Nephite and Lamanite armies

[Ruben]

I would be curious to know how the Nephite and Lamanite armies moved during their battles and pursuits.
If it is true that horses were introduced to America by Europeans.

Did the armies travel on foot or did they have other means of transportation?
The Book of Mormon does not explicitly mention this.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Ruben said:

I would be curious to know how the Nephite and Lamanite armies moved during their battles and pursuits.
If it is true that horses were introduced to America by Europeans.

Did the armies travel on foot or did they have other means of transportation?
The Book of Mormon does not explicitly mention this.

It does not explicitly mention it.  We do not know what exactly the Book of Mormon means when it mentions Horses, though all things have not been revealed. 

In my opinion (and I am only a amateur Church Historian, my only expertise is my own hobby, rather than any professional pursuits with it) is that analyzing the Book of Mormon would indicate that if there were horses, they were a rare beast.  The reason I mention this is that their usage does not seem to be widely prolific in the Book.  Indications seem to show that travel was done more by foot rather than any other means.  The way things are phrased and how the course of battles and other situations seem to indicate to me that most of the travel, marching (and it's the very usage of the word marching), and approaches would seem more of an infantry type army rather than a calvary approach. 

The defenses and assaults (walls, ditches) seem more akin to what one does against Foot soldiers rather than artillery or cavalry as well, and the tactics (straight up assault of the walls) are also more of an infantry tactic (where you can climb or otherwise scale walls or ditches). 

So, though there may have been horses (and indeed mentioned) it would appear to me that they were rare overall, and a majority of the transportation was probably done either by foot, or if usage of carts, by some other form of domesticated animal that could drag a cart, but apparently not a man. 

[Maverick]

5 hours ago, Ruben said:

I would be curious to know how the Nephite and Lamanite armies moved during their battles and pursuits.
If it is true that horses were introduced to America by Europeans.

Did the armies travel on foot or did they have other means of transportation?
The Book of Mormon does not explicitly mention this.

The Book of Mormon has many references to the armies marching from place to place and being weary from their marches. This shows that they traveled by foot, at least the majority of the time. 

 

[Maverick]

The Book of Mormon also mentions that they had horses and chariots. And contrary to what most of us were taught in school about the Columbian exchange, there were horses in the Americas before the Europeans arrived. 

[Carborendum]

We'll keep finding more information.

• Back when I was a kid, the narrative said that horses didn't exist in the Americas until the Spanish.
• Then they discovered that horses actually originated in the Americas.  They migrated to Europe/Asia during an ice age across the Bering Strait.  But those fossils date to around 8,000 BC. (before even the Jaredites).
• Now, we have additional fossil findings.  Now they're saying that horses were here as late as 3,000 to 4,000 BC.
• Several Indian tribes swear up and down that they had horses before the Spanish came.  But they kept them hidden because they were considered so valuable.  That's why the Spanish thought they had no horses.  I have yet to see corroboration of such claims.  But it is an interesting phenomenon.

Give it time.  We'll find later and later findings until we realize that there were horses at the time of the Nephites.  We have no idea how plentiful they were.  But they were present.

This is how a lot of BoM archaeology happens.  It makes claims that science/history says is an anachronism.  Then after a century of research they're proven wrong. We're proven right.

Remember that Christianity has had about 2000 years of archaeology to preserve, discover, and analyze evidence of Biblical narratives.  And they still can't prove a LOT of it.  

We haven't yet had 200 years.  And we're finding things proving the BoM true at a faster pace than the world at large can about the Bible -- with a lot fewer people looking for it.

Also keep in mind that the Bible has names of cities and such that are still here today.  We know where to look.  And there is still a LOT that is missing.  We have no idea where to look for BoM evidence except it is somewhere on two continents.  But we're finding more than the world can about the Bible?

Edited December 5, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

I found this comment quite amusing since creedists do the exact same thing to Book of Mormon evidence. 

Quote

The question we are concerned with is, “Was Publius Quirinius governor of Syria?” Yes, we believe that the Quirinius whom Dr. Luke refers to is Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (c. 51 BC – AD 21). Historically, critics have claimed that author of Luke’s gospel made a mistake when he wrote that Quirinius was governor at the time of Christ.

