I see that quite a number of comments below disagreed with the main message of this post, that it was invention and adoption of horse riding that transformed past societies. Naturally, I did not have space in this post to develop this argument in detail, so you will have to go to my books, if interested.
The statistical pattern is very strong and is covered in detail in the Great Holocene Transformation.
In my other writings I also explain the causal mechanism underlying this statistical pattern. There was interesting variation in how causality flowed, depending on the proximity of the region in question to the Great Steppe and its suitability for rising horses. Thus, in the Central Eurasian Region (Iran-Mesopotamia) cavalry was adopted fairly rapidly and became the main striking force, increasing in importance from Assyria to the Achaemenids to the Parthians.
In the Western and Eastern regions, early empires struggled to secure plentiful supply of horses, and thus had to rely on infantry to counter the threat from cavalry armies. Because infantry is much less mobile, they had to compensate by recruiting huge numbers of them. This is what we see in China and Rome. For details, see chapter 9 of Ultrasociety.
Thus, causality could work in direct or indirect ways.
Finally, Eurasian regions very distant from the Steppe, such as Southeast Asia and Northwest Europe, did not develop megaempires before 1500, because they were insulated from cavalry armies. The rise of Europe was due to the next military revolution (gunpowder and sailing ships).
How do the pre 1492 South American empires fit into this picture? And horses played very little role in empire building in South East Asia too. While horses may have played a significant role in empire building in certain regions, they do not seem to have been essential requirement for empires to arise given the number of contrary cases.
Not to mention Rome, which rose on the backs of its heavy infantry, with cavalry as an afterthought mostly provided by Auxiliaries until the mid-late empire.
I think the Roman's sacked Ctesiphon (the Persian capital most of the time) 5 times? They carved out two new provinces in Mesopotamia that they held for a while before losing them. The only time Persia saw anything close to that kind of success was in the late 6th/early 7th Century, and that didn't last longer than the war they were fighting (and didn't include taking the Roman capital, which the Persians never did, either Rome or Constantinople).
I would argue here that Persian cavalry armies (either Parthian or Sassanid) at best had a mixed record against the Romans.
Yes, but at least the Romans didn't steamroll over them like they did over pretty much everybody else. And Parthians were the only ones to capture a Roman emperor, triggering a near-collapse of Rome.
Roman expansion east was hindered more by internal problems then a lack of cavalry. How many invasions of Persia were called off so the Roman Army could go and deal with internal challengers to the Emperor? 5? 10?
Rome did just fine against Persia on the field of battle most of the time.
But Parthians had their own internal problems: dynastic feuds, civil wars, best generals executed by jealous emperors, and then their empire being taken over by Sasanians.
One could argue that New World empires were comparatively small or unstable precisely because they lacked horses - not as much as a military asset as a communication device. The Inca Empire survived for only one generation before splitting in too. The last Incas desperately tried to procure horses from the Spanish and eventually succeeded, but it was too little, too late.
Horses were perhaps the most disruptive human adaptation after agriculture but the gene mutation hypothesis is reductive bad science.
Humans and horses co-evolved in a dynamic, reciprocal process rather than through a single moment of “taming.”
Archaeological and genetic evidence suggests that people were exploiting wild horses long before domestication in the modern sense. Early humans hunted them for meat, followed migratory herds, and probably managed wild populations in selective ways — for example, culling certain animals or protecting others near encampments. This began shaping both horse behavior and human social patterns long before there were bridles or stables.
Draft use — pulling loads, carrying goods, or turning primitive plows — likely preceded true riding by centuries. Early attempts to harness horse power appear in Eurasian steppe cultures around 5,000–4,500 years ago, while mounted riding seems to have spread only later, perhaps by about 4,000 years ago. That distinction matters: draft animals could be trained and bred for strength and tractability without the full behavioral control required for riding.
