Chariots

[Viking]

wait, so if early horses couldn't carry people, how were they domesticated?

they could pull carts and plows as well as carrying lesser loads. But, there is a difference between carrying a man in battle and carrying a man.

[Razgovory]

It's like calling a M2 Bradley a tank.

tank   /tæŋk/ Show Spelled[tangk] Show IPA
noun
1. a large receptacle, container, or structure for holding a liquid or gas: tanks for storing oil.
2. a natural or artificial pool, pond, or lake.
3. Military . an armored, self-propelled combat vehicle, armed with cannon and machine guns and moving on a caterpillar tread.
4. Slang . a prison cell or enclosure for more than one occupant, as for prisoners awaiting a hearing

M2 Bradley
The M242 Bushmaster is a 25 mm (25×137mm) chain-fed autocannon.......check
Self propelled....check
7.62 Coax MG.....check
Tracked......check

M2 Bradley: also not a tank.  It's an IFV.  Your definition would also cover self-propelled artillery and AA guns.

[CountDeMoney]

M2 Bradley: also not a tank.  It's an IFV.  Your definition would also cover self-propelled artillery and AA guns.

Remember, you're talking to an infantryman.

[alfred russel]

The Chariot basically made the linguistic world we know today.  Seems strange, but it was the primary vector by which the Indo-European languages spread, at least in it's initial phase, which went from Assam to Ireland, and even in to Mongolia.  Everything from Vishnu to the lady of the Lake.  We can actually mark at what point an Indo-European language broke off from the initial Steppe population (the proto-Indo Iranians are basal in a lot of ways) by how complete their vocabulary is of a wagon or chariot.

I assume chariots were effective. Otherwise, why would people use them for centuries? But I have trouble buying this. What a nightmare it would be just to travel across Europe in a chariot without roads, never mind fighting a battle on ground that wasn't a grazed open field. Also, languages aren't culture. If there was a simple trick of warfare that enabled indo european language speakers to conquer others, other groups would have picked up on it before they moved across most of eurasia.

[Viking]

I assume chariots were effective. Otherwise, why would people use them for centuries? But I have trouble buying this. What a nightmare it would be just to travel across Europe in a chariot without roads, never mind fighting a battle on ground that wasn't a grazed open field. Also, languages aren't culture. If there was a simple trick of warfare that enabled indo european language speakers to conquer others, other groups would have picked up on it before they moved across most of eurasia.

At least in the Egyptian case Chariots were NOT used for transport. When the army marched the chariots were broken down and carried by beasts of burden. When the battle approached, they were re-assembled for combat.

Edit: There was a disassembled Chariot in Tutankhamen's tomb.

[Razgovory]

Well, nobody knows for sure ( I advise you to be wary of anyone who has a great deal of confidence in talking about such things), but what Spellus is talking about does have some backing.  Almost all European languages along with most of the Iranians and Indian languages are related.  It's called the Indo-European Language family.  Why they are like that is not certain.  It assumed that there was a proto-Indo-European language (sometimes called PIE), that spread out across much of Eurasia and heavily influenced and often displaced local languages.  Horses were first domesticated and chariots built in the area where it's thought these PIE people lived.  The problem is of course that's all theoretical.  There is no concrete proof of this.  Since these people were illiterate nobody wrote it down, and artifacts from six thousand years ago are hard to come by.  Proof is in linguistic comparisons and circumstance evidence.  Still it's held up pretty well.  And it makes sense.  It's not the only theory of PIE expansion though.

[HVC]

The Chariot basically made the linguistic world we know today.  Seems strange, but it was the primary vector by which the Indo-European languages spread, at least in it's initial phase, which went from Assam to Ireland, and even in to Mongolia.  Everything from Vishnu to the lady of the Lake.  We can actually mark at what point an Indo-European language broke off from the initial Steppe population (the proto-Indo Iranians are basal in a lot of ways) by how complete their vocabulary is of a wagon or chariot.