Sadly, the critics have a pattern of such behavior. They once claimed that the Bible was wrong when it said the city of Jericho did not exist since no archaeological evidence existed – until archaeologists found the ancient ruins of Jericho. They never apologized that they were wrong but just moved on to another criticism. Many other examples could be cited, but that is not the purpose of this article. Time is on the side of the Bible. Archaeology will continue to discover facts that prove the critics wrong and frustrate them. Supporting facts may not be found in their lifetime, but history has demonstrated that the facts will be found. It has repeatedly happened. The following article will demonstrate that credible evidence does exist that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was the governor of Syria at the time Christ was born. The critics of Luke’s gospel were not seeking truth, but to discredit Dr. Luke and what he wrote.

Link

My response to them is:

Quote

Historically, critics have claimed that Joseph Smith made a mistake when he wrote <insert claim of the day>.

Sadly, the critics have a pattern of such behavior.  They once claimed that records were never kept on metal plates since no archaeological evidence existed -- until the record of Darius was discovered. They never apologized that they were wrong but just moved on to another criticism.

Time is on the side of the Book of Mormon. Archaeology will continue to discover facts that prove the critics wrong and frustrate them. Supporting facts may not be found in their lifetime, but history has demonstrated that the facts will be found. It has repeatedly happened.

Edited December 16, 2024 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

I agree with @Carborendum that historical records concerning horses in the Americas is somewhat questionable.  I read of research (sorry I do not have references available) that horses brought to the Americas prior to the 16^th century were mares.  This is because mares are more docile than stallions and better suited for long ocean voyages.  Also, when breeding horses were brought it was difficult to keep them alive without a great deal of care.  The bottom line is that by the 16th century there were more horses in the Americas than can be accounted for if the only source was shipping from Europe.

I have not seen any DNA testing of current and past horses.  I do not think we can dismiss horses as proof Joseph Smith made up horses in the Book of Mormon.

In addition we know from archaeological evidence that there was a lot of violent activities going on in the America’s during the pre-Columbian era – especially in the fortifications of Maya, Inca, Aztec and Olmec civilizations throughout the Americas.  In what is now the USA, we have the Hopewell peoples (that many think are the Nephite and Lamanite peoples) that had fortifications matching much of what is provided in the Book of Mormon.

Bottom line – regardless of how it was done – there was a great deal of conflict in the Americas long before Columbus.

As a side note – the last Indian war in the USA was fought in Utah near Blanding about 1923.  A Indian chief called Posey – originally called Sagwageri – held off the entire US army with about 20 braves what is called the Posey war.  Posey was able to outmaneuver the US cavalry in terrain difficult for horses.   The Book of Mormon talks about wilderness areas that likely did not have roads which would make the use of horses difficult.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I read of research (sorry I do not have references available) that horses brought to the Americas prior to the 16^th century were mares.  This is because mares are more docile than stallions and better suited for long ocean voyages.  Also, when breeding horses were brought it was difficult to keep them alive without a great deal of care.  The bottom line is that by the 16th century there were more horses in the Americas than can be accounted for if the only source was shipping from Europe.

I had heard that from apologists.  But I'm afraid they were not thorough in their research.

The issue was that only certain parties were found to comply with this narrative.  It was later discovered that many more horses were brought over by various ships from various sources that were not all accounted for. 

 -- at least, that is what the counter argument was.

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have not seen any DNA testing of current and past horses.

That would be a good idea.  I don't know if anyone has done that.

[Traveler]

On 12/16/2024 at 1:53 PM, Carborendum said:

.....  It was later discovered that many more horses were brought over by various ships from various sources that were not all accounted for. 

 -- at least, that is what the counter argument was.

......

The ship’s manifests were very accurate.  Even the slave ships listed every slave – including births (or deaths) during the trip.  Considering the value of horses and the expense of transporting and caring for them for months – I find it extremely hard to believe that any were not accounted for.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The ship’s manifests were very accurate. 

It is not the accuracy of the manifests themselves that I was arguing.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is not the accuracy of the manifests themselves that I was arguing.

