Why horses?

[Sociotard]

As inspired by the "what makes humans special" thread on the Star hero board (I think).

 

Many high fantasy games like DnD feature a plethora of beasts that can be used as mounts. I've seen paladins on sharks and sandworms and riding wolves. What makes horses desirable? Why would any army field horse-based cavalry when it could use Wyverns instead?

 

Is it cost?

 

Is it cultural heritage?

 

What makes horses desirable?

[assault]

Re: Why horses?

 

Availability?

Trainability?

 

Wyverns, for example, are predators, presumably. How well do they interact with each other in large groups? Are large flocks of wyverns viable? How hard are they to feed? How hard are they to train? How common are they in the first place?

 

Horses are herbivores that naturally hang around in herds. They don't eat humans, and are relatively easy to train.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Why horses?

 

They have a lower Real Cost than most exotic animals. Even going so far as to consider them equipment bought w/ money vs unusual Followers paid for via a Perk.

[Old Man]

Re: Why horses?

 

Since it's fiction, you could come up with any reason for the superiority of horses as mounts in a given campaign. Probably the simplest is trainability--in real life, zebras simply cannot be tamed, even though they seem to be the same animal except for the paint. Elephants can be tamed, but not to the degree that horses can; even the most carefully trained elephant was easily spooked in battle, and modern working elephants go berserk on occasion. Semi-tamable predators like bears and big cats can't be kept in large groups lest they kill each other.

 

Conversely, in fantasy it's pretty easy to handwave all this stuff away and make wyverns or wolves or tauntauns or dragons or armored polar bears the superior mount.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Why horses?

 

Meme, mostly. Easy to understand, easy to envision. Harder to envision Goblins riding trained War-Trolls on piggy back. Horses are our primary historical method of riding animal; right size, right disposition, good endurance, good lifespan. They take 'well' to captivity (as much as anything can) and easily bred and cross-bred for desirable traits.

 

To replace "the horse" you'd need to field something of equal advantage, or, give a reason why it wasn't horses. Frex, it could be razor boars (although why anyone would wanna train a 5,000 lb. pork chop is beyond me, it could certainly be done in the right setting).

[Bismark]

Re: Why horses?

 

Playing the 'realism' card (yes, I know, it's Fantasy we are dealing with here):

 

Horses are herbivores and therefore it is much easier to maintain large herds/groups of them in a given area than things like wolves (which, being higher up the food chain [i.e. carnivores], there are less of per unit area of habitable land).

 

By the same reasoning, the use of boars as mounts by Warhammer Orcs is actually more sensible than the use of giant wolves as boars are omnivores, so can grub for roots and tubers etc. when times are lean.

 

[As an aside, razorbacks would make better 'shock cavalry' mounts than giant wolves since they are ornery critters who cannot see very well, so are unlikely to register all those nasty pointy metal things sticking out from the troops they are charging, plus they are notoriously impervious to pain.]

 

BTW, if the mounts are 'cold-blooded' (ectothermic), such as lizards, they do not require feeding very often, so the use of carnivores as mounts would be more practical.

[Curufea]

Re: Why horses?

 

BTW' date=' if the mounts are 'cold-blooded' (ectothermic), such as lizards, they do not require feeding very often, so the use of carnivores as mounts would be more practical.[/quote']

 

"Cold Ones" were used by the Dark Elves in the Warhammer setting. I know this as I've got about 20 of them in a cavalry unit in my fantasy miniatures army

[Bismark]

Re: Why horses?

 

"Cold Ones" were used by the Dark Elves in the Warhammer setting. I know this as I've got about 20 of them in a cavalry unit in my fantasy miniatures army

 

Back in the days (15 years ago) when I used to paint figures for a living (very low wages but still better than welfare), I did one of those multi-part Marauder Miniatures Dark Elf Chiefs on Cold One; of course, the Cold One was powder pink () with yellow-green eyes and the rider had metallic purple armour (he was part of a Chaos army - guess which patron…).

 

I still have the figure - unfortunately, the varnish I used has yellowed horribly and wrecked the colour scheme (like it has on most of my stuff - WAAHH!!).