So rather than “humans tamed horses,” it’s more accurate to say that humans and horses entered into a mutual process of domestication. Humans changed their landscapes, technologies, and diets to incorporate horses; horses adapted genetically and behaviorally to human proximity, selection, and labor roles. Over time, that co-evolution created new ecological, social, and energetic systems — the steppe cultures, cavalry warfare, and vast trade networks that re-organized the planet’s metabolism.
John Dupré’s framework fits perfectly here: there was no discrete event or “thing” called domestication, just an ongoing process of relational change between species.
The horse didn’t become tame because of a mutation — the mutation persisted because it stabilized a new ecological and social process between species.
Wouldn’t it make sense if humans hunted ‘mean’ horses for meat whilst helping those that weren’t mean to reproduce, by herding for example? Wouldn’t humans then be one factor in why that helpful mutation thrived in the first place?
Your first sentence makes sense (despite mis-spelling of Przewalski)—modern horses were domesticated around 4200 BCE, while Przewalski’s horses remained wild.
The rest blends vague critiques of linear evolution, a mangled reference to isotope dating, and pseudoscientific polar-shift theories.
It’s an incoherent attempt to connect disparate ideas about evolution, domestication, and geology under a single speculative worldview.
Attemp? Losing a chunk of flesh as a toddler to a horse that like biting people if they got close to the fence was not an attempt at hurting. It was successful.
Have strong reasons to suspect the parsimony of evolutionary equinine hypotheses ,specifically because of Krypton traces in glaciers long with a 12 000year cycle based on 90 degree shift in the earth's axis ,known since 1960s ,when CIA took an abusive interest .IE simultaneous re- evolutions are ruled out .Over millions of years ...
A certain Spanish Almeria pollen was dated precisely one summer long ago to have travelled within 3 weeks to Cheddar Gorge inhabited cave -(not a native pollen) It was older than 5 000 years .
Happisbergh has a family ,with kids -of a smaller human predessor -walking in the tidal mud 900 000 years ago .
The former begs the question - what creature carried it ,as northbound butterflies listed 'sparsely' - ie stretches things .- from far ..
''One of the most fascinating chapters in the horse’s evolutionary history is its disappearance from its birthplace. Horses originated and flourished in North America for tens of millions of years, yet they vanished from the continent at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, around 10,000 years ago. The reasons remain debated. Climate change played a role, as did the arrival of human hunters. The great megafaunal extinction that wiped out mammoths, saber-toothed cats, and giant ground sloths also claimed North American horses.
For thousands of years, the Americas were horse-free. The peoples of these lands developed rich cultures without them—until the 15th and 16th centuries, when Spanish explorers reintroduced horses to the New World. These animals, descended from Eurasian stock, thrived in the wild. Escaped or abandoned horses formed feral populations, giving rise to the mustangs of the American West.
To Indigenous peoples, the horse was a revelation. In just a few generations, tribes like the Comanche and Lakota became master horsemen, transforming hunting, warfare, and mobility. The reintroduction of the horse was not just a return of an animal to its ancestral land—it was a cultural and ecological revolution.''
The Comanches did have guns, sometimes better ones than their white opponents. An excellent source on the history of Comancheria is The Empire of Summer Moon by S. C. Gwynne. Also fun to read.
Love this. One quibble, though... If someone climbed onto your back you would try and get them off, too, violently if necessary. Doesn't make you "mean". Just protective of your bodily autonomy.
In addition to the bit and the bridle, it seems like the development of the stirrup is a crucial bit of technological development (maybe?). That allows cavalry to stand while riding, and thus to use their legs as shock absorbers to steady the aim for shooting (bows or guns).
The oldest stirrup known to us was found in northeast China in early first millennium CE. It rapidly spread West and served as the basis for heavy cavalry such as cataphracts and medieval European knights.
So, yes, it was a consequential technology, but not quite as consequential as artificial selection and the bit and bridle.