If you are not talking about ship’s manifests – What accounting are you talking about?  How else could horses be brought to the Americas?

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

If you are not talking about ship’s manifests – What accounting are you talking about?  How else could horses be brought to the Americas?

Are you certain there were no other European ships in the Americas other than Columbus and Cortes?

[NeuroTypical]

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Are you certain there were no other European ships in the Americas other than Columbus and Cortes?

I'm guessing a bunch of Numenorians came across from their end of the ocean somewhere in the 2nd age before the island fell.

 

(And anyone who says they came across in the 3rd age after the island fell, are obviously racist, not only not guided by Eru, but also incapable of telling the difference between a primary source and a random drunkard.)

Edited December 18, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

@Traveler,

Columbus brought over 10 mares and many stallions in his second visit in 1494.
Cortez brought 6 mares and 11 stallions (per the manifest).
On the way over here, he came across another ship sailing around Jamaica.  He committed piracy and got another 4 to 6 mares from that ship.

Horses can begin breeding at 3 years old and can breed every year after that.  They only need a couple of weeks before being impregnated again.  One foal per year for an average of 7 or 8 years of fertility.  The upper limit on the horse population goes up pretty fast. 

I'd appreciate you checking my math.  I start with 10 mares and the upper limit appears to be about 100k in 1529 and about 1 million in 1538.

That's the upper limit.  It is probable that the reality is half that.  But then, you'd have to add in the mares from Cortez and the captured vessel.  That would double the upper limit. (But that wouldn't be until we're already 25 years into the breeding).

And that assumes NO other horses.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Carborendum

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That's the upper limit.  It is probable that the reality is half that.

Probably a whole lot less than half the theoretical upper limit. That's like saying that an average woman can have up to eight children, so therefore a group of four couples could produce a population of over 8 million people in ten generations. Basically, no way.

[Carborendum]

15 hours ago, Vort said:

Probably a whole lot less than half the theoretical upper limit. That's like saying that an average woman can have up to eight children, so therefore a group of four couples could produce a population of over 8 million people in ten generations. Basically, no way.

Look at the health and economics of the situation.

• Humans procreate at will.  Not all women can have children, nor do they all want children.  And when men died earlier, in a monogamous society...  the remaining women will not have children.
• Animals are bred, not at the will of the animal, but at the will of the owner.  And a stud can be matched with any female at the discretion of the owner.
• Humans have to take care of both their children and their animals.
  • Children suck up resources for many years before they are useful.  So, people willfully reduce the number of children they have.
  • Foals don't use much in the way of resources.  They can be set to burdens shortly after they are weaned.
  • Horses were a high demand commodity with low supply. There was a great motivation to have many horses during the early years.
• Horses are more robust than humans.  The natural mortality rate of humans was really high in the 1800s -- infant mortality even more so.  Horse mortality rate (while not as ideal as today) was nowhere nearly as high as humans.

So if you're purposefully trying to increase your herd size with a utilitarian animal like the horse, the procedure I've used is actually conservative. Modern horse breeders very commonly have 7 or 8 foals per mare before they age out (some have more).

I proposed half because, while they most probably purposefully bred, they may not have done it as robustly as the modern procedures would allow. And it doesn't take into account mortality rates (for which I have no data).

The better argument is that natives would have had to learn how to domesticate and breed them properly.  But that would only account for a few years.

Then a counter argument is that there were other ships in the area (like the one that Cortes pirated -- which I haven't even been able to find the name of, much less where it came from or what their manifest indicated).  These ships also had horses.  How many ships?  We don't know.  There are mentions here and there. But we don't know what ships they were, where they were headed, or what they were carrying for the most part.

I hope everyone recognizes that I'd like this to be true.  And I do believe that there were horses like the BoM says.  But this is not the evidence that will put this issue to bed.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

On 12/16/2024 at 11:33 AM, Traveler said:

I read of research (sorry I do not have references available) that horses brought to the Americas prior to the 16^th century were mares. 

Incorrect.  I've outlined the horse distribution for both Columbus and Cortes.  They had more stallions than mares.

