over much of Asia and all of Europe and took over the leadership roles in the civilizations they conquered. That's why Indo European languages and customs are so absurdly wide spread


OldKingCanary t1_jb50rav wrote

I think that may have more to do with how horses are used as domesticated animals. They're like dogs in that they need to understand commands and like dogs the survival of their human depends on the animal so the animals were likely bred to be social and able to take ques. Also a huge thing with horses is getting them to be less excitable and willing to do whatever the human tells them to do. Horses do NOT naturally ride into battle, but they can with the right training and condition.

Basically they're not like farm animals who exist to mostly do simple work or for food. Horses needed to understand complex commands so they were bred to be able to read humans extremely well. Way more so than say a cow or sheep.


[deleted] t1_jb51hhd wrote



DoctorZiegIer t1_jb5owqq wrote

Ancient horses were too small and didn't have a back strong enough to support riding.


Horse were definitely already semi or fully domesticated, plenty of evidence shows they were used to pull chariots and carry cargo, but to carry an entire person with no issues requires bigger and stronger horses that probably didn't yet exist before ~3000 BC


Horses were used over 5000 years ago, but we couldn't yet ride them, they could not handle our load


missingdab t1_jb7q0m4 wrote

How small and weak could the horses have been? Ok, maybe the biggest and strongest members of the tribe would break the animals back, but you don't think some scrawny, teenage members of the group wouldn't be able to ride? Those are the ones who probably came up with such a dumb idea.


TheGreatFallOfChina t1_jb4zwdv wrote

Conveniently, just after the smilodon went extinct!


A0ma t1_jb5y1fw wrote

Smilodon should have been the mount of choice TBH


MF_Bfg t1_jb558z1 wrote

At the end another academic cautions that whole they were probably riding horses, they could have been riding other animals and specifically mentions mules.

Mules are the offspring of a female horse and a male ass or donkey. So not only would horses already have to be domesticated to breed mules, they would also have to have access to donkeys - which they did not in the area surveyed during the time period being discussed. I don't see how it could be any other animal but a horse.

Edit: Had the sexes of the equines backwards


ReddJudicata t1_jb5m6ho wrote

Horses likely were kept as meat animals long before they were ridden.


MF_Bfg t1_jb5nxqh wrote

True!! Good thinking. I guess they might have made mules with onagers.


hcshenoy t1_jb81qw5 wrote

Actually mules are the offspring of a FEMALE horse and a MALE donkey. The ones you refer to are called hinnies.


[deleted] t1_jb5blwl wrote

There’s a joke in here somewhere about mormons and tapirs. (For those who don’t know, mormons believe indigenous Americans were wielding steel weapons and riding horses, when the only “horses” on the continent, in that era, were tapirs. So it’s a running amusement).


onelittleworld t1_jb6ps6c wrote

People are always stunned to learn that most of the languages in Europe and the near-east are all related and derive from a common ancestor language (Indo-European). And they are also stunned to learn that horse culture (i.e. horse-based transportation) is only a few thousand years old.

Not too many figure out that these two facts are closely related to each other. The people who revolutionized transportation spread their language, culture and religion everywhere they went.


wefarrell t1_jb5180h wrote

I can’t imagine the thought process that led to a human jumping on top of a wild animal and trying to ride it. Alcohol must have been involved.


ihavemassivebreasts t1_jb5x7eh wrote

That’s not how it works. We domesticated horses long before we got on their backs.


[deleted] t1_jb6v5bl wrote

Probably longer. Horses, like dogs are very aware and sensitive to human voices, body language and even facial expressions. They can even copy your behavior without being trained if they were inclined to do so. Highly curious, intelligent, and socially complex. They are more cat-like than dog like though. They strike a bargin and expect something in return. They have lots of opinions, especially a mare.


LordCaptain t1_jb83vgh wrote

That first horse was like "alright but just this one time" and ruined things for all the other horses


druppolo t1_jb77684 wrote

The problem was the horses were naturally smaller than the ones we artificially breed later.

So unless you happen to be in a place where horses are naturally big, you would look like a total idiot going around on a struggling pony that will have a broken back very soon.

Still totally possible there was an area where horses could grew stronger due to climate and people did profit of it way earlier. I mean, if 5000 years ago was possible, maybe it happen even earlier than 5000 year ago if there were big horses not man-breeded.


AutoModerator t1_jb4o0os wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


Janus_The_Great t1_jb6z0od wrote

We have had hunches that it might have been earlier, but with this we have scientific evdence to show for.


RaceSinclair t1_jb8a6al wrote

Hey! I betcha’ I can ride one of those.


ralpher1 t1_jb8beoo wrote

I wonder who was the first human who looked at a horse and thought “oh yeah, I want to ride that.”


lotuspeter t1_jb8o9kw wrote

I’d have thought before then too. There’d have been a point when Keith realised he could get to his girlfriend’s house a lot quicker on one.


m15otw t1_jb8s4ai wrote

This seems like too recent a line. Surely we were riding horses earlier?


Mario501 t1_jbapcde wrote

Yeah? Well I started riding ur mum 5 years ago


TerminationClause t1_jb6sw8p wrote

Why can I picture alcohol being involved with the first person to try to ride a wild horse?


Deweydc18 t1_jb85ez6 wrote

This does not feel like a very surprising or noteworthy timeline. We know Hittites did in the 3rd millennium BC from written records. This seems like exactly what I would guess


DoubleCTech t1_jb7ebaz wrote

Only 5,000 years ago? No one thought of doing it before then?


DeepSpaceNebulae t1_jb9t4yg wrote

The original horses were quite small. They’re only very large now because of thousands of years of selectively breading them to be ridden

And there was probably some horseback riding before, but speculation without evidence is meaningless. This is simply the earliest evidence we have


Koffeekage t1_jb85q0l wrote

Man it was probably way earlier than that.


CarCus86 t1_jb8684e wrote

Brendan sclob said Gagus Khan was the First...


[deleted] t1_jb5w8ks wrote



mithradatdeez t1_jb6ga26 wrote

This is insanely speculative and baseless. Historical records aren't the only thing these estimates are based on. Pre domesticated horses were too small to be ridden like modern horses are, and the increase in size necessary to be ridden is evident in horse remains.


randylikecandy t1_jb6p8hv wrote

So for at least 5,000 years we have been torturing and abusing one species of animal.


B-Bog t1_jb57a0k wrote

Anybody else find it weird that we keep those animals locked up so we can sit on their backs from time to time? And even make them compete in tournaments and such? Like, I'm not a PETA activist or anything, but the whole thing just seems weird to me when taking a step back.


Beer_Bad t1_jb59ipa wrote

As long as we do it humanely I don't see an issue. We see a ton of piggybacking throughout the animal kingdom from parasites to more complex symbiotic relationships. And then from another perspective, the animal world is insanely cruel to each other. It's just the circle of life. Domesticated horses can/do live happy, full lives. I'm completely against any inhumane treatment of animals we use for utility or otherwise, but utilizing the utility of horses, mules, camels, ect doesn't have to be inherently cruel, especially in comparison to how the animal kingdom interacts with itself.


AthenasChosen t1_jb5ezko wrote

They've been bred for thousands of years to be our companions and be ridden by people. They enjoy the jobs they have, particularly draft horses.


danielravennest t1_jb5ots6 wrote

If you had lived over a hundred years ago, keeping horses would seem as normal as keeping cars are today. The US horse population fell dramatically after 1920 as cars became common.


thebeandream t1_jb7au3p wrote

I mean…we also clean them and protect them from predators along with providing clean food and water for them. They also aren’t stuck in a paddock 24/7. Horses usually are given a pasture.