A couple of books that are worth considering. They don't support your theory directly, but they do provide evidence in some detail that fits into your analysis of the data:
The Intimate Bond: How Animals Shaped Human History
Brian Fagan
Bloomsbury 2015
The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World
But if you happen to fall into a canal or are attacked, to increase your chances of recruiting a saviour amongst the class of former oppressors, bark like a dog:
Pet owners often see dogs as soulmates and value them more than human lives
Selection at the GSDMC locus in horses and its implications for human mobility
Intensive selection at GSDMC began ~4750 ya with the domestication bottleneck, leading regulatory variants to high frequency by ~4150 ya. GSDMC genotypes are linked to body conformation in horses and to spinal anatomy, motor coordination, and muscular strength in mice. Our results suggest that selection on standing variation at GSDMC was crucial for the emergence of horses that could facilitate fast mobility in human societies ~4200 ya.
I see that quite a number of comments below disagreed with the main message of this post, that it was invention and adoption of horse riding that transformed past societies. Naturally, I did not have space in this post to develop this argument in detail, so you will have to go to my books, if interested.
The statistical pattern is very strong and is covered in detail in the Great Holocene Transformation.
In my other writings I also explain the causal mechanism underlying this statistical pattern. There was interesting variation in how causality flowed, depending on the proximity of the region in question to the Great Steppe and its suitability for rising horses. Thus, in the Central Eurasian Region (Iran-Mesopotamia) cavalry was adopted fairly rapidly and became the main striking force, increasing in importance from Assyria to the Achaemenids to the Parthians.
In the Western and Eastern regions, early empires struggled to secure plentiful supply of horses, and thus had to rely on infantry to counter the threat from cavalry armies. Because infantry is much less mobile, they had to compensate by recruiting huge numbers of them. This is what we see in China and Rome. For details, see chapter 9 of Ultrasociety.
Thus, causality could work in direct or indirect ways.
Finally, Eurasian regions very distant from the Steppe, such as Southeast Asia and Northwest Europe, did not develop megaempires before 1500, because they were insulated from cavalry armies. The rise of Europe was due to the next military revolution (gunpowder and sailing ships).
How do the pre 1492 South American empires fit into this picture? And horses played very little role in empire building in South East Asia too. While horses may have played a significant role in empire building in certain regions, they do not seem to have been essential requirement for empires to arise given the number of contrary cases.
Not to mention Rome, which rose on the backs of its heavy infantry, with cavalry as an afterthought mostly provided by Auxiliaries until the mid-late empire.
But wasn't lack of large cavalry the reason Romans never scored a decisive win against the Parthians?
I think the Roman's sacked Ctesiphon (the Persian capital most of the time) 5 times? They carved out two new provinces in Mesopotamia that they held for a while before losing them. The only time Persia saw anything close to that kind of success was in the late 6th/early 7th Century, and that didn't last longer than the war they were fighting (and didn't include taking the Roman capital, which the Persians never did, either Rome or Constantinople).
I would argue here that Persian cavalry armies (either Parthian or Sassanid) at best had a mixed record against the Romans.
Yes, but at least the Romans didn't steamroll over them like they did over pretty much everybody else. And Parthians were the only ones to capture a Roman emperor, triggering a near-collapse of Rome.
Roman expansion east was hindered more by internal problems then a lack of cavalry. How many invasions of Persia were called off so the Roman Army could go and deal with internal challengers to the Emperor? 5? 10?
Rome did just fine against Persia on the field of battle most of the time.
But Parthians had their own internal problems: dynastic feuds, civil wars, best generals executed by jealous emperors, and then their empire being taken over by Sasanians.
Indeed, the Parthians had archers on horseback, and a system for resupplying arrows, which proved too much for the Roman infantry...
One could argue that New World empires were comparatively small or unstable precisely because they lacked horses - not as much as a military asset as a communication device. The Inca Empire survived for only one generation before splitting in too. The last Incas desperately tried to procure horses from the Spanish and eventually succeeded, but it was too little, too late.
Horses were perhaps the most disruptive human adaptation after agriculture but the gene mutation hypothesis is reductive bad science.
Humans and horses co-evolved in a dynamic, reciprocal process rather than through a single moment of “taming.”
