How viable are wolves as mounts?
We've often enough seen orcs use wolves or wolf-like monsters as mounts since, for some fucking reason, horses can't deal with orc-butt on their backs.
We're just going to assume there are wolves that reach pony- or donkey-size, but maintain about all characteristics of our regular sized wolves.
So when dogs run, they arch their back and then pull it back in. If you're sitting on one, imagine getting hit in the balls with every step and then falling off. Horses work because they stay so straight
>>46221904
Same logic with big cats.
I think giant boars or cervine creatures are a standard but much less fantastical alternative.
>>46221793
Fuck, I forgot to add in the actual issue. Fuck me.
So , what I was going to say is: We've often enough seen orcs use wolves as mounts, but what would wolves as mounts actually bring to the table that horses don't, assuming your setting doesn't have the "Horses hates orcs"-condition and/or there are no orcs but human tribes that ride on wolves?
In short: in a situation where wolves (or really shaggy-furred dogs) were of the required size to be a mount, what would a culture make choose them over horses?
>>46221904
Welp, that is a pretty fucking good argument, however that problem could be mitigated by stirrups, if my superficial riding knowledge doesn't fail me.
>>46221956
>what would a culture make choose them over horses?
Well, forgoing the retarded syntax, a horse can't rip out the throats of your enemies or track the opposition. Then there's the sheer intimidation factor, which let's not pretend hasn't enabled some dumbass military choices before.
>>46221956
Horses are used so often because of how easy it is to feed them. You can let them gaze and they will get all the energy they need.
Wolves require a special diet and make it difficult to maintain, but if the environment were low on plant resources and you could train the wolves to hunt for themselves and return ( possibly with food) it could be more beneficial. So basically arid desert/wastelands, old growth coniferous forest or frozen climates favor wolves.
>>46221956
Horses not being available could be a factor.
>>46221996
>a horse can't rip out the throats of your enemies
>Then there's the sheer intimidation factor
Horses are evil, yo
>>46221956
How would you get the stirrups to stay on? A full saddle would be the wrong shape and chafe the dog as its back would bump into and grind against it as it ran. The dog would probably be distracted by that all the time and not run in it. If you made it shorter the saddle fall off to the side.
I also agree though, from a pure fantasy standpoint, that the wolves can be trained track, attack, and hunt for more food.
The wolf riding thing comes from the Hobbit, where the goblins rode around on wars. Whatmakes them attractive is that they are as intelligent as the goblins and they can both understand each other's languages-- an aspect if the arrangement that other works have not preserved.
>>46222358
That is also a good point
Which brings me to the question: How should a saddle be designed in order to ride on wolf/dog mounts? Would such a thing even be possible?
Another question: How viable would wolf-cavalry work with medieval horse-charge tactics? Our hypothetical pony sized wolves would probably not have the mass, so let's assume there were even bigger breeds.
>>46222547
I purposefully left that out. And as far as I am aware, weren't those also wolves/wargs altered by Melkor's magic? I wanted to create a scenario where things came about 'mostly naturally'.
>>46222715
For one thing, I think the kind of goblins who originally rode wargs were physically twisted enough that they could probably ride comfortably without a saddle at all.
For another thing, what I'm saying is that outside those original circumstances-- intelligent allies, rather than dumb mounts, and less human-shaped riders-- the arrangement really doesn't make sense, and trying to force it won't help. It'seems an aesthetic thing that's been preserved because it's cool-- if you actually wanted a sensible non-horse mount, big boars like someone mentioned are a better choice. That or just accept wolf mounts for what they are: cool nonsense.
Nobody has brought up the most basic reason.
All complications aside, wolves are carnivores. Horses can just eat whatever in the fields while you dine on some steak, but what happens when you have to feed an entire army of riders AND also their fuckhuge wolves?
>>46221793
If you want to have that "realism" element in your setting, then wolves simply don't make good mounts. They just aren't shaped for it. It would take a VERY large wolf with a very specialized harness to be able to carry even a small amount of weight on its back.
THAT SAID, I love the orc-wolf dynamic, so I have the orcs in my setting drive war chariots that are pulled by two or more dire wolves.
A few thoughts when comparing Horses to Wolves as mounts; or any other species really.
>Which is easier to obtain?
>Which has less upkeep?
>How hard is it to tame?
>How hard is it to learn to ride?
>Does the mount give any practical bonuses in mounted combat?
>Do you like having a crushed ballsack?
>Does it have uses out of combat (cart pulling/field plowing/etc?)
>Do you actually care about any of those questions & just want a pseudo-unique mount?
>>46222278
In my setting, dwarves are really good at horses. If you aren't a dwarf, their horses will rip your throat out and shit down your neck. They are pure evil.