 

This is very irritating as that particular army was originally painted rather well (I have a trophy from the 1992 UK Golden Demon Awards to underline this point).

 

Luckily, my winning [well, 2nd place in the Command Group category] models were finished with a different and non-yellowing varnish, so they still look fine despite 15 years of atmospheric exposure).

 

I can categorically state that lizards are easier to paint than horses (which are very awkward to paint well) - but making lizard colour schemes not look artificial is a real challenge (since real lizards often look artificial at times ).

[Curufea]

Re: Why horses?

 

I can categorically state that lizards are easier to paint than horses (which are very awkward to paint well) - but making lizard colour schemes not look artificial is a real challenge (since real lizards often look artificial at times ).

 

Very true - I'd also add that - be very careful of storage - I still have all the lizards, but I don't know if I have all the riders anymore

[The Weapon]

Re: Why horses?

 

Meme, mostly. Easy to understand, easy to envision. Harder to envision Goblins riding trained War-Trolls on piggy back. Horses are our primary historical method of riding animal; right size, right disposition, good endurance, good lifespan. They take 'well' to captivity (as much as anything can) and easily bred and cross-bred for desirable traits.

 

To replace "the horse" you'd need to field something of equal advantage, or, give a reason why it wasn't horses. Frex, it could be razor boars (although why anyone would wanna train a 5,000 lb. pork chop is beyond me, it could certainly be done in the right setting).

 

Because it's one of the few mounts that don't need meat and aren't afraid of riding wolves. Also if you end up in the situation Piotr Vorkosigan did in the first winter of the Cetagandan Invasion pork tastes better.

[The Weapon]

Re: Why horses?

 

Playing the 'realism' card (yes, I know, it's Fantasy we are dealing with here):

 

Horses are herbivores and therefore it is much easier to maintain large herds/groups of them in a given area than things like wolves (which, being higher up the food chain [i.e. carnivores], there are less of per unit area of habitable land).

 

By the same reasoning, the use of boars as mounts by Warhammer Orcs is actually more sensible than the use of giant wolves as boars are omnivores, so can grub for roots and tubers etc. when times are lean.

 

[As an aside, razorbacks would make better 'shock cavalry' mounts than giant wolves since they are ornery critters who cannot see very well, so are unlikely to register all those nasty pointy metal things sticking out from the troops they are charging, plus they are notoriously impervious to pain.]

 

BTW, if the mounts are 'cold-blooded' (ectothermic), such as lizards, they do not require feeding very often, so the use of carnivores as mounts would be more practical.

 

Of course you can't actually charge until at least mid morning, on cold winter days maybe not at all!

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Why horses?

 

They have a lower Real Cost than most exotic animals. Even going so far as to consider them equipment bought w/ money vs unusual Followers paid for via a Perk.

 

Before I get the brain bleach, I had to share this thought.

 

"This, this is Arnold. He's far better than a horse in every way, and turns out, much cheaper. After four battles, he practically pays for himself." (Camera pans to show a guy riding on someone's shoulders and carrying a heavy backpack.)

 

(Heavy accent) "Hello, I am Arnold."

 

"Come on Arnold, lets go back to town. You're not tired are you?"

 

"I could do this all day. And then I will set up camp and cook your dinner, while the others are still taking care of their horses."

[Badger]

Re: Why horses?

 

Playing the 'realism' card (yes, I know, it's Fantasy we are dealing with here):

 

Horses are herbivores and therefore it is much easier to maintain large herds/groups of them in a given area than things like wolves (which, being higher up the food chain [i.e. carnivores], there are less of per unit area of habitable land).

 

By the same reasoning, the use of boars as mounts by Warhammer Orcs is actually more sensible than the use of giant wolves as boars are omnivores, so can grub for roots and tubers etc. when times are lean.

 

[As an aside, razorbacks would make better 'shock cavalry' mounts than giant wolves since they are ornery critters who cannot see very well, so are unlikely to register all those nasty pointy metal things sticking out from the troops they are charging, plus they are notoriously impervious to pain.]

 

BTW, if the mounts are 'cold-blooded' (ectothermic), such as lizards, they do not require feeding very often, so the use of carnivores as mounts would be more practical.

