Overcoming The Obstacle Of Distance

[Xerographica]

The earliest humans in the Americas didn't discover that horses could be used to help overcome the obstacle of distance. But what if they had? It would have facilitated long-distance trade. But not just of good things (good ideas, food, tools, etc) but also of bad things (bad ideas, diseases, pests, etc). Would the good have outweighed the bad? This was certainly the case in Europe/Asia. I'm guessing that it would have also been the case in the Americas. The native Americans would have been greatly improved by a much greater exposure to new things. But they might not have reached the level of Europeans... simply because they benefited from a much larger trading area (Africa and Asia)... which meant more exposure to new things.

Flight really helps birds overcome the obstacle of distance. This means they expose themselves and the rest of nature to a much greater amount of new things. Do birds benefit from this? Definitely. Same with the rest of nature. It keeps things "interesting".

This forum helps us overcome the obstacle of distance. We expose each other to new things. Do we benefit from this? Definitely.

Perhaps most of you would agree that native Americans would have benefited from discovering that horses could be used to help overcome the obstacle of distance. But perhaps we disagree on the size of the benefit? I guess that the Americas would have been much more densely populated. Plus, the natives would have had much better boats. Better boats are better at overcoming the obstacle of distance. So imagine a multitude of native Americans using much better boats. What are the chances that they would have discovered Europe before the vikings discovered America?

In any case, whenever the two civilizations did meet, the outcome wouldn't have been so lopsided. Perhaps the Europeans still would have been generally more advanced... but in some areas they would have been less advanced. Each civilization had different geniuses. So when the obstacle of distance between the two civilizations was overcome, they both would have benefited, more or less, from each other's geniuses. The industrial revolution would have occurred much sooner and been much faster. Trains, cars and planes would have been invented a lot earlier which would have really helped us overcome the obstacle of distance. Same thing with computers and the internet. Chances are good that Mars would already have a colony.

So what do you think? And no, this really isn't yet another thinly veiled attempt to talk about my favorite topic. It really isn't. I swear. There's absolutely no connection between the two topics.

[Neanderthaland]

Even if they had "discovered" that horses could be used to "help overcome the obstacle of distance," it seems unlikely that it would have benefited them much since horses went extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene epoch.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Even if they had "discovered" that horses could be used to "help overcome the obstacle of distance," it seems unlikely that it would have benefited them much since horses went extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene epoch.

They should have bred llamas to be cavalry.

[Kenmoria]

Overcoming distance is important, but with most historical examples it wouldn't really have helped. Once one side gains faster transportation they have a massive advantage and would encircle and then kill their enemies. Imagine if Christopher Columbus had a plane, most of the world would have been enslaved.

[Ethel mermania]

If you want 5o go to Monaco
You have to ride the guanaco

[Minoa]

The internet, high-speed rail and air travel have made distance much less of a obstacle, in my opinion. If the hyperloop and the maglev goes into widespread use, then travelling the world will be less of an endeavour and more of a breeze.

[Xerographica]

Even if they had "discovered" that horses could be used to "help overcome the obstacle of distance," it seems unlikely that it would have benefited them much since horses went extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene epoch.

Horses and humans overlapped in the Americas. But even if they hadn't, the main point is to consider the difference it would have made if the earliest native Americans had used horses to help overcome the obstacle of difference.

[Neanderthaland]

Even if they had "discovered" that horses could be used to "help overcome the obstacle of distance," it seems unlikely that it would have benefited them much since horses went extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene epoch.

Horses and humans overlapped in the Americas. But even if they hadn't, the main point is to consider the difference it would have made if the earliest native Americans had used horses to help overcome the obstacle of difference.

That would have made them the first people on earth to domesticate the horse. Many Millennia ahead of Europeans, Asians, and Africans.

It also difficult to imagine what benefit it would have been, since wild horses aren't exactly rideable:

Since Native Americans didn't use plowed farming, or invent the wheel, early domesticated horses would have been of little use for them. Neither useful as a beast of burden, or as a means of pulling chariots. They might be useful to some later civilizations as a means of carrying building materials for great cities, but as it stands your scenario requires them to save an endangered animal, for no reason, in the hopes that one day they would be able to breed it into something they could ride. With no precedent to suggest it was even possible to succeed.

That's not a very smart use of resources. Your hypothetical requires them to have been psychic, or idiots.

[Xerographica]

Horses and humans overlapped in the Americas. But even if they hadn't, the main point is to consider the difference it would have made if the earliest native Americans had used horses to help overcome the obstacle of difference.

That would have made them the first people on earth to domesticate the horse. Many Millennia ahead of Europeans, Asians, and Africans.

There's always a first person to do something. I'm less interested in the likelihood of native Americans being the first (obviously they weren't) and more interested in the consequences if they had been.