I assume chariots were effective. Otherwise, why would people use them for centuries? But I have trouble buying this. What a nightmare it would be just to travel across Europe in a chariot without roads, never mind fighting a battle on ground that wasn't a grazed open field. Also, languages aren't culture. If there was a simple trick of warfare that enabled indo european language speakers to conquer others, other groups would have picked up on it before they moved across most of eurasia.

chariots in warfare was mainly a plains thing and desert thing. Worse comes to worse you could get your skirimshers to clear the field (a la the persians versus alexander... which backfired becasue now the persians had a tired army). As a means of transport they could be used in harder to traverse area. If you can move a baggage train through you can move chariots through.

[Razgovory]

The Bronze age Greeks and the Hittites both are known to have had chariots.  Neither Greece nor Turkey is know for being particularly flat.  I imagine that chariots were used differently in different cultures and different times.  It's entirely possible that some were used only as "battle taxis", either to save the strength of the soldiers or as prestige pieces.

Chariots were used over a large area and over a great deal of time.   Blanket statements about their use are difficult.  Add that to the fact that very little recorded history is preserved from that time period and the stuff that exists isn't always accurate.  The battle of Kadesh has been brought up, but it's not even clear who won the battle.  Both sides claimed to have won.  So it's kind of difficult to come away with any solid facts.

[crazy canuck]

The Bronze age Greeks and the Hittites both are known to have had chariots.

But the battlefields on which they fought were mainly flat.  Iirc Both the bronze age Greeks and Hittites used the chariot as a means of transporting the hero in his heavy bronze armour to the fight and back to friendly lines the refresh and then have at it again.

[Razgovory]

I can't think of one unambiguous Greek Bronze age battlefield.  I don't think any are known.

[crazy canuck]

I can't think of one unambiguous Greek Bronze age battlefield.  I don't think any are known.

Not sure what you mean by unambiguous.  Homer gives us some pretty good detail of how chariots were used during that period.

[Iormlund]

The Bronze age Greeks and the Hittites both are known to have had chariots.

But the battlefields on which they fought were mainly flat.  Iirc Both the bronze age Greeks and Hittites used the chariot as a means of transporting the hero in his heavy bronze armour to the fight and back to friendly lines the refresh and then have at it again.

I thought this was a poetic license by Homer. Bronze Age remains like the Dendra panoply include heavy armor and big-ass lances that seem cumbersome to use dismounted. To me that's indicative of the use of chariots as shock troops.

[Viking]

I can't think of one unambiguous Greek Bronze age battlefield.  I don't think any are known.

Not sure what you mean by unambiguous.  Homer gives us some pretty good detail of how chariots were used during that period.

Events described by Homer ~1200 BC
Life of Homer ~800 BC

If anything Homer was describing war as it was fought in his own time with a little bit of embellishment from the epic as handed down.

[Razgovory]

I can't think of one unambiguous Greek Bronze age battlefield.  I don't think any are known.

Not sure what you mean by unambiguous.  Homer gives us some pretty good detail of how chariots were used during that period.

Homer wasn't there, lived several hundred years after the alleged battle and was blind. And it's not clear if that battle actually happened.  Or that Homer actually existed.  That in my mind causes a great deal of ambiguity.

The sad and somewhat startling fact is that really isn't much information on the topic either way.
http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/chariots.htm

This site has a large number of chariot imagery.  Curiously few appear to be used in warfare.  They are often depicted in a hunting scene.  whether they were used for hunting or this is some sort mythical representation is unknown.  We do know the Bronze age Greeks had a lot of chariots.  Several clay tablets containing records have survived and these include chariots and chariot parts held at palace for warriors.  How they used them, is unknown.  Some of the chariots appear to be drawn by winged horses.  This seems unlikely in real life.

[CountDeMoney]

Both of you, lay off the Homer Hate.