On 12/16/2024 at 11:33 AM, Traveler said:

This is because mares are more docile than stallions and better suited for long ocean voyages. 

Uhmm.  No.

On 12/16/2024 at 11:33 AM, Traveler said:

Also, when breeding horses were brought it was difficult to keep them alive without a great deal of care. 

This is true.  And it would take time for the natives to learn how to care for them.  That is the strongest argument that the natives could not have done it if they didn't have any previous experience.

On 12/16/2024 at 11:33 AM, Traveler said:

The bottom line is that by the 16th century there were more horses in the Americas than can be accounted for if the only source was shipping from Europe.

Nope.  It is mathematically probable that they could have had many.  What were the numbers?  I can't find any.  And dates?  You said 16th Century. That is 1501 and later.  How many were counted at that time?  From Columbus alone, that could have been about 150 or so.

Did you mean 1601 and later (i.e. 17th century)?

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Incorrect.  I've outlined the horse distribution for both Columbus and Cortes.  They had more stallions than mares.

Uhmm.  No.

This is true.  And it would take time for the natives to learn how to care for them.  That is the strongest argument that the natives could not have done it if they didn't have any previous experience.

Nope.  It is mathematically probable that they could have had many.  What were the numbers?  I can't find any.  And dates?  You said 16th Century. That is 1501 and later.  How many were counted at that time?  From Columbus alone, that could have been about 150 or so.

Did you mean 1601 and later (i.e. 17th century)?

You do realize that even as late as the 19th century that on the frontiers of the USA horses were rare enough that it was a capitol crime to steal someone’s horse?  Also, the US army during this time was paying premium prices for all the horses they could get.  In my youth I knew a number of horse breeders.  The numbers you put up for breeding are quite unrealistic. 

I currently believe without DNA testing this question will remain more of a mystery than a resolved understanding. 

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You do realize that even as late as the 19th century that on the frontiers of the USA horses were rare enough that it was a capitol crime to steal someone’s horse?  Also, the US army during this time was paying premium prices for all the horses they could get.

You do realize that nothing in these sentences has anything to do with how many horses were able to be bred in a century.

How can you say on the one hand that there were too many horses to be accounted for with the horses that were brought over.  Then in the next post say that horses were still rare 300 years later?

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

In my youth I knew a number of horse breeders.  The numbers you put up for breeding are quite unrealistic. 

They are based on common practice today.  Breeders disagree on whether every year is better or worse than skipping a year or two in between.  But what I've outlined is still in common use.

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I currently believe without DNA testing this question will remain more of a mystery than a resolved understanding. 

I've already agreed with this.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

On 12/5/2024 at 1:33 AM, Ruben said:

I would be curious to know how the Nephite and Lamanite armies moved during their battles and pursuits.

The descriptions in the BoM say that they "marched"

• Hel 1:25
• Alma 52:17
• Alma 56:9

On 12/5/2024 at 1:33 AM, Ruben said:

If it is true that horses were introduced to America by Europeans.

IF.

On 12/5/2024 at 1:33 AM, Ruben said:

Did the armies travel on foot or did they have other means of transportation?

Of what we know of the ancient world in general:

• Most of the armies would walk on foot (i.e. they'd march).
• Certain leaders would ride mounts especially to move about the army to shout orders.
• Certain units (like cavalry and chariots) would also use horses.
• Beasts of burden of all types were used to carry supplies.

On 12/5/2024 at 1:33 AM, Ruben said:

The Book of Mormon does not explicitly mention this.

Yes, it does.

• I've pointed to marches.
• Horses and chariots (3 Ne 21:14).

There may have been horses (substantially similar to what we know as horses) during BoM times. The evidence is yet coming.  But we're getting there.

It is also possible that there were various animals that were a different species (based on modern taxonomy).  But this could simply be a term that was used to name an unknown creature that was a highly muscled quadruped of approximately that same size that could be used as beast of burden.  Caribou or moose could qualify.  They are about that same size and general appearance.  The big difference is that the males have antlers.  (BTW, males drop their antlers every year.  So, if they came across them during that phase, even the males would have looked a LOT like horses.)