Archaeological and genetic evidence suggests that people were exploiting wild horses long before domestication in the modern sense. Early humans hunted them for meat, followed migratory herds, and probably managed wild populations in selective ways — for example, culling certain animals or protecting others near encampments. This began shaping both horse behavior and human social patterns long before there were bridles or stables.
Draft use — pulling loads, carrying goods, or turning primitive plows — likely preceded true riding by centuries. Early attempts to harness horse power appear in Eurasian steppe cultures around 5,000–4,500 years ago, while mounted riding seems to have spread only later, perhaps by about 4,000 years ago. That distinction matters: draft animals could be trained and bred for strength and tractability without the full behavioral control required for riding.
So rather than “humans tamed horses,” it’s more accurate to say that humans and horses entered into a mutual process of domestication. Humans changed their landscapes, technologies, and diets to incorporate horses; horses adapted genetically and behaviorally to human proximity, selection, and labor roles. Over time, that co-evolution created new ecological, social, and energetic systems — the steppe cultures, cavalry warfare, and vast trade networks that re-organized the planet’s metabolism.
John Dupré’s framework fits perfectly here: there was no discrete event or “thing” called domestication, just an ongoing process of relational change between species.
The horse didn’t become tame because of a mutation — the mutation persisted because it stabilized a new ecological and social process between species.
Wouldn’t it make sense if humans hunted ‘mean’ horses for meat whilst helping those that weren’t mean to reproduce, by herding for example? Wouldn’t humans then be one factor in why that helpful mutation thrived in the first place?
Prewalski horses are claimed not to have been 'ridable ' earlier than 4200 BC .
Lineal evolutionary arguments limit regressive and simultaneous diverse evolutionary lineal arguments .
Rejectable hypotheses deny krypton in glacial Tibetan studies .
Along with 12 000 year cycles of 90 degree polar shift paleo evidence .
Opening up the above possibilities may yet bear fruit .
Your first sentence makes sense (despite mis-spelling of Przewalski)—modern horses were domesticated around 4200 BCE, while Przewalski’s horses remained wild.
The rest blends vague critiques of linear evolution, a mangled reference to isotope dating, and pseudoscientific polar-shift theories.
It’s an incoherent attempt to connect disparate ideas about evolution, domestication, and geology under a single speculative worldview.
Not useful or credible IMO.
Horses are not mean and they do not attempt to hurt people.
But they are smart and can tell when people are nervous or afraid of them.
Attemp? Losing a chunk of flesh as a toddler to a horse that like biting people if they got close to the fence was not an attempt at hurting. It was successful.
Greetings Peter, just wanted to drop a comment to mention my appreciation for your work, I enjoy seeing it on my feed.
I write about history, from the perspective of historic books, but with a modern philosophic flair.
Here’s my latest if your interested!
https://open.substack.com/pub/jordannuttall/p/real-accounts-of-mythical-animals?r=4f55i2&utm_medium=ios
Have strong reasons to suspect the parsimony of evolutionary equinine hypotheses ,specifically because of Krypton traces in glaciers long with a 12 000year cycle based on 90 degree shift in the earth's axis ,known since 1960s ,when CIA took an abusive interest .IE simultaneous re- evolutions are ruled out .Over millions of years ...
-https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL082464 shows if krypton is measured -lineal evolution is bogus .
A certain Spanish Almeria pollen was dated precisely one summer long ago to have travelled within 3 weeks to Cheddar Gorge inhabited cave -(not a native pollen) It was older than 5 000 years .
Happisbergh has a family ,with kids -of a smaller human predessor -walking in the tidal mud 900 000 years ago .
The former begs the question - what creature carried it ,as northbound butterflies listed 'sparsely' - ie stretches things .- from far ..
''One of the most fascinating chapters in the horse’s evolutionary history is its disappearance from its birthplace. Horses originated and flourished in North America for tens of millions of years, yet they vanished from the continent at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, around 10,000 years ago. The reasons remain debated. Climate change played a role, as did the arrival of human hunters. The great megafaunal extinction that wiped out mammoths, saber-toothed cats, and giant ground sloths also claimed North American horses.