Since Native Americans didn't use plowed farming, or invent the wheel, early domesticated horses would have been of little use for them. Neither useful as a beast of burden, or as a means of pulling chariots. They might be useful to some later civilizations as a means of carrying building materials for great cities, but as it stands your scenario requires them to save an endangered animal, for no reason, in the hopes that one day they would be able to breed it into something they could ride. With no precedent to suggest it was even possible to succeed.

Wild horses have to bred to be rideable? What, exactly, would the breeding accomplish? From what I can tell, there's little real difference between domesticated horses and wild ones.

Why do you think the first people domesticated horses anyways? For food?

Assuming that early native Americans had domesticated horses then, as I said in the OP, they would have used them to facilitate long-distance trade. Do you need me to provide you with a comprehensive list of all the things they would have traded with each other? Would this help you better understand the benefit of trade?

[Albrenia]

Horses make good beasts of burden too, even if riding them isn't possible. It would have at least helped trade.

Innovation and technology are odd things though. Isolated cultures can be advanced in some fields and entirely stunted in others.

[Greed and Death]

Horses and humans overlapped in the Americas. But even if they hadn't, the main point is to consider the difference it would have made if the earliest native Americans had used horses to help overcome the obstacle of difference.

That would have made them the first people on earth to domesticate the horse. Many Millennia ahead of Europeans, Asians, and Africans.

It also difficult to imagine what benefit it would have been, since wild horses aren't exactly rideable:

Since Native Americans didn't use plowed farming, or invent the wheel, early domesticated horses would have been of little use for them. Neither useful as a beast of burden, or as a means of pulling chariots. They might be useful to some later civilizations as a means of carrying building materials for great cities, but as it stands your scenario requires them to save an endangered animal, for no reason, in the hopes that one day they would be able to breed it into something they could ride. With no precedent to suggest it was even possible to succeed.

That's not a very smart use of resources. Your hypothetical requires them to have been psychic, or idiots.

Its a well known fact native Americans had advanced knowledge of genetics and the cure for all cancers. they would have realized this could have been breed into mother earth friendly vehicles.

[Cetacea]

Polynesians despite having the most advanced sail craft to overcome distance were nonetheless confined in the pacific basin and did not have enough resources to advance beyond Neolithic (the Tongan Empire covered 2000+kms). Their Malay relatives however were able to maintain trade with China and India and thus developed the Srivijaya and Majapahit Empires.

So no I don't think American Horse culture would have allowed for more than advanced neolithic culture. Nor do I see how horses would have resulted in better boats. The advantage of Asia (sinces horses were probably first domesticated in Kazakhstan) is that it had an abundance of different resources and cultures to expoit them, in particular of course was the discovery and spread of metal and iron smelting in particular.

[Longweather]

I thought that there were some findings that native Americans had horses until much later than we realize.

[Xerographica]

Nor do I see how horses would have resulted in better boats.

Do you see how horses would have resulted in more trade?

[Cetacea]

Nor do I see how horses would have resulted in better boats.

Do you see how horses would have resulted in more trade?

Absolutely and it is quite something to imagine what might have happened if the Aztecs were able to ride horses northward or if they had been able to cross the Panama jungles to meet the Incas.

The issue though is that few of the American cultures had effective boats or long distance voyaging potential - which would help overcome the panama jungle problem.
Now there is a bit of possible evidence that the Chumash in California, had acquired Polynesian boat technology and just maybe a regular horses based trade network would have seen those boats spread further afield. Aztecs with boats would have been formidable

Also was there any Iron working in the Americas? I know that there was copper smelting and of course gold and silver but in my opnion it is Iron working that marks the real diversion point between the development of African-Eurasian civilisations and those of the Americas

[Senkaku]

Do you see how horses would have resulted in more trade?

Absolutely and it is quite something to imagine what might have happened if the Aztecs were able to ride horses northward or if they had been able to cross the Panama jungles to meet the Incas.

Bud, you can't get across the Panama-Colombia border with automobiles and a whole lot of supplies and equipment. Ain't nobody crossin' the Darien Gap.

The issue though is that few of the American cultures had effective boats or long distance voyaging potential - which would help overcome the panama jungle problem.

@Haida @Salish Sea tribes

Aztecs with boats would have been formidable

Yes, the landlocked Mexica state would've randomly decided to acquire oceangoing ships and conquered the knwon world

Also was there any Iron working in the Americas? I know that there was copper smelting and of course gold and silver but in my opnion it is Iron working that marks the real diversion point between the development of African-Eurasian civilisations and those of the Americas

No iron that I know of, but I believe the Moche culture in Peru and maybe some others had bronze.

[Senkaku]

Nor do I see how horses would have resulted in better boats.

Do you see how horses would have resulted in more trade?

Trade networks come before horses, not vice versa. If they'd had horses maybe it could've helped the networks they had, wouldn't have somehow just magically created new ones

[Neanderthaland]

That would have made them the first people on earth to domesticate the horse. Many Millennia ahead of Europeans, Asians, and Africans.