If we had access to the Nephite prophets, we could solve this matter. 

But until then, we look forward to the day when (yes, I mean when not if) we discover horse remains in the Americas during BoM times, then we will be able state with confidence, just as many native American tribes claim, that they had horses prior to the Spanish arrival.

Edited December 20, 2024 by Carborendum

[Anddenex]

On 12/5/2024 at 6:36 AM, Carborendum said:

• Several Indian tribes swear up and down that they had horses before the Spanish came.  But they kept them hidden because they were considered so valuable.  That's why the Spanish thought they had no horses.  I have yet to see corroboration of such claims.  But it is an interesting phenomenon.

This is one of my favorite articles pertaining to horses from actual Native American Indians: https://ictnews.org/news/yes-world-there-were-horses-in-native-culture-before-the-settlers-came

I particularly find this sentiment important, "We have calmly known we've always had the horse, way before the settlers came. The Spanish never came through our area, so there's no way they could have introduced them to us," reads one quote from a Blackfoot (Nitsitapi) study participant in Collin’s doctoral study."

Here's another quote connecting this one, "Columbus brought the first Spanish horse to the Caribbean in 1493,” remarks Collin. “The first documented arrival of horses on the mainland, near what we now call Mexico City, was in 1519. The Spanish took meticulous records of every mare and stallion. The first recorded sighting of Native people with horses, however, was in 1521 and that was in the Carolinas. No Spanish horses were recorded as ‘missing’ during this period. There’s no way Spanish horses could have made it through the dense forest and swampland to the Carolinas and repopulated in just two years.”

[Carborendum]

43 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This is one of my favorite articles pertaining to horses from actual Native American Indians: https://ictnews.org/news/yes-world-there-were-horses-in-native-culture-before-the-settlers-came

I particularly find this sentiment important, "We have calmly known we've always had the horse, way before the settlers came. The Spanish never came through our area, so there's no way they could have introduced them to us," reads one quote from a Blackfoot (Nitsitapi) study participant in Collin’s doctoral study."

Here's another quote connecting this one, "Columbus brought the first Spanish horse to the Caribbean in 1493,” remarks Collin. “The first documented arrival of horses on the mainland, near what we now call Mexico City, was in 1519. The Spanish took meticulous records of every mare and stallion. The first recorded sighting of Native people with horses, however, was in 1521 and that was in the Carolinas. No Spanish horses were recorded as ‘missing’ during this period. There’s no way Spanish horses could have made it through the dense forest and swampland to the Carolinas and repopulated in just two years.”

Yup, I've read that article.  And I believe her.  But she and her foundation have yet to provide enough evidence to convince the world at large.

So, this is very encouraging to the Latter-day Saint.  But we as yet cannot call it a slam dunk that the unbeliever will be unbalanced by.

[Anddenex]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Yup, I've read that article.  And I believe her.  But she and her foundation have yet to provide enough evidence to convince the world at large.

So, this is very encouraging to the Latter-day Saint.  But we as yet cannot call it a slam dunk that the unbeliever will be unbalanced by.

It doesn't need to be a slam dunk, just simply needs to be published as it currently is. It is something we can point to and let the humble mind recognize the oral history and given evidence for that oral history.

It puts a wedge in the current "Scientific" census that there were no horses in America. It also then places a conundrum for the scientific community to either accept or to call these American Indians "liars" and that their memories are wrong -- because "science" says so.

[Still_Small_Voice]

On 12/5/2024 at 8:10 AM, Maverick said:

The Book of Mormon also mentions that they had horses and chariots. And contrary to what most of us were taught in school about the Columbian exchange, there were horses in the Americas before the Europeans arrived. 

 

I found this article very interesting.  It is about American Indians and the wild horses they had.  Read the article and look at the pictures of their horses.  They appear to be a different breed of horse.

https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2020/04/27/native-horses-indigenous-history

[Maverick]

4 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

 

I found this article very interesting.  It is about American Indians and the wild horses they had.  Read the article and look at the pictures of their horses.  They appear to be a different breed of horse.

https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2020/04/27/native-horses-indigenous-history

Great article, thank you for sharing!