You keep shifting your goalpost and ignoring like half of what I say in each comment. Now suddenly early horses were chosen because they're so much smarter than zebras and donkeys. Did you ever think that maybe horses have been bred for their intelligence? They're also nearly half a meter taller now too, because we bred them for it. Did you personally compare the intelligence of early horses to zebras? Hell, even to Przewalski's horse, if you want to get comparative about it. Because if not, you have no point here, just more guesses.

We're back to child cavalry now, are we? What exactly can you get done more with a child on the back of a horse that you couldn't get done by just having the horse pull something? Bear in mind, that in order to tame a horse for riding so that it won't buck you off, you need someone to break it in while on its back, a back that won't hold an adult; even modern horses don't like this process when feral and they've been bred for this for thousands of years. So now you need tweens breaking them in. So you're arguing that a culture decided to have their children try to be the first horsemen, something that's incredibly dangerous and at that point hadn't been tried; and for what reason, you still haven't said. Not to mention, there is exactly zero evidence for child-only horsemanship in either history or archaeology; but hey, it makes you think you're clever.

I guess all of history, anthropology, and archeology are wrong, though, and some dude on the internet is right. You got me. Go ahead and respond in whatever way makes you feel smartest if you really feel like you need the last word. I won't be reading it.

You're simply ignoring that horses leave skeletons when they die and we can measure those skeletons. We know when they could be ridden and when they couldn't. They needed to be bred for riding; engineering an animal to grow by 40% isn't simple and takes a long time. You're just making false equivalencies to other technologies based on nothing but conjecture.

And by your own logic that people should've decided to develop horse riding much earlier, then people in sub Saharan Africa should've been riding around on Zebras. They weren't "prioritizing horses" because horses are not a native species. They were brought into sub Saharan Africa relatively recently, so why didn't people ride Zebras when there were no horses present, a period that lasted tens of thousands of years? By your logic, it should've happened. And if zebras are perceived more like donkies, then that also applies to early horses, which mentioned earlier. A zebra and early horses are about the same size, so the conditions are about equal.

No, it doesn't stand to reason. You have to domesticate them first; and remember that a horse can easily kill a man, even a small one. This means you need to have a good reason to devote resources to doing that, you need to already have the other technologies that go alongside animal husbandry, and you need to be in the right place at the right time to even be around horses.

Technological advancements don't happen just because, and cultural change isn't some linear path that everyone on earth is going down the same way; if it were, people in sub Saharan Africa would've domesticated Zebras a long time ago and done the same thing as people in Eurasia did with horses, but they didn't; it clearly wasn't worth doing for them.

So you're suggesting that children rode horses before adults? What for? Baby soldiers? Why would that practice spread in the way you think it would?

No one is suggesting that they didn't make technological advancements. They did. Where did you hear that people "didn't advance"? Also, you're starting to sound an awful lot like social darwinism.

If you have even a cursory knowledge of archaeology, then you know that there have been a lot of technological developments over thousands of years, but technology is iterative; it gets faster and easier the more that has already been done. Rate of technological advances also increase alongside literacy, so before writing was developed, it all had to be passed down verbally, i.e., there's no library to hold all of the designs. I don't know why you're drawing this bizarre conclusion because of when ridable horses were first developed. Horse riding isn't indicative of much except riding horses.

There was copper working near the Great Lakes for a while, but it wasn't used to make very many tools; it was largely used like a precious metal.

You used the word exponential and then failed to understand that it is basically exponential and that's the exact reason technological advances didn't happen nearly as often back then. Something like a J-curve can be basically flat for a very long time before going near-vertical in a relatively short amount of time.

It took a long time to breed horses large enough to be ridden. The last remaining wild horse species is Przewalski's horse, and it's only 122-142cm at the shoulder. Light riding horses today are 142-163cm, while larger riding horses are 157-173cm; and then you have heavy draft horses, who are 163-183cm. It wasn't just a matter of some dude hopping onto a horse and going "aha!". People probably tried riding horses the moment they were domesticated, but they weren't large enough to do it reliably yet; it'd be like riding into battle on a pony or a donkey.

Well sure. That's what we're doing right now. There just may not have been one person who went "I'm gonna try that egg thing" for the first time.

That's assuming that humanity's ancestors didn't already eat them.

That's literally what they're saying. That he fucked his credibility before this and won't be taken seriously if he sues.

The beloved Hobbit rocket scientists.