There's always a first person to do something. I'm less interested in the likelihood of native Americans being the first (obviously they weren't) and more interested in the consequences if they had been.

Since Native Americans didn't use plowed farming, or invent the wheel, early domesticated horses would have been of little use for them. Neither useful as a beast of burden, or as a means of pulling chariots. They might be useful to some later civilizations as a means of carrying building materials for great cities, but as it stands your scenario requires them to save an endangered animal, for no reason, in the hopes that one day they would be able to breed it into something they could ride. With no precedent to suggest it was even possible to succeed.

Wild horses have to bred to be rideable? What, exactly, would the breeding accomplish? From what I can tell, there's little real difference between domesticated horses and wild ones.

Those aren't really wild horses. Those are domesticated Spanish horses that have been released into the wild. They're feral horses.

Actual wild horses, like the Przewalski's horse I showed you, are considerably smaller, and can't be ridden. But even Przewalski's horses are better then the wild horses Native Americans would have encountered, because they've interbred with domesticated horses quite a bit.

Why do you think the first people domesticated horses anyways? For food?

That's probably why Central Asians initially followed their heards. Horses are also effective beasts of burden, and can be yoked to plow a field, but Native Americans mostly practiced migrational agriculture and didn't plow.

Assuming that early native Americans had domesticated horses then, as I said in the OP, they would have used them to facilitate long-distance trade. Do you need me to provide you with a comprehensive list of all the things they would have traded with each other? Would this help you better understand the benefit of trade?

Assuming this totally unreasonable thing: Native Americans engaged in trade with each other without horses, so they probably would have traded with horses too.

[Xerographica]

Do you see how horses would have resulted in more trade?

Absolutely and it is quite something to imagine what might have happened if the Aztecs were able to ride horses northward or if they had been able to cross the Panama jungles to meet the Incas.

The issue though is that few of the American cultures had effective boats or long distance voyaging potential - which would help overcome the panama jungle problem.

So you see how horses would have resulted in more trade, but you don't see how more trade would have resulted in better boats. More trade results in better everything! This is because more trade improves the allocation of resources, which makes everything better.

Think about Paul Revere racing around on his horse warning people that the British are coming. Now think about some native American racing around on his horse informing people that the king is offering much gold and many virgins to anyone who can build a better boat. Voila! Better boat!

[Senkaku]

This is because more trade improves the allocation of resources, which makes everything better.

I'm calling it- 19 posts in, we're about to transition away from horses and towards the only thing Xero ever really talks about.

[Xerographica]

Do you see how horses would have resulted in more trade?

Trade networks come before horses, not vice versa. If they'd had horses maybe it could've helped the networks they had, wouldn't have somehow just magically created new ones

Horses would have facilitated larger and denser trade networks.

[Neanderthaland]

Absolutely and it is quite something to imagine what might have happened if the Aztecs were able to ride horses northward or if they had been able to cross the Panama jungles to meet the Incas.

The issue though is that few of the American cultures had effective boats or long distance voyaging potential - which would help overcome the panama jungle problem.

So you see how horses would have resulted in more trade, but you don't see how more trade would have resulted in better boats. More trade results in better everything! This is because more trade improves the allocation of resources, which makes everything better.

Think about Paul Revere racing around on his horse warning people that the British are coming. Now think about some native American racing around on his horse informing people that the king is offering much gold and many virgins to anyone who can build a better boat. Voila! Better boat!

Trade is apparently very important to the development of technology, but I question your assertion that it has anything to do with "resource allocation."

Almost every historical instance I can think of involves somebody noticing something other people are doing, and then copying it.

[Senkaku]

Trade networks come before horses, not vice versa. If they'd had horses maybe it could've helped the networks they had, wouldn't have somehow just magically created new ones

Horses would have facilitated larger and denser trade networks.

Would they? I have trouble believing horses would've done well, for example, in the Yucatan, to say nothing of the environmental degradation they'd've had the potential to cause (among civilizations that often were already dealing with soil and climatological problems). I mean, it would've been helpful for Mesoamerica to have had pack animals, but the Andes already had llamas and alpacas, which more or less did the trick there even if they were useless as cavalry, and having horses wouldn't've spontaneously caused the discovery of advanced metallurgy or anything like that.

[Neanderthaland]

Trade networks come before horses, not vice versa. If they'd had horses maybe it could've helped the networks they had, wouldn't have somehow just magically created new ones

Horses would have facilitated larger and denser trade networks.

And spread smallpox far more efficiently.

[Xerographica]

Horses would have facilitated larger and denser trade networks.

And spread smallpox far more efficiently.

The earliest humans in the Americas didn't discover that horses could be used to help overcome the obstacle of distance. But what if they had? It would have facilitated long-distance trade. But not just of good things (good ideas, food, tools, etc) but also of bad things (bad ideas, diseases, pests, etc). Would the good have outweighed the bad? This was certainly the case in Europe/Asia. I'm guessing that it would have also been the case in the Americas.