Evidence for ridden horses, Xinjiang, 350 BC

[Duncan Head]

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/60130
drawing on
https://www.chicagotribune.com/pets/sns-nyt-horseback-riding-fossils-20201127-ft3i5kqxnfctrituqk5eelhdlm-story.html

Interesting but problematic. First, given that the classical histories have the Chinese kingdom of Zhao adopting cavalry warfare from its northern neighbours in 307 BC, the existence of ridden horses half a century earlier in the northwest is hardly surprising. Second, the contrast drawn between "China" and "neighboring civilizations — such as those in the area now known as Mongolia" is coloured by modern political boundaries. Xinjiang (the "Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region") is within the modern boundaries of China, but certainly wasn't within the scope of "Chinese", Eastern Zhou, culture in the 4th century BC - indeed it would have had more in common with neighbouring steppe regions. The Shirenzigou site, from which the horse-bone photo comes, is associated with Iron Age nomads who are thought to have been Indo-European speakers.

[Jim Webster]

Also you can have 'mounted equestrianism' without 'cavalry'
We have people riding to the battlefield to fight dismounted (although they may not have been as dogmatic as we like to think for rules purposes)

[Duncan Head]

But if you want cavalry, you do have to be able to ride first.

[DBS]

In addition to all Duncan's excellent points, how sound anyway is the idea that equestrian skills transformed Chinese civilisation or military power?  I mean, obviously it has an impact, but transformative is a pretty strong term.  The remarkable thing would be if the Chinese really had not thought about horse riding after so many centuries of having horsey nomads as neighbours and really waited as late as 350BC before giving it a try.  Clearly, move on a few centuries and cavalry are important to the Chinese, but even that is surely evolutionary rather than transformative?  Perhaps I am just hung up on the semantics!

[Dangun]

Yes, obviously that wasn't part of China in 350BCE

[Swampster]

In addition to all Duncan's excellent points, how sound anyway is the idea that equestrian skills transformed Chinese civilisation or military power?  I mean, obviously it has an impact, but transformative is a pretty strong term.  The remarkable thing would be if the Chinese really had not thought about horse riding after so many centuries of having horsey nomads as neighbours and really waited as late as 350BC before giving it a try.  Clearly, move on a few centuries and cavalry are important to the Chinese, but even that is surely evolutionary rather than transformative?  Perhaps I am just hung up on the semantics!

There is always the argument as to whether a change in organisation, tactics etc can really be attributed to a sudden introduction ordered by one man, but the Chinese histories do say this was the case.
Just because they _could_ have adopted riding much earlier, doesn't mean they did.

[DBS]

In addition to all Duncan's excellent points, how sound anyway is the idea that equestrian skills transformed Chinese civilisation or military power?  I mean, obviously it has an impact, but transformative is a pretty strong term.  The remarkable thing would be if the Chinese really had not thought about horse riding after so many centuries of having horsey nomads as neighbours and really waited as late as 350BC before giving it a try.  Clearly, move on a few centuries and cavalry are important to the Chinese, but even that is surely evolutionary rather than transformative?  Perhaps I am just hung up on the semantics!

There is always the argument as to whether a change in organisation, tactics etc can really be attributed to a sudden introduction ordered by one man, but the Chinese histories do say this was the case.
Just because they _could_ have adopted riding much earlier, doesn't mean they did.

If contemporary Chinese thought it a) a big deal, and b) a sudden change, then fair enough.  My point was more a reflection on the risk of modern historians perhaps over-simplifying or over-estimating "transformational" developments.