For thousands of years, the Americas were horse-free. The peoples of these lands developed rich cultures without them—until the 15th and 16th centuries, when Spanish explorers reintroduced horses to the New World. These animals, descended from Eurasian stock, thrived in the wild. Escaped or abandoned horses formed feral populations, giving rise to the mustangs of the American West.
To Indigenous peoples, the horse was a revelation. In just a few generations, tribes like the Comanche and Lakota became master horsemen, transforming hunting, warfare, and mobility. The reintroduction of the horse was not just a return of an animal to its ancestral land—it was a cultural and ecological revolution.''
https://www.sciencenewstoday.org/the-evolution-of-the-horse-a-55-million-year-journey
FWIW, I really enjoyed Anthony's book on this topic: The Horse, the Wheel, and Language
https://www.amazon.com/dp/069114818X?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_3
Yes, a good book, but he dates riding too early. Also, this book was published in 2010, and the recent discoveries in archaeogenetics require a complete rewrite. I see there is a new book by Mallory, which is on my list to read: https://www.amazon.com/Indo-Europeans-Rediscovered-Scientific-Revolution-Rewriting/dp/050002863X/
How does the taming of horses compare to the fox domestication experiment that was done in Russia?
The Comanches did have guns, sometimes better ones than their white opponents. An excellent source on the history of Comancheria is The Empire of Summer Moon by S. C. Gwynne. Also fun to read.
How much was China transformed? Bronze Age Egypt looks very similar to Imperial China. A hydraulic empire, a divine ruler, mandate of heaven, etc.
Why didn't China change that much? because of relative isolation?
Love this. One quibble, though... If someone climbed onto your back you would try and get them off, too, violently if necessary. Doesn't make you "mean". Just protective of your bodily autonomy.
In addition to the bit and the bridle, it seems like the development of the stirrup is a crucial bit of technological development (maybe?). That allows cavalry to stand while riding, and thus to use their legs as shock absorbers to steady the aim for shooting (bows or guns).
The oldest stirrup known to us was found in northeast China in early first millennium CE. It rapidly spread West and served as the basis for heavy cavalry such as cataphracts and medieval European knights.
So, yes, it was a consequential technology, but not quite as consequential as artificial selection and the bit and bridle.
A couple of books that are worth considering. They don't support your theory directly, but they do provide evidence in some detail that fits into your analysis of the data:
The Intimate Bond: How Animals Shaped Human History
Brian Fagan
Bloomsbury 2015
The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World
David W. Anthony
Princeton University 2007
In progressive cities the dominated are turning the tables on their oppressors:
https://prod-img.nieuwsblad.be/public/nieuws/qkcdbe-c174a387-acca-477a-a8fd-77764144abf1.jpg/alternates/BASE_WIDTH/c174a387-acca-477a-a8fd-77764144abf1.jpg
Below; it's unclear whose slurpee he is carrying:
https://i.etsystatic.com/6318868/r/il/8b2f42/2732903927/il_1588xN.2732903927_11qy.jpg
But if you happen to fall into a canal or are attacked, to increase your chances of recruiting a saviour amongst the class of former oppressors, bark like a dog:
Pet owners often see dogs as soulmates and value them more than human lives
https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/hcbrs_v1
As for horses, Nature, aug 2025:
Selection at the GSDMC locus in horses and its implications for human mobility
Intensive selection at GSDMC began ~4750 ya with the domestication bottleneck, leading regulatory variants to high frequency by ~4150 ya. GSDMC genotypes are linked to body conformation in horses and to spinal anatomy, motor coordination, and muscular strength in mice. Our results suggest that selection on standing variation at GSDMC was crucial for the emergence of horses that could facilitate fast mobility in human societies ~4200 ya.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4581
My horse is a bicycle
Mongols on horses...