 

One problem with the cold-blooded. Is their blood. You cant exactly have many early morning battles as they are still groggy (still heating the blood), and they would be detrimental in a cold-weather campaign.

[Badger]

Re: Why horses?

 

Of course you can't actually charge until at least mid morning' date=' on cold winter days maybe not at all![/quote']

 

Got beaten to the punch again. One of these days I'll learn to read the whole thread.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Why horses?

 

I say, leave the Cold Ones by the fire!

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Why horses?

 

of course, if you go with the warm blooded dinos theory you could have all sorts of fun cavalry...

 

on a real world note camels and llama's both fill the horse niche ok-to-well in their respective regions.

I imagine Cattle/Bison/Oxen could have been bred to act as mounts, zebras are just a matter of enough generations to bred them tame, giant flightless birds might have made a good option if they hadn't all died out...

[L. Marcus]

Re: Why horses?

 

Oooo, Axe Beak Cavalry!

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Why horses?

 

Oooo' date=' Axe Beak Cavalry![/quote']

 

they were kinda a staple in our old S&S fantasy games. One of our GM's was a huge Richard Corben fan, so we saw lots of things like that

[teh bunneh]

Re: Why horses?

 

Horses were one of the first domesticated animals. They've traveled alongside us for thousands and thousands of years, so they have a very special, symbiotic relationship with humans -- almost akin to the relationship between dogs and humans or cats and humans. We live in a modern, mechanized society so we tend to forget the way things were for our ancestors. I have no problem believing a powerful paladin or knight would choose a horse as his mount, even with various mythological creatures as options.

 

Of course, in a fantasy world, who knows? Maybe wyverns have been domesticated for hundreds of generations, too.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Why horses?

 

I would think the (comparative) ease of raising, training and maintaining horses compared to Wyverns, etc. is the main thing. I can certainly see specialized beasts used for specialized purposes, but as a general mount for thousands, would likely be difficult to find good substitutes for horses (unless the fantasy world has mounts that are basically repacked horses, like tame lizards that eat grain, etc.). Sure, you can get ahold of the odd wyvern or greater tharquan, but can you get enough to fully outfit a couple regiments? And if so can you really maintain 1000 wyverns in the field?

 

Just like Elephants were used when available, fantasy creatures in limited amounts could be as well. Flying mounts are excellent for scouting and raiding. A powerful terror like a dragon can be an army in itself. Controlled burrowing creatures would be excellent for taking fortified positions. Etc.

[Cancer]

Re: Why horses?

 

Remember too that old wild-strain horses are a far cry from the breeds we have now. Heavy shock cavalry requires very large and heavy horses, which you only get after a few thousand years of domestication and selective breeding.

 

Me, I liked to speculate on war mammoths, especially of that race of dwarf mammoths (one of my favorite oxymorons) that survived isolated on their island by going down to about horse size before finally succumbing to extinction.

[Curufea]

Re: Why horses?

 

One problem with the cold-blooded. Is their blood. You cant exactly have many early morning battles as they are still groggy (still heating the blood)' date=' and they would be detrimental in a cold-weather campaign.[/quote']

 

That was never fully explained in WFRP/WFB - Dark Elves are natives of the arctic areas of the Warhammer world - generally living in fortresses of ice. And yet they ride "Cold Ones". The whole purpose of mammals and fur versus reptiles - is the retention of body heat. Reptiles can almost be defined as a type of animal not suited to cold climates.

Presumably magic is involved somewhere.

[Maur]

Re: Why horses?

 

Or they are an oddity that allows them to function at cold temperatures. Maybe they have some form of anti-freeze in their blood to keep the water from freezing so they can move about without needing heat retention systems...

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Why horses?

 

they were kinda a staple in our old S&S fantasy games. One of our GM's was a huge Richard Corben fan' date=' so we saw lots of things like that [/quote']

 

Richard Corben's female characters! Gravity defiance at its best!

 

[/hijack]

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Why horses?

 

Richard Corben's female characters! Gravity defiance at its best!

 

[/hijack]

 

yeah, lots of those too.

Sometimes riding on Axbeaks, even