Geographic determinism

[Gurkhal]

Ok, I've started this thread as a place to discuss the presence of geographical determinism and various situations regarding it, both for and against.

And to kick everything off I shall start with the issue that came to me and made me consider most importantly the issue. While I've written a fair degree about the world of Teron I'm starting to itch for something different and so decided to throw together a new world with the goal of setting stories within it. And as fate would have it the Eastern Mediterranean is the big inspiration for this world, along with some other places.

Would a place like that per necessity create a military focused around the use of massed numbers of lighter cavalry as seems to have happened in real life, as soon as horse-breeding allowed horses with the desired characteristics to be created? I would really want to have them primarily use massed infantry formations as can be seen by the Persians, Assyrians etc.

 

[Noma Galway]

So you're wanting to have the mass infantry and you're wondering if the military would have mass light cavalry, if that would be necessary?

 

[Saigonnus]

I would say it would depend on the type of climate, terrain and resources your primary cultures will have at their disposal. If it is similar to the region as we know it on Earth, certainly it would seem likely that they would have the food supply and resources to train such forces. Think about the Persians of the ancient world, or the Greeks. Both had massive standing armies for much of their history of the period as well as excelled in the training of horses (or even camels) for the purpose of light cavalry or even mounted archers as those had popularity in the ancient world as well.

Because horses and camels are faster than a man on foot, they'd initially use them for scouting, sending messages and whatnot between units, which naturally leads them into wanting to have a faster unit on the battlefield to have an advantage over an enemy without such units. The traditional usage for such units were generally to get in and out of a fray as quickly as possible, dealing what damage they can without taking much themselves, or to "hit and fade" on enemies on the move; to keep them moving in a direction you want them to go; or to simply whittle down their numbers somewhat before a solid engagement. They were not designed (like the heavy horse) to charge into a fight and have the ability to fight their way out again if they get bogged down.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Would a place like that per necessity create a military focused around the use of massed numbers of lighter cavalry as seems to have happened in real life, as soon as horse-breeding allowed horses with the desired characteristics to be created? I would really want to have them primarily use massed infantry formations as can be seen by the Persians, Assyrians etc.

If you really want them to not have cavalry, you could always create a setting where they don't have access to rideable creatures. (I did that once--they had domestic animals large enough to carry messages, but none large enough to carry grown humans, so information moved quicker than armies.)

 

[CupofJoe]

The opponent all so plays a part in determining your forces as does history/precedent.
If you know that your adversary has lots of good light cavalry, chariots etc., then you may well do better with heavier infantry than try to match them.
If you come from a sea faring background, cavalry will also be far less important to you, just because they can't be used ship-to-ship* and are difficult to transport...

* Someone please prove me wrong on that

. I would love to know if cavalry has ever been used ship-to ship...

 

[Sam Evren]

* Someone please prove me wrong on that

. I would love to know if cavalry has ever been used ship-to ship...

Only once, by Rome's literal Seal Team 1. It... it didn't go as expected. There was a bait ball nearby. All hands were lost. The seals were thought to have escaped in the confusion.

 

[Guy]

Would a place like that per necessity create a military focused around the use of massed numbers of lighter cavalry as seems to have happened in real life, as soon as horse-breeding allowed horses with the desired characteristics to be created? I would really want to have them primarily use massed infantry formations as can be seen by the Persians, Assyrians etc.

Light cavalry was the main military force for people in central Asia. The reason was - you guessed it - geography. Central Asia has millions upon millions of square miles of open space for maneuvering of horse archers. It also has pasturage to sustain these horses. Greece and Italy are more mountainous, terrain that favors infantry and all but nullifies the speed and maneuverability of light cavalry. So it comes down to the geography of your world. The sort of terrain it has plays a significant role in how the armies would be structured.

 

[Gurkhal]

So you're wanting to have the mass infantry and you're wondering if the military would have mass light cavalry, if that would be necessary?

Pretty much. I'm thinking if there's any reason to explain why a Middle Eastern geography-bound culture wouldn't switch to primarily horse-armies when horses strong enough to bear riders with their equipment can be breed.

I would say it would depend on the type of climate, terrain and resources your primary cultures will have at their disposal. If it is similar to the region as we know it on Earth, certainly it would seem likely that they would have the food supply and resources to train such forces. Think about the Persians of the ancient world, or the Greeks. Both had massive standing armies for much of their history of the period as well as excelled in the training of horses (or even camels) for the purpose of light cavalry or even mounted archers as those had popularity in the ancient world as well.

I agree entirely.

Because horses and camels are faster than a man on foot, they'd initially use them for scouting, sending messages and whatnot between units, which naturally leads them into wanting to have a faster unit on the battlefield to have an advantage over an enemy without such units. The traditional usage for such units were generally to get in and out of a fray as quickly as possible, dealing what damage they can without taking much themselves, or to "hit and fade" on enemies on the move; to keep them moving in a direction you want them to go; or to simply whittle down their numbers somewhat before a solid engagement. They were not designed (like the heavy horse) to charge into a fight and have the ability to fight their way out again if they get bogged down.

Good post.

If you really want them to not have cavalry, you could always create a setting where they don't have access to rideable creatures. (I did that once--they had domestic animals large enough to carry messages, but none large enough to carry grown humans, so information moved quicker than armies.)

I've been considering of doing it Tékumel-style but decided against it, as I would really, really want to include chariots in the world.

The opponent all so plays a part in determining your forces as does history/precedent.
If you know that your adversary has lots of good light cavalry, chariots etc., then you may well do better with heavier infantry than try to match them.
If you come from a sea faring background, cavalry will also be far less important to you, just because they can't be used ship-to-ship* and are difficult to transport...

* Someone please prove me wrong on that

. I would love to know if cavalry has ever been used ship-to ship...

Partly true although most armies seems to have been drawing to have some degree of balance to be able to face and triumph in different situations and scenarios.

Only once, by Rome's literal Seal Team 1. It... it didn't go as expected. There was a bait ball nearby. All hands were lost. The seals were thought to have escaped in the confusion.

Crazy Romans.

Light cavalry was the main military force for people in central Asia. The reason was - you guessed it - geography. Central Asia has millions upon millions of square miles of open space for maneuvering of horse archers. It also has pasturage to sustain these horses. Greece and Italy are more mountainous, terrain that favors infantry and all but nullifies the speed and maneuverability of light cavalry. So it comes down to the geography of your world. The sort of terrain it has plays a significant role in how the armies would be structured.

I agree with this. And I take it that it would mean that my culture can't hope to be infantry-bound.

 

[wordwalker]

Keep in mind, cavalry has a problem against any troops they haven't surprised: all the infantry has to do is poke their spears out en masse and your horses may not even try to charge-- or if you can make them, you lose a lot of the most expensive things in your army. Alexander the Great made that famous. (And that's when you don't meet the Thermopylae/ Marathon tactic of forcing you to fight in tight spots where you can't use them at all.)

Cavalry were usually an added dimension to other, less expensive forces: you both line the infantry up, but just as the enemy's focused to push at you he gets horsemen tearing into his flank. Best of all, if they run your cavalry can just chase them and keep cutting up their backsides until they make it to some kind of reinforcements or shelter. They weren't flat-out better than infantry, but used right they tended to tip the balance.

That's only part of the picture, and I don't know how much the history shifted back and forth (disorganized armies that couldn't brace against cavalry? Mongol horsemen that used everything from harassment to lassos to tear up units? heavy armor?).